S. J. CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Col. S. J. Choudhary is at present being tried in the Court of Shri Mahesh Chandra, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, under S. 302, I.P.C. for the alleged murder of Krishan Sikand, a resident of 98 Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. The murder was stated to have been committed in a blast which took place on 2-10-1982 at the said residence of the deceased.

(2.) The background is stated to be that Rani Choudhry widow of late Pritam Singh, married the accused on 31-3-1971. At that time she had already two daughters with her from her deceased husband Pritam Singh. The new marriage, however, did not last for long, and sometime about the year 1976, Rani Choudhary left the accused and came to Delhi. Here she developed intimacy with Krishan Sikand and started living with him in his house at No. 98, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. On 6-12-1979, she obtained a decree for divorce against the accused. This was ex parte. The accused feeling aggrieved, moved the High Court which allowed that to extent that he had not been properly served, and, therefore, the trial should take place afresh. However, Rani Choudhary moved the Supreme Court and succeeded in getting the order of the High Court reversed. Thereby the trial court's decree for divorce was restored.

(3.) On 2-10-1982, there was an explosion in the house of Krishan Sikand, resulting in his death. At that time Rani Choudhary was away from Delhi to Sanawar where her daughters were studying. A day later she returned. The C.B.I. investigation later resulted in the registration of the case under S. 302, I.P.C. against the accused. The trial is proceeding. During its course, Rani Choudhry is being examined, and she has referred to a number of communications between her and the accused. It appears that some of those communications which were in writing, were sought to be produced by the accused himself by moving an application under S. 91, Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court directed their production. About some others, Rani Choudhary was examined by the prosecution. At that stage, the accused did not raise any objection to the admissibility of that evidence. Later, however, he moved a petition before the Sessions Court, seeking deletion of that evidence on the ground that the same was barred under provisions of S. 122 of the Evidence Act. This was, however, not allowed observing that it was too late to exclude the same as the accused has not raised any finger to its admissibility or relevancy when the evidence was recorded. It was also observed that the nature of their relationship during the subsistence of marriage was itself a relevant fact in these proceedings. Feeling aggrieved the accused has now moved the present petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C.