HARIHAR Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of one Urmila, a woman he lived with. Urmila was admitted to LNJP Hospital with 95% burns on 12.10.1994 at 4.45 a.m. She died in the wee hours of 14.10.1994. The FIR Ex.PW 1/A (bearing no.549/94 of P.S. Janakpuri) was registered on the basis of the MLC, Ex.PW6/A.

(2.) The appellant was arrested on the basis of the statements of Som Nath, the son of Urmila, the deceased and Geeta, the sister of the deceased. The appellant was challaned and eventually convicted vide the impugned judgment.

(3.) The conviction is based primarily on the testimony of Som Nath PW-2, Geeta PW-3 and the dying declarations made to the Dr. Rakesh Dogra PW-6 of the LNJP hospital. The presence of the accused is proved by the chappals he left behind while running away after committing the crime. The defence has tried to pick holes in the prosecution case by challenging the veracity of the MLC as the memo of brief facts prepared soon after the death of Urmila has not mentioned the dying declaration in the MLC. The possibility of the deceased being capable of making a statement at that time is also disputed as she came to the hospital with 95% burns and must have been in utter pain. The testimony of PW-2 is assailed as a version of a tutored witness. Geeta's testimony is also challenged as she stated that the accused was arrested at that very time, even before the deceased was taken to the hospital, which is quite different from the prosecution story and the version of other witnesses. The trial court has taken note of all the above arguments of the defence. The trial court has further taken note of other lapses on the part of investigation and prosecution like failure to cite witnesses who were present near the hutment of the deceased and the failure of the investigating officer to seize the chappals of the accused on his earlier visit when he seized other articles like the plastic can with kerosene residue and certain other articles. Yet the trial Court found the evidence so sufficient as to complete the chain without break and to leave no doubt about the guilt of the accused. With this background we can proceed to examine the evidence in the case.