RAM KHILADI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 9.12.1996 of the additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions case No. 110/1996, arising out of F. I. R. No. 389/1994, Police Station Seelampur, whereby the learned judge has held the appellant guilty for an offence punishable under Section 342/34 and 302/34 IPC and vide separate order of the same date has sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- under section 342/34 IPC, in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month; rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of rs. 1,000/- under Section 302/34 IPC and in default, further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as noted by the additional Sessions Judge are as follows :- "that on 16.7.94, PW-14, SI Jiya Ram was posted as ASI at PP Shastri Park under P. S. Seelampur. He received an information vide D. D. No. 21 regarding the burning of lady near DDA flats Shastri park, true copy of which is Ex. PW-14/ a. He along with Ct. Mohar Singh went to the said spot of incident. There they came to know that the burnt lady had been sent to G. T. B. Hospital. He after leaving behind the said constable at the spot reached at GTB Hospital and collected the MLC Ex. PW-6/a pertaining to the said Bhuri injured. He conveyed the facts of the case on telephone to the SHO from the hospital. He had also contacted the said injured bhuri at the hospital who told him verbally on his query that she had been married before about 6 years back with sohan pal and she had also stated that she was sleeping on the roof of H. No. A-13, Shastri Park and that they both committed rape on her person during the night and that both sprinkled kerosene oil on her person in the morning and set her on fire. After hearing this version made to him he conveyed these facts to the SHO who directed him to inform the SDM. He immediately contacted Shri Amit Yadav the then SDM on telephone and told him the above stated fact and he reached at the hospital. He met the sdm at the hospital and disclosed him the facts of the case there. He accompanied the SDM at the burn ward of GTB Hospital where Bhuri was admitted in burnt condition and he pointed out Bhuri to SDM. SDM asked him to go out of the ward. Before going away from the ward he had given the MLC Ex. PW-6/a also to the SDM. The SDM recorded the statement of bhuri. Bhuri was talking and was conscious and was capable of making statement as per his observation and satisfaction. SDM recorded her statement which is Ex. PW-7/b and thereafter the SDM gave his endorsement with the direction to register a case under the relevant section of law against Ram Khilari and babloo. He after taking the said statement of Bhuri recorded by SDM which is Ex. PW-7/b, reached at P. S seelampur and he handed it over to the then SHO Sh. Bhagwant Singh Insp. who gave his direction Ex. PA at portion 'a' to 'a' to the duty officer to register the case accordingly and thereupon this case was registered at. S. Seelampur on the said dying declaration of Bhuri. The investigation after registration of the case was handed over to him. During the investigation, he revisited the place of occurrence i. e. A-24, Shastri park, Delhi and inspected the place of incident, prepared rough sketch Ex. W-14/b with correct marginal notes. He had also seized the broken pieces of bangles after sealing the same into a pulanda with the seal of J. R. He had also found one four burnt pieces of match sticks. One pair of ladies chappal was also found at the sot. He had also found one container containing some kerosene oil and he also saw some kerosene oil lying spread at the spot. All these articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW-10/b at the spot and only the broken pieces of bangles and burnt math sticks were seized with the seal of J. R. Subsequently he came to know that Bhuri injured had succumbed to her injuries and an information vide D. D. No. 4, copy of which is Ex. PW-14/c was given to him in this regard. On its receipt he reached at G. T. B. Hospital with Ct. Mohar Singh and found Bhuri dead there. He saw her dead body in the mortuary of the said hospital. Since the SDM had recorded the statement of Bhuri, so he informed him about her death also. But the SDM did not turn in the hospital on 17.7.94 and he came there on 18.7.94 and he told him the facts of the case again. SDM directed him to conduct the inquest proceedings and thefeupon he conducted the inquest proceedings. Sohan Pal, the husband of the deceased, and Suraj Pal had identified the dead body. They had come there as they were also informed by him. Their statements regarding the identification of dead body are Ex. PW- 3/a and PW-2/a recorded by him respectively. The inquest proceedings containing the brief facts of the case and his request for post mortem and death report on Form 25 is collectively ex. PW-14/d. These were prepared by him at the mortuary and the request for post mortem made to the doctor. He had also collected the death certificate Ex. PW-/b from the hospital. It was also sent to the post mortem doctor along with the inquest papers and the MLC Ex. PW-6/c. The post mortem was conducted on the dead body and thereafter the dead body was handed over to the relations of the deceased. However on 16.7.94 the accused, Ram Khilari, present in court, was arrested by him from Shastri park and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-10/a. He was interrogated by him and on his interrogation the accused made a disclosure statement by setting the motive for the offence and sequence of events leading to the commission of offence which is Ex. PW-3/a. The accused was also sent for medical examination and the doctor opined him as potent for sexual intercourse vide mlc Ex. PW-5/a. The duty constable gtb Hospital had also produced before him two sealed pullandas which he seized vide Memo Ex. PW-10/c. He examined the witnesses. During the investigation, he confirmed that the accused, Ram khilari, present in court was residing at a distance of 100 yards from the house of the deceased. The co-accused, babloo, was tried to be arrested by him but he was not traceable despite his best efforts. He correctly recorded the statement of Kalu Ram and Suraj Pal which are Ex. PW-l/b and PW-2/b respectively and nothing was added or omitted therein. He tendered in evidence the report of the CFSL Expert which is Ex. PX. He had deposited the case property on the same day with the MHCM which was seized by him and nobody had tampered with the same till remained in his custody. After concluding the investigation the challan was submitted in the court. He further deposed that he had submitted the cfsl report in the curt on 13.3.96. The death summary which he has collected during the investigation is Ex. 2. Babloo could not be arrested and he was declared P. W. During the investigation.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove their case, examined 14 witnesses. Of them, PW-1, kalu Ram, PW-2, Suraj Pal, PW-4, Dr. N. K. Aggarwal, PW-11, Amit Yadav and PW-14, s. I. Jiya Ram appear to be the material witnesses.