AKSHAY KUMAR PATHAK Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No.909 of 2004 seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 29.07.2004 in Sessions Case No.126 of 2002 arising out of F.I.R. No.270 of 2002, registered at Police Station Samey Pur Badli, vide which order and judgment, the learned judge has held the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC. Further by his order dated 30.07.2004, has sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 IPC together with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine to further Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The facts of the case as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment under challenge are as follows :-

(3.) The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 20 witnesses. Of these, PW-1 is Head Constable Parveen Kumar who, as a Duty Officer, recorded the F.I.R. No.270 of 2002 Exhibit PW 1/A. PW-2, Malti Devi, is the mother of the deceased Nandini. She has testified that Nandini was married to the appellant, Akshay Kumar Pathak, about six years prior to the incident and used to reside at Village Siraspur in godown of Pradeep Jain and that the marriage between Akshay Kumar Pathak and Nandini was solemnized on 14.02.1997. Two children of the family were born of this wedlock. Two years prior to the occurrence, Nandini was assaulted by the accused with an iron rod and Nandini suffered injuries which required ten stitches on her head, however, no case was registered. The accused as also his wife started living together. She further testifies that the accused along with police came to her house and there she was told that some villagers had killed her daughter and ran away. The witness did not believe the story and blamed the accused for having killed her daughter. She thereafter went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of Nandini lying in a naked condition. She further states that she did not go inside the house but saw the body from the window. Then, the police began interrogating the accused who made a confession and a disclosure and thereafter got an iron pipe recovered from behind the gas cylinder lying in the room. The accused also got recovered one towel lying under takhat. The iron pipe was sealed in a separate parcel and taken into possession. The police obtained her thumb impression on the disclosure statement made by the accused which is Exhibit PW 2/A. The recovery memos are Exhibit PW 2/B and PW 2/C respectively. The dead body of Nandini was sent for postmortem to Jagjiwan Ram Hospital. The body was identified by this witness at the mortuary of Jagjiwan Ram Hospital vide memo Exhibit PW 2/D. After the postmortem, the body was received by this witness and cremated. She claims to have made a statement to the SDM on the following day Exhibit PW 2/E. The police also recorded her statement. In cross-examination, the witness states that she had made no complaint to the police regarding the so-called injury inflicted earlier on her daughter nor any medical documents were prepared with regard to the said head injury. She does not deny that a report had been made six months prior to the incident by the accused against one Rakesh to the effect that Rakesh was making obscene calls on the phone and was teasing Nandini. She admits that the police came and investigated the said complaint against Rakesh and also beaten Rakesh. She goes on to depose that on her visiting the house of Nandini, she was told by the accused that one Rakesh had entered their house illegally and that her daughter Nandini had made a report to the police that Rakesh had entered illegally in their house and that the police had inquired into the same. She further admits that the statement of the accused was recorded by the police at the spot of the incident at 2 o'clock night (2 a.m. of 30.04.2004) which this witness had thumb marked at that time but the statement was not read over to her nor does she know the contents thereof. She also goes on to depose that the accused had great love and affection for Nandini but for the last two years the relationship had soured. She denied the suggestion that it was Rakesh, Balram and Anil who had committed murder of her daughter.