MANGAT RAM Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Mangat Ram was convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having murdered his wife Sheela on the night of 19th and 20th April, 1983 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for life by Shri J.D. Kapoor, Addi. Sessions Judge, Delhi. The appellant has challenged the legality of the judgment of conviction passed on 29th February, 1984. The appellant further challenges the validity of the order dated the 3rd March, 1984 sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) At the outset we may notice that the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence only. According to the learned trial Judge, the circumstances proved by the prosecution are so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The trial Court has relied upon Bakshish Singh v. State of Punjab1. In paragraph 54 of the impugned judgment, the circumstances have been enumerated. Their circumstances which according to the trial Judge complete the chain of evidence are:

(3.) It appears that before the trial Judge the appellant had seriously contested the fact that the dead body of the woman, which was found on 20th April, 1983 in a pit near Kalkaji within the jurisdiction of Police Station Lajpat Nagar, was that of his wife Sheela. Admittedly Sheela, daughter of Lakhi Ram (P.W. 1) was at her parent's ancestral house at Village Pithopra, Sonepat (Haryana) till 16th April, 1983 when she was brought by her husband, i.e., the appellant herein to Delhi in a car. Her father P.W. 1 Lakhi Ram has stated in Court as well as in his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the photograph of the dead woman which was shown to him during investigation, could not be identified by him. It was because of that averment that the appellant has raised the issue of identification of the dead body. Learned trial Court after analysing the evidence of P.W. 1 and his wife P.W. 3 Om Wati and the tailor, P.W. 2 Indravati, resident of the same village as that of Sheelas parents, who had stitched the suit which the deceased was wearing when the body was found came to the conclusion that the dead body was in fact that of appellants wife viz., Sheela. We have also gone through that evidence. We have no reason to disagree with the findings of the AddI. Sessions Judge. It does appear that Lakhi Ram, P.W. 1 had in fact stated that he was unable to identify the photographs of the dead body when those were shown to him during investigation. We have ourselves closely looked at the photographs. It is not at all difficult to identify the dead body from those. The face and the features in the photographs which were taken by a Police photographer on 20th April, 1983 are clearly visible and there can be no difficulty in identifying the person concerned. It is true that Lakhi Ram says that he was not, able to identify the dead body but he admits that he hid gone to see the dead body on 6th May, 1983. He could not have been asked to identify the dead body on that day as the same had been cremated earlier on 24th April, 1983 by the Police. Therefore, the evidence, of Lakhi Ram to that effect that he had been taken to identify the dead body on 6th May, 1983 is to be ignored from consideration. Once that part of the evidence of Lakhi Ram is ignored, as we are inclined to do, the evidence of the other witnesses, particularly that of the tailor, P.W. 2 Indravati is conclusive to prove the identity of the dead body. The suit which this woman had stitched for the deceased Sheela was identified by her in an identification parade before a Magistrate. Thus the findings enumerated in circumstances (i) to (iii) above have to be upheld. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the finding in circumstance No (iv) (quoted above). We are of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together on 19th April, 1983. This finding is based on a Daily Diary report (Ex. P.W. 20/M which is stated to have been got recorded by the father of the appellant, P.W. 21 Lakhi Ram, s/c Chaudhary Mauji Ram (This witness is different from P.W. 1 Lakhi Ram, father-in-law of the appellant). The translated copy of Ex. P.W. 20/A is at page 180. It reads as follows: