MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Prem Wati, a housewife was strangulated at about 1 p.m. on 22nd January, 1981, in her house bearing No. C-55, Swami Nagar, New Delhi. The appellants Mahipal and Prem Pal Singh were convicted by the trial court for the following offences: (1) Section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. (2) Section 449 read with section 34 I.P.C. and (3) Section 380 read with section 34 LF.C. The date of Judgment is 4th June, 1984. The order of sentence was passed on 8th June, 1984 The appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of murder; they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years under section 449/34 I.P.C. and for the offence under section 380/34 I.P.C. they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. They were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- on each of the counts, i.e. in all Rs. 600/- each and on the failure to pay the fine, the accused were directed to undergo further R.I. for six months each. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The appellants have filed separate appeals challenging their conviction and sentence. The appeals have been heard together.

(2.) The central point, which arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether the prosecution was able to establish the identity of the assailants. The learned trial court has held that there is no doubt that these two appellants along with one Vasdev (who expired during the investigation of the case) had committed the offence of murder with the intention of committing theft in the said house No. C-55, Swami Nagar, New Delhi. The facts of the case of the prosecution have been noticed in great detail by the learned lower court. No useful purpose will be served by repeating those facts in this Judgment. The salient features of the case, however, are that Smt. Anaro Devi (PW-21) who is working as a part-time maid in a number of houses of Swami Nagar, the area in which house No. C-55 is situate, had seen Premwati, at about 12.45 p.m. on the day of the incident while &he was sitting in her lawn. At that time, Prem wati was combing her hair. According to this witness, at that time, she had gone to fetch some children from the school, which is also situate in that very area. She returned with the children at about 2 p.m. On her calling Prem Wati, she did not get any response and, therefore, peeped into the house. She found that Prem Wati was lying on the floor. Thereupon, she went to the neighboring house and called another servant by the name Durga. It was Smt. Durga who went inside the room where Prem Wati was lying.and found that she (Prem Wati) had been murdered.

(3.) Smt. Anaro in her statement made to the Police translation of which is Ex. PW 21/A, had stated that when she saw Prem Wati, she had found two persons talking to her. In her testimony on 14th October, in fact, she had said that she did not see anyone at that time apart from Prem Wati. However, on the next day i.e. on 15th October, 1982, to which date the examination of the witness had been adjourned, she reaffirmed the fact that she had seen two persons sitting by the side of Prem Wati She stated that Durga found that Prem Wati had been strangulated with the help of a muffler which had been tied around her neck. She admitted that the Police had shown her two boys about 8/10 days of the incident and she identified those two boys in court as being the assailants (appellants herein). Apart from this, witness Anaro Devi, the prosecution produced two other witnesses who saw the assailants. PW-20 Shri Harish Malik was the tenant of first floor of the house in question. He stated that on January 21, between 1 and 2 p.m., he had come to his house for taking lunch. He parked his car outside the main gate of the house. At that time, he saw the landlady (Prem Wati) sitting on the charpai, and there were three other persons who were sitting there. Corrected himself and stated actually there were two persons who were sitting and the third one was doing some gardening work. He also identified in court the two appellants as the ones whom he had seen on that day. He further deposed that after about an hour he heard some shouts from downstairs. He came downstairs and was told that Smt. Prem Wati had been murdered. He went inside the room and found her dead. At that time, he did not see anyone of the three persons who were seen earlier. In the room, he found the trunks open and almirahs ransacked. He deposed that he had also been shown one of the accused at his residence after about 20 or 21 days of the occurrence. The other accused was shown to him after about 6 or 7 days thereafter.