SMT. KARPAI Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMN)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by virtue of his judgment dated 20.1.1994 in Sessions Case No. 124/91 pertaining to FIR No. 53/91 under Sections 302/307 IPC registered at Police Station Saraswati Vihar for having committed the murder of Murgan @ Murgesh and attempting to commit the murder of Rajeshwari under Section 307 IPC by administering poison. By a separate order dated 24.1.1994 the said learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and seven years RI for the offence under Section 307 IPC and directed that both the sentences should run concurrently. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order on sentence.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 3.2.1991 information was received from Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and the same was recorded in DD 22A by Head Constable Rajbir Singh that Murgan, son of Raju, R/O E -557, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi had been declared dead and the dead body had been taken away to his house. Thereafter, Sub - Inspector Jugti Ram along with constables Ashok Kumar and Dharam Singh went to the said house bearing No. E -557, J.J. Colony, where they found the dead body of a child lying on a cot. There, Ashok and Raju, who were brothers and were residents of the said house, disclosed that it was the body of Murgan @ Murgesh. Apparently, Ashok made his statement Ext. PW2/A to the effect that he along with his family reside at E -557, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur Delhi and that his brother Raju also resided in the same house along with his family. Ashok Kumar further stated that his sister -in -law (another brother.s wife) Karpai who resided in G Block, J.J. Colony, was in the habit of consuming liquor and then coming to their place to pick up a quarrel. According to him, she had some sort of grudge for some unknown reason. In the said statement Ext. PW2/A, it was further stated that on that date, there was a mundan ceremony of his cousin (Karpan.s) daughter and a feast had been organized. All the family members participated in the feast. He further stated that his attention was not towards his daughter Rajeshwari aged about eight years and nephew Murgan, aged about seven years, who were playing in the street. At about 9.30 p.m., his daughter Rajeshswari and nephew Murgan came running to them. At that time his wife Kamla was also present. Ashok stated that the children told them that their tai (elder brother.s wife) Karpai had taken them with her and had given them juice to drink. After consuming the said juice, their condition had become bad. Both the children allegedly started vomiting in his presence. As per the statement, Ashok and his brother Raju took Murgan to Sunder Lal Hospital as his condition was very serious. Later on, his brother -in -law Chukri took the girl to Jeevodya Hospital. He further stated that at Sunder Lal Hospital, the doctors declared Murgan dead and they brought his dead body to their house along with the death certificate. It was also stated that Rajeshwari was shifted from Jeevodya Hospital to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and a report was lodged with the police in this connection by his wife. He stated that his bhabi (sister -in -law) Karpai, on account of some old grudge, with an intention to kill his daughter Rajeshwari and his brother Raju.s son Murgan gave the children some poison mixed in juice as a result whereof the boy had expired and the girl was in hospital. He requested that legal action be taken against Karpai.

(3.) WE find that in the impugned judgment, the trial court has mainly reproduced the testimonies of all the PWs 1 to 21. And, the discussion of the evidence and the case is limited to paragraphs 29 to 33 only. At the outset, we may say that the trial court has not examined the evidence with the degree of care which is necessary before a person can be convicted for murder or attempt to murder and then be sentenced to imprisonment for life on account of the offence of murder or seven years imprisonment for the offence of attempt to murder. The trial court has cursorily dealt with the many contradictions pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused in the testimonies of PW -3 (Rajeshwari), PW -5 (Kandhai) and PW -11 (Sadhu Ram Gupta) with regard to the fact as to from where the appellant Karpai produced the poison which was allegedly mixed in the juice. Another contradiction had been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused that while PW -11 (Sadhu Ram Gupta) had stated that the accused Karpai had slapped the girl as she had left the juice in the glass, PW -5 (Kandhai) stated that when the boy refused to drink the juice, he was beaten by the accused Karpai and only thereafter the boy drank the juice. The trial court did not find this to be a material contradiction.