VIRENDER BHATTI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has .been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgement dated August- 5, 1988, of an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, and vide Subsequent order dated August 10, 1988, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. l,000.00 and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on the first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,0001- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on the second count. In this appeal the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentences.

(2.) This case presents certain disturbing facts and unusual features. "This appellant was earlier married to one Sarla, daugther of Public Witness 4Lal Chand in the year 1971. The appellant has one daugther and one son out of the said wedlock and Sarla died of burn injuries in the house of the appellant in the year 1975. It appears that no case was registered against the appellant and most probably Saria was shown to have died due to some accidential fire. The appellant married the deceased Kamlesh daughter of Public Witness 2 Jagan Nath in June 1978. Kamlesh had earlier been married to some other person but that marriage lasted only for a few months and a divorce had taken place but there was no issue born out of the said wedlock. After this marriage the appellant got one son named Nitin from Kamlesh.

(3.) On February 10, 1984, Ravinder Singh. one of the brothers of the appellant came to Police Station Lajpat Nagar at about 10.25 AM and got recorded daily dairy report No. 4A, copy Ex.PW18lA,'to the effect that on that day his elder brother, namely, the appellant had come back after leaving his children at the school and it was discovered that some 'moke was coming out from the bath room and it was apprehended that some fire had taken place and on the basis of this report SI Rajpal Singh was deputed to enquire and after receiving the copy of the report from Constable Sakhi Ram, SI Rajpal reached the aforesaid house No. A-ll/l4, Lajpat Nagar. He was accompanied by SI Sushil Kumar and he found that the appellant was present at the spot and dead bodies of Kamlesh and her son Nitin were lying in the bathtub in that bathroom duly burnt and he found that a case of murder had taken place. So. he prepared Rukka, Ex. Public Witness 18/B arid 'got the case registered under Section 302 .of the Indian Penal Code. SI Rajpal had made a very slipshod report and sot the case registered under Section 302, Indian Penal Code without even giving any details of the place of occurrence as to whether the particular bathroom had one door or two doors and if one door was found broken, what was the position of the second door and whether he had noticed anything on the walls or not and what wag the condition of the dead bodies ? From his Rukka we do not find any facts and circumstances which could lead to any inference that the offence of murder had been committed. Be that as it may, the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest papers of both the dead bodies which are Ex. Public Witness 18/C2 to Public Witness 18/C 4 in respect of Kamlesh Bhatti and Ex. Public Witness 18/D2 to Public Witness 18/D 4 in respect of Nitin and prepared the applications Ex. Public Witness 18/C and PW18/D and sent the dead bodies for postmortem. In the brief facts mentioned in the inquest papers it was narrated that the door of the bathroom stood broken and certain tile; in the bathroom also were found in broken condition. In the inquest form in repect of Kamlesh, it was mentioned that the tongue of deceased was protruding. Both the dead bodies were found to-be burnt. Dr. Chander Kant (Public Witness 14) had conducted the postmortem on the said two dead bodies on February II, 1984. In respect of the dead body of Nitin, he found that there was strong smell of kerosene oil coming from the scalp and both lower limbs. Scalp hair were completely burnt, singeing of both eye-brows and the eye-lashes. He found 100% superificial and deep ante-mortem burns and in the stomach he found undigested curd like thick contents weighing 70 prams. The cause of death was due to shock as a result of 100% superficial and deep burns. In respect of Kamlesh. he also noticed strong smell of kerosene oil from the scalp and the body. The body was found to be in pugilistic attitude. The tongue was found protruding cut. He found 100% superficial and deep burns covering the whole body and significantly he also found presence of anti-mortem ligature mark in front of the neck in the thyroid complex region, with a width of 1 cm. in front of neck and 6.5 cms away from the chin, extended upto right side of neck and left side of neck. On posterior side of neck, no ligature mark was detected: underlying tissues had shown extra vasation of blood and the total length of ligature was 16 cms. He also opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation; 100% superficial and deep burns were peri-mortem in nature meaning thereby that these had occurred after clinical death of Kamlesh. He had given the postmortem reports Ex. Public Witness 14/A & PW14/ B respectively. It appears-that during the course of the trial Dr. Kant in his deposition could not over-rule the possibility of Kamlesh having at first self-strangulated herself and then receiving the bum injuries by falling by the side of her son who was put to flames at that time. During the course of investigation, the statements of Public Witness 2 Jagan Nath Kamlesh's father) Public Witness 3 Smt. Sunita Sachdeva (sister), Public Witness 7 Smt. Ram Piari (mother) and Public Witness 8 Tarsern Kumar (brother) were recorded who stated that deceased was being dealt with cruelty by the appellant as the deceased used to complain to them that she. used to be beaten by the appellant and the appellant did not want Kamlesh to bear any child as he had two children of its own from previous marriage and wanted Kamlesh to just look after those children as a sort of 'Aayya and that on one occasion a report was also made to the police by the appellant's father when appellant had subjected Kamlesh to severe beating and thereafter the appellant was found strangulating Kamlesh when her mother and sister had come to see her and he had tendered apologies for his conduct and had given assurance that he would not repeat such conduct, towards Kamlesh in future;