Rama Shankar v. State

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J. FEBRUARY 17, 2009 mm

R-12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 319/2001 % Date of Order: February 17, 2009 RAMA SHANKAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. The appellant Rama Shankar who has been admitted to bail is absconding and in spite of attempts the warrants seeking his production are not being served upon him. We note that the appellant was admitted to bail by the Supreme Court. We note that the appellant was being represented through an amicus as the appeal was filed from jail; noting further that Mr. Sumeet Verma had been appearing as an amicus for the appellant we had directed that the appeal would be heard with assistance of learned amicus for the appellant. 2. We note that fee of learned amicus curiae has been fixed. We fix his fee at Rs.5,000/-. 3. Before we note the evidence led by the prosecution, at the outset we notice that chance finger prints were lifted from an almirah, locker and a box from the house of Mehras i.e. Flat No.A-13, 9-Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi. The same have matched the finger prints of the appellant. We notice that the case of the prosecution was that the appellant was engaged as a domestic help by the Mehras about two months prior to the date of the incident i.e. 7.9.1991, to prove which fact two witnesses namely Shyam Dei PW-3 and Hira Singh PW-4 have been examined. We have questioned learned counsel for the appellant, whether for purposes of the appeal, the counsel seeks to urge submissions on the plea taken by the appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the appellant was never employed as a domestic help by the Mehras or whether he adopts the line of argument that the appellant was engaged as a domestic help. Learned counsel states that he would argue the appeal on the basis that the appellant was engaged as a domestic help by the Mehras. 4. We understand the predicament of the learned counsel. The incident took place in the forenoon of 7.9.1991. The appellant was found absconding till he was arrested on 16.9.1991. If the appellant admits being engaged as a domestic help, his conduct of absconding would need to be explained by him. If appellant takes a stand that he was not employed as a domestic help by the Mehra family, the incriminating evidence of his finger prints being lifted from the almirah, steel locker and a box in the bedroom of the house of the Mehras would need to be explained. The latter would be fatal. The former would be a lesser evil. 5. The process of law commenced when Harish Mehra PW-7 returned to his flat i.e. A-13, 9-Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi at around 2:00 PM; having left the same in the morning to visit his factory; the date being 7.9.1991. He saw that the front door of the flat was unlocked. All other doors were closed and were unlocked. He felt suspicious and went to the bedroom of his mother and saw her and his sister, Nidhi (PW-2) in a pool of blood. The cupboard was unlocked and open. Articles were lying messed up. He rang up the police and also informed his father. He noticed that the appellant Rama Shankar, a domestic help, was not in the flat. 6. The police reached the flat and recorded his statement Ex.PW-7/A. His mother and his sister were removed to AIIMS where his mother was declared brought dead as recorded in the MLC Ex.PW-29/B-3. Nidhi was in a critical condition. Her MLC, Ex.PW-18/A, records that she was assaulted and had lacerated injuries on the occipital region. She was found bleeding from both nostrils. Peritoneal odema was suspected. Face was swollen and asymmetrical. There was swelling on the maxicla. 7. It is apparent that Nidhi had been assaulted with a blunt object. 8.