Rajesh Sharma v. State of Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

APRIL 28, 2009 mm

i.5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Order: April 28, 2009 + CRL.A. 115/2004 RAJESH SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. V.K.Raina, Advocate versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, 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? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. In terms of the order dated 16.2.2009, since compilation is ready; appeal being listed for disposal at the end of "After Notice Miscellaneous Matters", we have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Thus, all pending applications are disposed of as infructuous. 3. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.1.2004, the appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered his wife. 4. Vide order dated 22.1.2004, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in failure of deposit of fine, to undergo RI for 2 years. 5. The reasoning of the learned Trial Judge to convict the appellant is the non-satisfactory explanation given by the appellant to the material circumstances appearing against him when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Judge has also opined that the testimony of PW-12, Om Prakash Sharma, the father of the appellant was full of contradictions vis-à-vis attempt made to show that the appellant who was in the house, having left for some time, and before he returned to the house some unknown person having murdered the wife of the appellant. Lastly, the learned Trial Judge has also relied upon the disclosure statement made by the appellant pertaining to his knowledge where the weapon of offence i.e. the kirpan used for the crime was kept; which kirpan was recovered from a place pointed out by the appellant. Reliance has also been placed on the report of the serologist who opined that the kirpan was stained with human blood of group "A" i.e. the same blood group as that of the wife of the appellant. Further incriminating evidence against the appellant is the seizure of the vest worn by the appellant at the time of his arrest which also had human blood of group "A". 6. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the testimony of Om Prakash Sharma PW-12 categorically shows that the appellant was not in the house when his wife was murdered and under the circumstances, there being no witness who has deposed to the contrary, the appellant would be entitled to an acquittal. 7. The process of law commenced when information was received at PS Dwarka at 8:35 PM on 20.11.2002, noted vide DD No.24A, Ex.PW-6/C, to the effect that a woman has been murdered in House No.H-76, Raj Nagar, Part II, Palam Colony. 8. Inspector Umesh Singh PW-13, then posted as SHO PS Dwarka was on patrol duty and a wireless message was flashed to him relaying the information received at the police station and as recorded vide DD No.24A. He reached the place where the crime was committed. At the spot he met one Hazari Lal Gaur, an uncle of the deceased, who told him that he had reached the matrimonial house of the deceased on receipt of a telephonic information that Purnima, his niece, had been murdered by the appellant, who was her husband. He disclosed that in the past, the appellant used to physically assault the deceased. His statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded by Inspector Umesh Singh. An endorsement Ex.PW-13/A was made thereon by Inspector Umesh Singh and the statement and the endorsement were dispatched to the police station at around 11:15 PM for FIR to be registered. Const.Kamaljeet who had accompanied Inspector Umesh Singh to the place of the occurrence took the endorsement and the statement to the police station, where FIR Ex.PW-6/A was recorded. 9. Inspector Umesh Singh prepared the site plan Ex.PW- 13/B. He summoned a photographer who took photographs of