Devinder Pal Singh v. State

G. S. SISTANI, J. statement that when they visited the house of the deceased on the day of occurrence, accused Devinder Pal Singh gave beating to the deceased and forcibly took her to the roof. Within seconds/minute, the deceased was found dead due to fall from the roof of the house. PW8 categorically stated in her deposition before the court that "When the accused was taking the deceased in an auto driven by him, I forcibl y boarded the auto. He was taking the auto to the cremation ground. PW8 was not cross examined by the defence on this aspect which clearly points towards the guilt of the appellant. The conduct of the appellant was not natural as the appellant was taking the deceased to the cremation ground instead r taking her to the hospital for immediate medical attention 36 In view of the above discussion, we are convinced that the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Consequently, we do not find any force in the appeal. Accordingly, same is dismiss d

¶37Trial Court Record be returned.

SANTXDWRA SEHGAL, J. -4

$-R-33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 807/2012 % Judgment reserved on 22l1a' Febr2016 .Judgment pronounced on _____May, 2016 DEVINDER PAL SINGH Appellant Through : Mr. Braham Singh, Mr. N. S. Vidhai and Ms.Manju, Advocates. versus STATE Respondents Through Ms Aashaa Tiwari, APP foi the State CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G S SISTANI HON'BLE MS JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DH1]GRA SEHGAL, J 1 This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18 05 2012 and order on sentence dated 28.05.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 20/20 10 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge-02, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi has convicted Devinder Pal Singh for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court has sentenced Devinder Pal Singh for life imprisonment with fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Cr!. A. No. 807-2012 "I 2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the parties and issues involved, it is necessary to set out the brief facts of the case which gave rise to the present criminal appeal. On 06.09.2009, a DD No. 38-A was recorded on an information received through wireless that a lady had died after falling from the roof. She was a victim of rape. The case of the prosecution further is that Investigating Officer SI Joginder Singh reached at the spot and met Pappu (brother of the deceased) and his wife Sridevi (sister-in-law of the deceased) there. Since, deceased died within seven years of her marriage, Executive Magistrate/SDM, Kalkaji was informed. Statements of Pappu and Sridevi were recorded heiein the\ held the accused persons responsible for the death of the decea'ed for non fulfillment of the demand ol dowry. 3 After thL investigation that followed the complaint, police filed a charge shLet under Section 498A/304B/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code Both the accused persons eie chaiged toi the offences under Section 498A iead v ith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Devinder Pal was also charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the charges framed against them. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied the accusations levelled against them. Four t1 witnesses were examined in their defence including both the accused persons. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing them, the learned Trial Court eventually came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused persons for the offences under Section 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly acquitted both the accused persons for the said offences but accused Devinder Pal w as found gullt\ for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and recorded his conviction and sentenced him foi the penod as mentioned above Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and ordei on sentence, the accused INO 1/Appellant prefened the present appeal for i Ldress 7. The main thrust of the argument advanced by Mr. Braham Singh, learned counsel for the appellant was that the trial court had committed a grave error in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code He submitted that the impugned judgment was erroneous and not sustainable and has resulted in miscarriage ofjustice and the same is liable to be set aside. Mr. Singh further contended that the deceased Poonam has committed suicide by jumping from the roof as she was depressed on account of rape committed on her by one Chab