Sanjeev v. State

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J. March 04, 2009 Dharmender

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 20.2.2009 Judgment delivered on: 04.03.2009 + CRL.A.761/2008 SANJEEV ..... Appellants Through: Mr.Mohit Mathur, Advocate with Mr.Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate. versus STATE ..... 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? Yes 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. By means of a telephone call received from an unknown person, the police received information at 5.40 PM on 27.2.2001 about the death of a woman at House No.K-48 Krishan Vihar. HC Bhura Singh PW-21, the duty officer at PS Sultanpuri, recorded DD No.58-B, Ex.PW-21/A, noting the said information. SI Ajay Solanki PW-22, and Const.Ashok Kumar PW-20, left for the house at around 5.45 PM and found the dead body of a lady on a cot inside the house. They learnt that the deceased named Upma was married to the appellant about 7 months back. Sri Krishan PW-11, a photographer was called, who took photographs Ex.PW-11/1 to Ex.PW-11/3; negatives whereof are Ex.PW-11/4 to Ex.PW-11/6, of the dead body. The dead body was seized and sent to the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. 2. Unfortunately, SI Ajay Solanki did not bother to conduct any proceedings at the spot in the form of summoning the mobile crime team to lift chance finger prints etc. from the place of the occurrence. He did not prepare a rough sketch of the place of the occurrence. He did nothing at all and after sending the body to the mortuary, went back to the police station without attempting to inquire in the neighbourhood and try and ascertain the whereabouts of any person who could throw light on how Upma died. 3. Nothing happened on the 28th of February 2001. Nothing happened on 1st of March 2001. On 2nd March 2001, Shri S.C.Saluja PW-13, the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area recorded the statement Ex.PW-9/A of the father of Upma and made an endorsement Ex.PW-13/B thereon and forwarded the same for a FIR to be registered. The reason was that Upma's father made a statement to the effect that the appellant and his family members used to harass his daughter for dowry and that his daughter had been killed by them. HC Shyam Sunder PW- 19, received the statement made by father of Upma and the endorsement of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, and registered the FIR Ex.PW-19/A on 2.3.2001. 4. On said date i.e. 2.3.2001, Dr. Komal Singh PW-10, conducted the post-mortem of Upma at 2.30 PM and noted in the post-mortem report Ex.PW-10/A that there were abrasions on the upper and lower lip of the deceased. There were bruises on the right forearm. There were four nail marks on the lateral side on the right side of the neck as also two nail marks on the left lateral side of the neck. The right upper cornex of the thyroid was broken. He opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling. He opined that the time of death was about 72 hours prior. 5. Statements of Raj Kumar PW-1, the paternal uncle of deceased Upma; Smt.Maharani PW-3, the mother of the deceased; Smt.Urmila PW-5, the paternal aunt (chachi) of the deceased; Shri Om Vir Singh PW-12, a cousin of the deceased and Shri K.C.Dhima PW-8, a neighbour of the deceased were recorded by the investigating officer. The family members of the deceased informed the police that the appellant and his family members used to harass Upma for dowry. K.C.Dhima PW- 8 informed the police that around 2.00 PM on 27.2.2001 he had seen the appellant remove his wife to a hospital in a TSR. 6. Since the post-mortem report of the deceased clearly showed that the deceased had died due to strangulation and it was clearly a case of homicide; in view of the statements made by the persons whose names have been noted in para 5 herein above, a charge-sheet was filed indicting the appellant; his sister Laxmi; her