VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2009 › High Court of Delhi

Shyam Singh v. The State (Govt of Nct) Delhi

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
19 February 2009
Bench
Pradeep Nandrajogauthor, Aruna Suresh
Case no.
CRL.A. 833/2007

Judgment

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J. FEBRUARY 19, 2009 mm

Case details

Parties and counsel

i.9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 833/2007 % Date of Decision: February 19, 2009 SHYAM SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, 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? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence of murdering his wife. 2. Learned Trial Judge has believed the testimony of Acharaya Rahul Dev PW-9 and Rajnish PW-10 to sustain a finding of guilt against the appellant. Learned Trial Judge has found that the statement Ex.PW-15/A recorded before Sh.Bishan Chand SDM, Pahar Ganj, in which the appellant gave an account of the circumstance under which his wife died was found to be unbelievable and inconsistent with the medical evidence of the cause of the death of the wife of the appellant. 3. We begin our decision with respect to the facts admitted by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. The answers given to question No.23 to 25 are as under:- "Q.23 It is in evidence against you through the statement of PW-9 that on 16.1.2005 you alongwith your wife came to Atithishala and stayed in room no.1 for one day and you extended your stay for one more day. What you have to say? A. It is correct. Q.24 It is in evidence against you through the statement of PW-9 Rahul Dev that on 18.1.2005 he was sleeping in his room when at about 4:20 AM someone knocked his door and on opening the room he found you and you informed that your wife died due to electric shock. What you have to say? A. It is correct. Q.25 It is in evidence against you through the statement of PW-9 that he alongwith you and Sewadar Rajesh went to your room where dead body of your wife was lying on the floor and the chappal of the deceased and broken Garland was there and some blood stains were also lying in the room. What you have to say? A. It is correct." 5. The appellant has also admitted the facts put to him in question No.32 to 34. The question and answers read as under:- "Q.32 It is in evidence against you through the statement of PW10 that he was called by Acharya Rahul and he came to know that your wife has expired and PW10 alongwith Acharya Rahul Dev came to your room where your wife was found dead in Room No.1 where you were staying with her. What you have to say? A. It is correct. Q.33 It is in evidence against you through the statement of PW-10 that you informed that your wife has expired due to electric shock but on having seen the dead body it was found that the blood was coming out of the nose of the dead body. What you have to say? A. It is correct. Q.34 It is in evidence against you through the statement of PW-10 that one ladies sandle was found near the dead body and blood stains was present on the bottom of the sandle and one broken necklace of pearls and broken bangles were also lying in the room. What you have to say? A. It is correct." 6. To the last question whether appellant had anything to say, he responded:- "Q.94 Anything else you want to say? A. On the night of the incident I had gone for toilet outside the room. My wife was there in the room. When I returned after about 15-20 minutes I found her dead. I shouted for help but on one heard as I was the native of other State. This is a false case. I am innocent and falsely implicated in this case." 7. On 18.1.2005 at about 4:40 AM an information was received at PS Karol Bagh recorded vide DD No.8A that a death had occurred at a Dharamshala attached to a temple at Arya Samaj Road. SI Yashwant reached Arya Samaj Mandir and saw the dead body of a lady was lying on the floor in room No.1. Blood was oozing from the nostrils of the dead body. The sole of the chappal was stained with blood. 8. As admitted by the appellant he along with his

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.