/ y II R-22 & 23 * INTHE HIGH COURTOF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRLAPPEALNO.244/2008 PARMESHWARI Appellant Through: Mr.Sumeet Verma,Advocate. ve rsus STATE Respondent Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor,A.P.P. + CRLAPPEALNO.245/2008 LOKESHKUMAR Appellant Through: Mr.Sumeet Verma,Advocate. ve rsus STATE Respondent Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor,A.P.P. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEPRADEEPNANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICESURESHKAIT ORDER % 16 .03 .2010 1. The twoappealshavereachedforhearingtoday. Mr.Sumeet Verma, learnedcounselonthepaneloftheDelhi High Court Legal Services Committee appearsinCrI.Appeal No.245/2008. 2. Noting thatlearnedcounsel does not appearin CrI.Appeal No.244/2008; furthernotingthefactthatMr.Ashish Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified z Kumar Das had filed both theCriminal Appeals, we have enquiredfromMr.Sumeet Verma,Advocate,whether he isina position to argue the appealon behalf of co-accused Parmeshwari. Learned counselsaysthathecanarguethe appealonbehalfof Parmeshwari aswell. 3. We appoint Mr.Sumeet Verma, Advocate as an AmicusCuriaeonbehalfofParmeshwariandfix hisfeeinsum of Rs.7,500/- to be paid by theDelhi HighCourtLegalServices Committee . 4. TheCriminal Appeals arebeingdisposedof vide separateorderpassedtoday. PRADEEPNANDRAJOG,J. SURESHKAIT,J. MARCH 16,2010 dkba ins ia R-17 * INTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DateofDecision March, 2010 + CRL.APPEALNO .245/2008 LOKESHKUMAR Appellant Through: Mr.Sumeet Verma,Advocate. ve rsus STATE Respondent Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor,A.P.P. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEPRADEEPNANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICESURESHKAIT 1. Whether theReportersoflocalpapersmay beallowed toseethejudgment? 2. TobereferredtoReporterornot? 3. Whether thejudgmentshouldbereportedintheDigest? PRADEEPNANDRAIOG. I.(Oral) Fororders,seeCrI.A.No.244/2008. March 16,2010 dkbainsia (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SURESHKAIT) JUDGE CrI.AppealNo.245/2008 Page 1 of 1 R-17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DateofDecision March, 2010 + CRL.APPEALNO .244 /2008 PARMESHWARI Appellant Through: Mr.Sumeet Verma,Advocate. ve rsus STATE Respondent Through: Ms.Rlcha Kapoor,A.P.P. + CRL.APPEALNO .245/2008 LOKESHKUMAR Appellant Through: Mr.Sumeet Verma,Advocate. ve rsus s ta te Respondent Through: Ms.Rlcha Kapoor,A.P.P. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEPRADEEPNANDRAJOG HON BLE MR. JUSTICESURESHKAIT 1. Whether theReportersoflocalpapersmay beallowed toseethejudgment? 2. TobereferredtoReporterornot? Yes 3. Whether thejudgmentshouldbe,reportedintheDigest? Yes PRADEEPNANDRAIOG, I.(Oral) 1. Fouraccused,namely,Bimla wife ofthedeceased Satish, Parmeshwari,Arvind Kumar Akela andLokesh Kumar were charged for theoffence of having entered into a conspiracyandinpursuancethereofhavingmurdered Satish. CrI.AppealNo.244& 245 of2008 Page 1 of 10 Accused Parmeshwari and Lokesh Kumar were additionally chargedfortheoffencepunishableunderSection452/34IPC. 2. At theendofthetrial,videjudgmentandorder dated25.2.2008,Bimla, ParmeshwariandLokeshKumar have beenconvictedfortheoffencestheywerechargedof. Arvind KumarAkela hasbeenacquitted. 3. Forunexplainablereasons,Bimlahasnotpreferred any appealagainstherconviction. Appellants Parmeshwari andLokeshKumarhavechallengedtheimpugneddecision. V 4. Before dealing withtheissuesinvolved wewould wish to bring on record a fairly disturbing thing which we had noticedintheinstantcase . 5. WithimpunitythelearnedTrialJudgehaspermitted evidence of confessionstobe brought on recordand has referredtothesamenotonlyinthedecisionbutevenwhile questioningtheaccused. Forexample,while examiningBimla underSection313Cr.P.C., questionNo.25 puttoheristhatit hascomeinevidencetha tafterco-accusedParmeshwariwas jH arrestedandinterrogatedhemade astatementconfessinghis guiltandtheconnivanceofBimlaandtheotherco-accused. 6. Thisismost unfortunate. Everyaccusedisentitled toafairtrial.AfairtrialmeansthataJudgedecidestheissues brought before him as per law applicable and evidence CrI.AppealNo.244& 245 of2008 Page2 of 10 \ properly brought before theJudge. Inadmissibleevidence cannotbe brought on record,much lessrelied upon in a judicialproceedingandthattoofortheoffencerelatableto murder . 7. We shallbeissuingfurtherdirectionsattheendof thedecisiontobringtheinstantdecisiontothenoticeofthe learnedTrialJudgewho haspennedtheinstantdecision. 8. Revertingtotheevidence,wedonotintendtopen- profilewhat hasbeenspokenbyvariouswitnesses. Itwould be sufficientfor us tonote thatin convicting appellant Parmeshwari the incriminating evidence held established againstParmeshwari, aspertheimpugneddecision, isthat afterhewas arrestedandhemade adisclosurestatement ,he ledthepolicetoaspotandgotrecoveredabluejeansasper memo Ex.PW-6/Cfollowedby arecoveryofapairofshoesand ashirtasrecordedinthememo Ex.PW-7/A. As perthereport Ex.PW-25/H andEx.PW-25/H-l oftheserologist,humanblood ofthesamegroupasthatofthedeceasedwas detectedon theshoes,theshirtand theJeans. Further incriminating evidenceheldestablishedagainstParmeshwari isthereport Ex.PW-22/Casperwhich afoot-printliftedfromthesceneof thecrimewas opinedtobeaspossiblythatofParmeshwari. We may notethattheexpressionusedbytheexpertis:"That Crl.AppealNo.244&245of2008 Page 3 of 10 V thefoot-printliftedfromthesceneofthecrimecouldbethat ofParmeshwari" . 9. Against Lokesh Kumar, incriminatingevidenceheld established isthatanotherfoot-printwas opined tobe as possibly thatof Lokesh Kumar as per reportEx.PW-22/C. FurtherincriminatingevidenceagainstLokesh Kumar isthat afterhewas arrestedandmade adisclosurestatementhegot recovereda khukriasshownenteredinthememo Ex.PW-6/D asalsoawhitesandozvestandashirtasenteredinthememo Ex.PW-6/E, allofwhich exceptthekhukriwere detectedwith humanbloodofthesamegroupasthatofthedeceasedvide reportEx.PW-25/HandEx.P\/\/-25/H-loftheserologist. Onthe khukri, blood was detected but neither itsspeciesnorthe groupcouldbedetected. 10. Apartthere-fromthefurtherincriminatingevidence heldestablishedbythelearnedTrialJudgeisthatParmeshwari was havingillicitrelationswith Bimla andthatthemotive for thecrimewastodoawaywith SatishsothatParmeshwariand Bimlacouldhaveamerrytime. 11. We note thatBimla has been convicted by the learnedTrial Judgeon accountofherhaving illicitrelations with Parmeshwari . 12. Since Bimla hasnotfiledanappealwe may only CrI.AppealNo.244& 245 of 2008 Page 4 of 10 V notethattheplaceofthecrimewas hermatrimonial house andthedeceasedwas murdered inthemiddle ofthenight. Shefeignedsemi-consciousnessandrefusedtovolunteerany informationtotheinvestigatingofficer. 13. Since Bimla hasnotfiledanyappealwe noteno furtherquaBimla. 14. Thefirstandtheforemostquestionwhich needsto be answerediswhether itstandssatisfactorilyprovedthat BimlaandParmeshwariwerehavingillicitrelationship. 15. The witnesses who have thrown light on the relationsbetweenBimla andParmeshwariareVijay SinghPW- 6,BabitaSharmaPW-7andSurinderKumari PW-20. 16. We notethatVijay Singhhasdeposedthathesaw Bimla talkingwith Parmeshwari twotofourtimesandonce havingseeingParmeshwari putting his handson thebreast etc. of Bimla. We note thaton being cross-examined he admittedthatitwas forthefirsttimehehadstatedinCourt thathehadseenParmeshwariputtinghishandsonthebreast ofBimlaandthathehadnoteversostatedbeforethepolice. 17. Babita Sharma PW-7 deposedthatBimla usedto meet Parmeshwari and had told her tha t she was Parmeshwari 's bhabhi. Thatattheinstanceoftheirdistant relative Shashi Prabha, a room was given on rent to CrI.AppealNo.244& 245 of 2008 Page 5 of 10 s V ' Parmeshwari . 18. Surinder Kumari PW-20, the mother of Babita Sharma has likewisedeposed thatattheasking of their relativeShashiPrabhashehadletou ta roominherhouseto Parmeshwar iandtha tBimla usedtovisitParmeshwar i . She additionallydeposedthatShashi Prabha was closetoBimla andthatwhen roomwas givenonrenttoParmeshwari,Bimla andShashiPrabhahadcomewith Parmeshwari . 19. Itmay benotedthatthelearnedTrial Judgehas heldthatthekeeninterestshownbyBimla togetonrenta tenanted premises to Parmeshwari and her visiting Parmeshwari is sufficient evidence wherefrom it can be gatheredthatthetwowerehavingillicitrelationship. 20. We haveourdoubtswhether suchafindingcould bereturnedonsothinapieceofevidence. Merely becausea man anda woman mee t would not mean tha tthetwoare havingillicitrelationship. 21. As regardstherecoveriesofshoes,ashirtanda pantattheinstanceofParmeshwariasalsotherecoveryofa white sandozves tandashirta ttheinstanceofLokeshKumar which werefoundtobestainedwith humanbloodofthesame groupasthatofthedeceased,sufficewould itbetonotethat thedisclosures ta temen tsofParmeshwariandLokesh Kumar Crl.AppealNo.244& 245 of 2008 Page 6 of 10 \ \ V- thattheywere wearing therespectiveclotheswhen thecrime was comm i t ted would be inadmissible in evidence . The prosecutionhadtoleadindependentevidencetoestablishthat thepant,shirtandshoesgotrecoveredbyParmeshwariand theshirtandthewhite sandozvestgotrecoveredbyLokesh Kumarwereworn bythetwowhenthecrimewascommitted. 22. Thus, theevidence relatable totherecoveries would bethatParmeshwariandLokesh Kumar gotrecovered ordinaryobjectssuchasshoes,shirt,pantandavestwhich were bloodstainedandthegroupofthebloodwas sameas thatofthedeceased. As heldinthedecisionsreportedasJT 2008(1) SC191Mani vStateofTamilNadu. 1999Cri.L.J.265 Deva Singh vs. StateofRaiasthan, 1993Cri.L.J. 3901Suriit Sinah v. State ofPunjab, AIR 1977 SC 1753 Narsinbhai Haribhai Praiaoativ. Chhatrasinh andOrs. andAIR 1963SC 1113Prabhu vStateofUP. suchrecoveriesareveryweak ev idence . 23. On theissueofthefoot-printsoftheappellants beingdetectedatthesceneofthecrimewith referencetothe sample foot-prints of appellant Parmeshwari and Lokesh Kumar, we notethatthesamplefoot-printsofthetwowerenot taken by a proper identification as required by the IdentificationofPrisoner 'sAct 1920. Even necessaryorders CrI.AppealNo.244 & 245 of 2008 Page 7 of 10 \ V were notobtainedfromtheCompetent Court beforetaken theirsamplefoot-prints. 24. Thus, inviewofdecisionsreportedas1962(3)SCR 10StateofBombayvs.KathiKalu Oghad& Ors., AIR 1980SC 791StateofU.P. vs.Rambabu Mishra and1994(5)SCC152 SukhwinderSinah & Ors. vsState ofPunjab, theevidence relatabletothereportEx.PW-22/C hastobeexcludedwhile consideringtheincriminatingevidenceagainstParmeshwari andLokeshKumar . 25. Thatapart,asheldinthedecisionreportedas1997 (10)SCC 44Mohd.Aman & Ann vs. StateofRaiasthan. the scienceoffoot-printisnotwell developed. Unlikefingerprints where distinctcharacteristicsgetdevelopedontheprintsof thefingers,nosuchdistinctivecharacteristicmarks developon thefootofahumanbeing. Thus,expertopinionpertainingto foot-printshasalwaysbeentreatedasaveryweakevidence. 26. Thatiswhy, intheinstantcase,theexperthasnot givenadefinitefindingbywriting inthereportthatfoot-prints liftedfromthesceneofthecrimewere thoseofParmeshwari andLokesh Kumar. The reporthasmerely opinedthatthe foot-printsliftedfromthesceneofthecrimecouldbethatof ParmeshwariandLokeshKumar. Crl.AppealNo.244 & 245 of 2008 Page 8 of 10 V\ 27. Thus, the only incriminating evidence against ParmeshwariandLokeshwould betheexhibitsgotrecovered by them,being ordinary articles which were foundtobe stainedwith humanbloodasthatofthesamegroupofthe deceasedandnomore . 28. Assuming thatevidence pertaining tofoot-prints hasalsotobeputinthescalesagainstthetwoappellants,we stillfeelthatwith respecttothesaidtwopiecesofevidence which qualityofevidencehasbeenheldbytheSupremeCourt to be very weak evidence, in a case of circumstantial evidence,itcannotbesaidthatitwould besufficienttoinfer theguiltoftheappellants. 29. Theappealsareallowed. 30. Theappellantsareacquittedofthechargeframed againstthem. 31. Since theappellantsareinjail,we directthata copyofthisdecision besenttotheSuperintendent,Central Jail,Tiharwith furtherdirectionthatifnotrequiredincustody inanyothercase,theappellantsbesetfreeforthwith. 32 . Thelastdirection . 33. The Registry isdirected tosenda copy of the instantdecision tothelearnedDistrict andSessionsJudge, Delhi who would ensuretha tthedecisionissen ttothelearned CrI.AppealNo.244& 245 of2008 Page 9 of 10 V TrialJudgewho haspennedtheImpugneddecisionsothatin futurethelearnedTrial Judgedoesnotcommitthekind of blundersashe hascommittedintheins tan tcasewhile not onlyrecordingevidencebutevenwhileexaminingtheaccused andlastlywhile penningtheimpugneddecision. March 16,2010 dkbainsla (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SURESHKAIT) JUDGE CrI.AppealNo.244& 245 of 2008 Page10 of 10