Crl.A.362/08 Page 1 of 40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved On: May 03, 2010 Judgment Delivered On: May 25, 2010 + CRL.APPEAL No.362/2008 HARPAL SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate Mr.Satya Narayan Vashisht, Mr.Shri Singh, Mr.Vijay Sansanwal & Mr.Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, A.P.P. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Appellant Harpal Singh faced trial for the offence of having murdered his wife Sushila and son Harshit on 24.06.2003 at around 9.00 PM in the residence of the parties, being flat bearing Municipal No.A1/183-B, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. 2. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.02.2008, the appellant has been held guilty of murder(s) for which offence he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs.10,000/-; in Crl.A.362/08 Page 2 of 40 default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. Case of the prosecution was that on 25.06.2003 at about 8.15 AM the appellant came to PS Paschim Vihar and informed HC Subhash PW-23, that along with his wife Sushila and son Harshit, he resides at flat bearing Municipal No.A1/183-B, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. That there used to be domestic quarrels since a considerable period due to which he got hassled and thus murdered his wife and son by strangulating them. That thereafter he consumed „All Out‟ to commit suicide but nothing untoward happened to him. That he had also written a letter detailing the aforesaid facts, which letter is lying in his residence. That after locking the main door of his residence he has come to the police station to admit his guilt. HC Subhash PW-23, recorded the afore- noted information given by the appellant in DD No.2A, Ex.PW-23/A. 4. DD No.2A was assigned to SI Jagdish Meena PW- 22 for inquiry, who left the police station in the company of the appellant and took along with him Const.Dalbir Singh PW-17, Const.Sukhvir Singh PW-19 and SI Randhir Singh PW- 20. On reaching the flat the police officers saw Sushila and Harshit lying dead on a bed with a telephone wire tied around the neck of Sushila. The police officers further saw two empty bottles of mosquito repellent „All Out‟ in the room adjacent to the room where the dead bodies were found. The same were seized. Thereafter, the appellant took out a notebook, tore four pages from the same and stated that the said pages Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 contain the suicide note written by him before consuming „All Out‟. SI Jagdish Meena seized the said four pages Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 Crl.A.362/08 Page 3 of 40 vide memo Ex.PW-2/A. The four pages record that the appellant was committing suicide by consuming poison after murdering his wife and son. 5. Inspector Jagdish Meena made an endorsement beneath copy of the DD No.2A, and at around 10.20 AM handed over the same to Const.Sukhvir Singh PW-19 for FIR to be registered. Const.Sukhvir Singh took the aforesaid endorsement to the police station and handed over the same to ASI Vinod PW-1, who recorded FIR No.294/03, Ex.PW-1/A. 6. In view of the confession made by the appellant, Inspector Jagdish Meena arrested the appellant on 25.06.2003 as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-20/A. On the same day i.e. 25.06.2003 at about 09.50 P.M. the appellant was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital for his medical examination where as recorded on the MLC Ex.PW-8/A the appellant was found fully conscious and oriented. As recorded in the MLC, the appellant was to be medically examined as he had consumed „All Out’ anti mosquito repellent. It was recorded in the MLC that the appellant refused to undergo gastric lavage test. The appellant was examined by another doctor who advised the appellant to be produced before a psychiatrist as per report Ex.PW-7/A penned on the MLC. 7. Inspector Jagdish Meena seized the dead bodies and sent the same to the mortuary along with the inquest papers. On 25.06.2003 at about 3.30 PM Dr.V.K.Jha PW-9 conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Sushila and prepared the post-mortem report Ex.PW-9/B recording therein that a ligature mark was found on the neck of Sushila. The cause of death of Sushila was opined to be Crl.A.362/08 Page 4 of 40 asphyxia resulting from strangulation and that it was possible that Sushila was strangulated with the telephone wire found tied around her neck. He opined that the death of Sushila had taken place about 18 hours prior to the conduct of post-mortem. 8. On the same day i.e. 25.06.2003 at about 04.30 PM Dr.V.K.Jha PW-9 conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Harshit and prepared the post-mortem report Ex.PW-9/A recording therein that a ligature mark was found on the neck of Harshit. The cause of death of Harshit was opined to be asphyxia resulting from strangulation and that the death of Harshit had taken place about 18 hours prior to the conduct of post-mortem. 9. During the investigation, the police recorded the respective statements Ex.PW-2/DA and Ex.PW-4/DA of Ram Kumar PW-2 and Kuldeep Singh PW-4, the father and brother of Sushila under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein they stated that the relations between the appellant and Sushila were strained as the appellant was having illicit relations with another woman. 10. On 27.06.2003, Inspector Jagdish Meena PW-22, recorded the statement Ex.PW-3/DA of Laxmi Devi PW-3, the mother of Sushila under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she reiterated that the relations between the appellant and Sushila were strained as the appellant was having illicit relations with another woman. She further stated that in the year 2002 the appellant left Sushila and started residing with a woman named Beena and her son in a house at PappanKalan. In November 2002 she and her family members forced the appellant to leave the company of Beena due to which reason the appellant was angry with Crl.A.362/08 Page 5 of 40 Sushila and wanted to do away with her. On 23.06.2003 the appellant forcibly took Sushila and Harshit to a rented flat at Dwarka however they along with the appellant returned to their residence in Paschim Vihar on 24.06.2003. On 24.06.2003 at about 8.00 PM when she was returning from her evening walk she noted the light in the flat of the appellant was switched on. On seeing the same she went to the flat where she met Sushila, Harshit and the appellant and noted that the atmosphere was very tensed. Appellant said that Sushila would have to pay a price for returning to the flat from Dwarka. 11. During further investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statements Mark PW-10/A, Mark PW- 12/A and Mark PW-13/A of Ravinder PW-10, Manohar Khan PW-12 and B.K.Gupta PW-13, respectively under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 12. Inspector Jagdish Meena PW-22, obtained the specimen handwriting Ex.PX-1 to Ex.PX-4 of the appellant and sent the same along with Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 recovered from the house of the appellant to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of the handwriting. Vide FSL report Ex.PW-24/A it was opined that the writing Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 is in the same hand of he who has written Ex.PX-1 to Ex.PX-4. 13. Needless to state, the appellant was sent for trial. Charges were framed against the appellant for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 14. At the trial the prosecution examined 23 witnesses. 15. Ram Kumar PW-2, the father of Sushila, deposed that the marriage of the appellant and Sushila was Crl.A.362/08 Page 6 of 40 solemnized on 11.07.1988. After few years of their marriage the relations between Sushila and the appellant got strained as the appellant developed illicit relations with other women. The appellant bought a house in Pappankalan and started residing there with the woman, named Beena. The appellant used to extend threats to him that he would murder his daughter Sushila and son Kuldeep. He and his family members persuaded the appellant to leave the company of Beena and brought him back to reside with Sushila at their residence in Paschim Vihar. However the appellant did not mend his ways and continued to be in touch with Beena. After sometime the appellant rented a flat at Pappankalan and he wanted that Sushila should reside with him at the said flat. On 23.06.2003 the appellant and Sushila went to reside at the aforesaid flat, however on the next day i.e. 24.06.2003 they came back to their flat in Paschim Vihar. On 25.06.2003 at about 09.00 AM he came to know that the appellant has murdered Sushila and Harshit, upon which he went to the residence of the appellant where he saw that the appellant along with some policemen was ascending the stairs leading to his house. The appellant took out keys from the pocket of his pant and opened the main door of his house. Inside the house the appellant picked up a notebook and tore four pages from the said notebook. The said four pages contained the handwriting of the appellant. 16. On being cross-examined about the assets of Sushila and cash transactions between him and Sushila, he stated that: ‘It is correct that the sale deed of H.N.390/1, Sector I Rohtak is in the name of Sushila. Vol: But I purchased the said property in her name. Sushila had not Crl.A.362/08 Page 7 of 40 purchased the property. Nobody has sold the property to Sushila. It is incorrect to suggest that on 8-2-03 Sushila lent a sum of Rs.50,000/- to me by way of cheque. Vol: Accused has taken money from me and amount represented the refund.’ 17. It is significant to note that no suggestion was given to the witness in his cross-examination that the pages Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 do not contain the handwriting of the appellant or that he i.e. Ram Kumar had falsely stated that the writing in question was that of the appellant. No questions were put to him as to with reference to what fact he had deposed that the writing on the pages Ex.P-1 to Ex.P- 4 was that of the appellant. 18. Laxmi Devi PW-3, the mother of Sushila, deposed that the relations between Sushila and the appellant were normal till about five years of their marriage. After the birth of the son Sushila and the appellant the relations between Sushila and the appellant were strained as the appellant developed illicit relations with other women. In the year 2002 the appellant left Sushila and started residing with a woman named Beena and her son in a house in Pappankalan. She and her family members persuaded the appellant to leave the company of Beena and brought him back to reside with Sushila at their residence in Paschim Vihar. However the appellant did not mend his ways and continued to be in touch with Beena. On one occasion she saw an injury mark on the hand of Sushila and her grandson told her that said injury was received by Sushila when she was beaten by the appellant. She apprised her husband with the aforesaid fact. When she and her husband questioned the appellant about the aforesaid injury on the person of Crl.A.362/08 Page 8 of 40 Sushila the appellant abused her husband and Sushila. On 23.06.2003 the appellant took Sushila to reside in a rented flat at Pappankalan however on the next day i.e. 24.06.2003 they came back to their house in Paschim Vihar. On 24.06.2003 at about „7.30 – 7.45 AM‟ when she was returning from park after a walk she saw that a light was on in the residence of Sushila and the appellant upon which she went to the said house where she saw that the appellant and Sushila were present there and that the atmosphere in the house was very tense. When she made enquiries about their return from the flat at Pappankalan, the appellant told her that Sushila would have to bear the consequences of her act of returning from the flat at Pappankalan. She tried to counsel the appellant and Sushila that they should make an effort to live happily together. 19. On being questioned during cross-examination about her relations with the appellant, she stated that: ‘It is correct that I alongwith my daughter Susheela & son of another daughter went with the accused for excursion to Nepal. Vol. I had borne all my expenses...It is correct to suggest that from 14th December to 17th December my daughter Sushila and Harpal had gone for excursion to Goa leaving behind their child with me It is correct that in June, 1998 my son-in-law Mukesh and my daughter Anita went to Himachal Pradesh along with accused and Sushila and their son. It is correct that in Nov., 1998, my son in law Mukesh and my daughter Anita alongwith accused and his wife and child went to Agra to celebrate the marriage anniversary of my daughter Anita with Mukesh. It is correct that in the year 2000, myself Saroj her son Bittoo, her husband Balbir, Harpal, my daughter Sushila and her son Harshit had gone Crl.A.362/08 Page 9 of 40 to Himachal Pradesh, UP etc for visiting the Seven Matas....It is correct that we all had gone there in car of Harpal....It is correct that in the year 1999 accused along with Sushila and their son and his friend Dabass went for excursion to Sri Nagar. It is correct that accused has taken Sushila to various places as abovementioned as they had good relations.’ On being further questioned about the stay of son of her daughter Saroj in the house of the appellant, she stated that: ‘It is correct that since the date of purchase of flat by the accused at Paschim Vihar, Bittoo the son of my another daughter Saroj used to live with the accused at that very flat. Vol. the accused had brought him as he had no child of his own.’ On being questioned about the return of the appellant from the flat at Pappankala, she stated that: ‘So far as I know, he came back at 7.30/7.45 PM.’ On being questioned about the assets and income of Sushila, she stated that: ‘It is correct that Sushila was housewife. It is incorrect to suggest that accused Harpal built a house in the name of Sushila at 390/1, Sector-I, Rohtak Haryana India. It is correct that the house is in the name of Sushila. Vol: We had given the house to Sushila.’ On being questioned about the relations of her son with the appellant, she stated that: ‘It is correct that my son was an employee of the accused.’ 20. It is most significant to note that a suggestion was given to the witness in her cross-examination that she did not visit the residence of Sushila and the appellant at about 7.30-7.45 PM on 24.06.2003, which suggestion was categorically denied by the witness. 21. Kuldeep PW-4, the brother of Sushila, deposed that after few years of their marriage the relations between Sushila and the appellant got strained as the appellant Crl.A.362/08 Page 10 of 40 developed illicit relations with other women. In the year 2002 the appellant left Sushila and started residing with a woman named Beena and her son in a house in Pappankalan. He and his family members persuaded the appellant to leave the company of Beena and brought him back to reside with Sushila at their residence in Paschim Vihar. After the said incident the appellant resented Sushila and wanted to do away with her. In February 2003 the appellant took Sushila to a temple at Balaji and got her attacked by some unknown persons. However Sushila was saved as his another sister and her husband were present with Sushila at the time of the attack. On 23.06.2003 the appellant took Sushila to reside in a rented flat at Pappankalan however on the next day i.e. 24.06.2003 they came back to their house in Paschim Vihar. 22. On being questioned during cross-examination about the assets of Sushila, he stated that: ‘It is correct that H.N.390/1, Sector-1, Rohtak is registered in the name of Sushila and the sale deed is in her name. It is correct that before the court of MM Sukhvinder Kaur, an application was moved by the accused for handing over H.N. A-1/83B Paschim Vihar, Janta Flats to his brother Navrang Pal. It is correct that we had objected to the same....It is correct that the said house at the relevant time was in the name of Sushila. It is correct that after the death of Sushila, my mother filed a civil suit at Rohtak against the accused and his brother Navrang pal claiming the property at Rohtak to be of her own...It is correct that the ld MM had handed over the possession of flat at Paschim Vihar to Navrang Pal. On being questioned about the telephone installed at his residence, he stated that: ‘It is correct that in June 2003, the Crl.A.362/08 Page 11 of 40 number of telephone installed at my house was 25282803. It is correct that the said phone was in the name of Harpal. Vol.: But the bills were paid by us.’ 23. Saroj Devi PW-5, the sister of Sushila, deposed that on 25.06.2003 at about 08.00 AM when she called the appellant on his mobile phone having number 9810155414 to talk to him about building material, the appellant told her that he has murdered Sushila and Harshit. She immediately apprised her husband Balbir with the aforesaid fact. Thereafter at about 09.00 AM she and her husband went to the residence of the appellant and Sushila where she saw that Sushila and Harshit were lying dead on a bed. 24. Savita PW-6, the sister of Sushila, deposed on lines similar to Kuldeep PW-4. 25. Ravinder PW-10, deposed that he knew the appellant as he was working with him since last two years prior to the incident. On 24.06.2003 at about 10.30 – 11.00 AM he came to his office in Dwarka and that he and the appellant remained there throughout the day. In the evening he and the appellant had to go to CD Park at Jahangir Puri where an underground tank had to be dug and that their machines had already been installed there. At about 08.00 or 09.00 PM he and the appellant left the office in a car to go to Jahangir Puri. At about 10.30 PM he and the appellant reached Jahangir Puri and remained there for about 3-4 hours. Thereafter he and the appellant went to Singhu Border and Dwarka and Kakrola Mod. At about 05.00 or 05.30 AM the appellant dropped him at Najafgarh and went in the direction of his house at Paschim Vihar. After about one and half hour he received a telephonic call from the appellant informing him that someone has murdered his Crl.A.362/08 Page 12 of 40 i.e. the appellant‟s wife and son and that he is going to PS Paschim Vihar. The appellant told him to come at PS Paschim Vihar. He denied having stated to the police, as recorded in his statement Ex.PW-10/A that in the month of February-March 2003 the appellant bought a flat at Pappankala and started residing there with a woman named Beena or that on 25.06.2003 at about 06.30 AM the appellant gave him a telephonic call and informed him that he has committed the murder of his wife and son. 26. Ms.Bhawna Babbar PW-11, Principal, MR Vivekanand Model School, Dwarka, deposed that on 08.10.2002 a child named Raj Singh s/o Harpal Singh and Veena Singh was admitted in her school and that she has not met the parents of the said child. 27. Manohar Khan PW-12, and B.K. Gupta PW-13, turned hostile and denied having made statements Mark PW-12/A and Mark PW-13/A to the police, Manohar Khan PW- 12 denied having stated before the IO that the appellant along with his wife Veena Singh and son Raj Singh used to reside in a flat in a society complex. B.K.Gupta PW-13 denied having told the investigating officer that he let out a flat to the appellant who used to reside in the same with a lady named Veena Singh and a child. 28. Inspector Jagdish Meena PW-22, deposed that the present case was investigated by him. During the investigation, he obtained the specimen signatures of the appellant and that he did not take the permission of the court in said regard. On being questioned about the presence of Kuldeep and Ram Chander in the police station on 25.06.2003, he stated that: ‘Kuldeep and Ram Chander were present at the PS when I alongwith the police party left Crl.A.362/08 Page 13 of 40 the PS but I cannot say whether they arrived at the PS before the arrival of the accused or after the arrival of the accused.’ 29. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant stated that he was married to Sushila and that they were leading a happy marital life. He used to give financial help to his in-laws as they were very poor and had no source of income to meet their daily expenses. Ram Chander Hooda, a relative of Sushila, used to wield lot of influence in the family of Sushila because of his closeness to his mother-in-law. The son of sister of Sushila, Deepak @ Bittu used to reside with him and Sushila as the relations between her sister-in-law and her husband were strained. He bought a flat bearing Municipal No.A1/86B, DDA Janta Flats, Paschim Vihar in the name of her mother-in-law and got a telephone installed in the said flat. He employed Kuldeep, the brother of his wife, in his firm at the instance of his wife. He gave loan in sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/- to his sister-in-law Savita and his mother-in- law respectively, but they did not return the said amount. His brother-in-law Kuldeep committed forgery and fraudulently withdrew sums of Rs.3,85,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.5,35,000/- from his various bank accounts. His in- laws admitted the factum of forgery committed by Kuldeep and that his father-in-law issued two cheques in sum of Rs.1,65,000/- and Rs.1,41,000/- respectively in his favour in lieu of the amounts fraudulently withdrawn by Kuldeep from his bank accounts and assured to pay the balance amount within a reasonable time. When he and Sushila demanded the balance money from his in-laws, Kuldeep and Ram Chander Hooda threatened Sushila that they would kill all Crl.A.362/08 Page 14 of 40 members of his family. On 22.12.2002 he and Sushila lodged a complaint with the police against his in-laws. After the said incident, the relations between him, Sushila and his in-laws got very strained. On 26.12.2002 Kuldeep fraudulently transferred a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- from his bank account to the account of his father-in-law Ram Kumar. On 08.02.2003 his father-in-law Ram Kumar took a loan of Rs.50,000/- from Sushila. On 24.06.2003 at about 10.30 A.M. he went to his office at Dwarka to attend to his business. At about 06.00 PM, he gave a telephonic call to his wife Sushila and instructed her to hand over a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Balwan and also informed that he would not come home at night as he was very busy. At about 10.30 PM he reached CD Park Jahangir Puri to oversee arrangements of digging up of an underground tank at the said park. Thereafter he along with Ravinder went to Singhu Border and Dwarka. At about 05.30 AM he dropped Ravinder at Najafgarh and went to his house. On entering his house he was shocked to see that his wife and son were lying dead on the bed. He immediately gave a telephonic call to Ravinder and apprised him of the said fact. He further told Ravinder that he is going to PS