Case: State through C.B.I Vs. Mahender Singh Dahiya

2. Before the trial court, the prosecution had succeeded in proving that Dr. Mahender Singh Dahiya (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent) had committed the murder of his wife Namita, a British national of Indian origin, on the intervening night of 27th/28thMay, 1979. The murder was allegedly committed on the very first night of the honeymoon in room No. 415, Hotel Arenberg, Brussels, Belgium. It is further the case of the prosecution that after committing the murder, the respondent had dismembered and extensively mutilated the body of the victim. He subsequently disposed of the body parts at different places in the city of Brussels. This was done with the intention of destroying the evidence of the murder3. The aforesaid conviction and sentence were challenged before the Delhi High Court by way of an appeal. The High Court upon re-appraisal of the entire evidence accepted the appeal and acquitted the respondent of both the charges. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, the State through CBI, New Delhi is in appeal before this Court.4. The High Court notices at the very outset of the impugned judgment that this is an unusual case and perhaps the first of its kind. We are of the opinion that the High Court had good reasons for making such a statement. The peculiarity which makes this murder case rather rare is not only the ghastly and the brutal manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed but also the complexities created by a number of unique factors. The accused respondent herein is an Indian. He is an Orthopedic Surgeon. The alleged victim of the crime Namita, though of Indian origin was a British citizen. She had grown up in England since she was 5 or 6 years old. The offence was allegedly committed in a third country, i.e., Belgium. Consequently, the investigation of the case was conducted in three different countries. Initially, the Belgium authorities investigated the crime. Thereafter, the Scotland Yard in London also participated in the investigation. It was concluded in India. The investigation in Belgium and U.K. had been conducted according to the law and procedure of those countries. This led to its own difficulties. Initially, the Belgium authorities had requested for extradition of the respondent for his trial in Belgium. Later, the request was abandoned by the Belgium authorities. The case was ultimately investigated by the CBI and the charge sheet was presented on 30th July, 1985. At the trial, a large number of witnesses being foreign nationals were examined on commission either in Belgium or in England. This further complicated the issues. Ultimately, the trial court convicted the respondent on 1st March, 1999, i.e., twenty years after the alleged commission of the crime.5. We may now notice some of the undisputed facts, which are necessary for appreciation of a peculiar situation in which the alleged offence is said to have been committed. The respondent belongs to a village called Turkpur, District Sonepat, Haryana. He obtained his MBBS degree from Punjab University, Rohtak in 1973 and M.S. Degree in (Orthopedic) from A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi in December, 1978. He got himself registered with the Punjab Medical Council.6. Jagdish Singh Lochab (PW-48) a native of Punjab had migrated to England in 1962. He was settled there with his family viz. wife Smt. Chandermukhi (PWUK-1), three daughters namely Namita, Amita Lochab (PWUK-2) and Shiela (PWUK-3) and two sons. Namita born in India in May, 1956 had acquired British citizenship. During 1978, Namita was working as accounts trainee with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), London. In July-August, 1978, Jagdish Singh Lochab (PW-48) visited India to find suitable boy for marriage with his daughter Namita. They found the respondent to be a suitable match for their daughter. After making the selection of the proposed groom, Namita was called from London. The engagement ceremony was held between the respondent and Namita on 31st August, 1978 at village Turkpur followed by a marriage ceremony according to Hindu rites and customs at Delhi on 5th September, 1978. However, as per the understanding of the parents of Namita, the said marriage was to be treated as engagement only as there would have to be a registered marriage in London subsequently. Therefore, the marriage was not consummated and Namita along with her parents returned to London on the night of 5th September, 19787. As arranged, the respondent reached London on 27th February, 1979. He started living with his in-laws at 22, Friars Way, Action, W3, London. At the same time, he pursued his medical studies. He got himself registered as a post graduate student at Royal National Institute of Orthopedics, London on 12th March, 1979. Jagdish Singh Lochab (PW-48) purchased a house (No. 312, Horn Lane Act, London) in the joint name of Namita and respondent valued 20,000 UK Pounds. He paid 10,000 UK Pounds, the remaining price was to be paid in installments. A joint bank account No.91053728 was also opened in the name of Namita and the respondent at Midland Bank, Acton High Street, London and two cheque books, one each in the name of Namita and the respondent were issued by the bank8. On 5th or 6th April, 1979, 18th birthday party of Sheila, younger sister of Namita was celebrated where all the friends (boys & girls) of the three daughters of PW-48 including UK-23 Philips David Abbey, a colleague of Namita were invited in the party. Mr. and Mrs. Lochab left the house at about 7.30 pm and returned at about 1.30 a.m. in the morning. On their return the accused started abusing the whole family, he was aggressive and alleged Namita to be characterless, as she had been dancing and mixing with boys. Namita was upset with the behaviour of the accused and was crying. She told her mother that it did not seem possible for her to spend the rest of her life with the accused. The next morning the whole family sat together along with the accused and discussed about the incident of the previous night. When the accused was told that Namita wants to cancel the engagement, he apologized for his conduct in the previous night. During the night of 10th April,1979 at 1.30 a.m. Namita wrote a letter (exhibit CW-13, Volume-9, page 286) to the accused addressing him as Mahendra, suggesting that wedding should be cancelled in the month of May, until both of them were ready for the same. She advised him to get some self confidence to prove himself responsible enough to look after a wife and a home. In reply, the accused wrote a letter, to Namita addressing her as Nita, which is exhibit CW-14 (Vol.9, page 290)9. On 26th May. 1979, the marriage between Mahender and Namita was registered at the Office of the Registrar of Marriages, London. It was followed by a reception the same evening at the Phoenix Restaurant, London. A honeymoon trip for the newly wedded couple was arranged for five days commencing from 27th May, 1979 to certain European countries through Cosmos Tours, London. In the morning of 27th May, 1979, Mahender and Namita left for the honeymoon trip. They were seen off by her family at Victoria Railway Station, London. They carried two suit cases, one of red colour belonging to Namita and the other of brown colour belonging to Mahender containing their clothes and other articles. The group of tourists including Namita and the respondent reached Brussels at about 6.30 p.m. the same evening. All the tourists in the group stayed at the fourth floor of Hotel Arenberg, Brussels. Mahender and Namita checked into room no. 415. After some time they went for a short sight seeing tour `Brussels by Night. They returned to the hotel at about 11.00 p.m. and retired to their room10. Hereafter, there are two versions, one according to the appellant and another according to the respondent. The prosecution version is that the respondent had strangled his wife Namita to death in their hotel room. He had then proceeded to dismember and mutilate parts of her body which were subsequently disposed of in the rubbish container and the lake. The respondent entered UK on the same day, i.e., 29th May, 1979 and withdrew an amount of 200 UK Pounds from the joint account he had with his wife bearing Account No. 91053728 from the Midland Bank, London. In the afternoon of 30th May, 1979, after withdrawing the money from the bank, he went to the house of his in-laws. He was carrying two suitcases. He, however, could not give any satisfactory explanation to his in-laws about the whereabouts of his wife Namita. He rather falsely stated to them that she had abandoned him at Brussels on the morning of 28th May, 1979, carrying away her clothes and money. The respondent wanted to get away from the house as soon as possible without giving any explanation as to what happened in Brussels. He was, however, restrained by the family members with the assistance of a neighbour. Thereafter, Namitas father Jagdish Singh Lochab (PW-48) took the respondent to Acton police station to lodge a missing persons report about the disappearance of Namita. On the way back from the police station along with his father- in-law, the respondent escaped by jumping onto a running bus. Thereafter, he stayed in the YMCA, London without disclosing his identity/particulars. He left for India via Frankfurt, West Germany and reached Delhi on 6th June, 1979. He afterwards, remained underground and absconding and could not be traced in spite of various efforts until 9th May, 1983. He was hiding in a village in District Lalitpur, U.P., where he had taken up the practice of general medicine under the fake name of Dr. M. Singh

Court's reasoning:
We are of the considered opinion that the High Court was not correct in drawing an adverse inference against the respondent because he remained in hiding till he was arrested by the CBI. In this case, the subsequent conduct of the appellant is not consistent with the expected conduct of a guilty person. If the respondent had any intention of absconding, he could have done so initially after the alleged murder of his wife. He had no need to come back to England. Having come back he need not have gone directly to the house of his in-laws. Not only did he come back to England, he carried with him the red suitcase containing some of Namitas clothes. According to the prosecution, this suitcase had contained blood stains which had belonged to Namita. It is inconceivable that a person having a guilty mind would have been carrying such an incriminating article back to the house of his in- laws. As noticed above, he went back to India apprehending danger from his father-in-law and family. This apprehension of danger to his life at the instance of his father-in-law continued even in India. The fact that an attempt was made on his life had been duly recorded by the trial court. The respondent had been petitioning the police authorities as well as the Home Minister and the Prime Minister of India seeking protection. Evading arrest would certainly be an illegal act but it does not lead to the only conclusion that the respondent was hiding due to a guilty conscienceaccording to the prosecution, dismemberment of the body parts was performed either with surgical instruments or with the aid of a butter knife and a fork. However, at the trial, the prosecution did not produce any evidence with regard to the recovery of any weapon of offence. Nor any weapon was produced in court, at the trial. Even according to the sequence given by the prosecution, it would have been impossible for the respondent to procure the surgical instruments in the city of Brussels during the night intervening 27th/28th May, 1979. It is a matter of record that the entire group of tourists did not return back to the hotel till after 11 O clock during the tour Brussels by Night. Namita was with him throughout the tour. Equally he could not have carried the surgical instruments with him without the same being noticed at the customs barriers. This apart, prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the respondent had any intention of committing the murder of his wife at the commencement of the honeymoon trip. Even Namitas parents did not entertain any such apprehensions. It is also the prosecution case that something went amiss in room no. 415 during the night of 27th/28th May, 1979. Therefore, it makes the possession of surgical instruments by the respondent on the fateful night in Brussels virtually impossible. We are also unable to accept that such severance of the body parts could possibly be achieved by use of a simple butter knife. It is simply too farfetched a notion to be taken seriouslyThe conclusions recorded by the High Court are fully justified by the evidence on record. We are, therefore, unable to agree with Mr. Malhotra that there has been any miscarriage of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case