Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Judgment: 13 August, 2009.
+ CRL.A.70/2001
AMAR NATH ...Appellant
Through: Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate.
Versus
STATE …Respondent
Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? Yes
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)
1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.1.2001,
the appellant has been convicted for the offence of having
murdered Laxmi Devi, his mother. The offence being
th th
committed in the intervening night of 15 and 16 January,
1996.
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 1 of 10
2. A perusal of the impugned decision shows that with
reference to the testimony of Omvati PW-1, Kanta Devi PW-
3 and Dinanath PW-5, learned Trial Judge has returned a
finding that the appellant had a motive to kill his mother.
With reference to the testimony of PW-3 and PW-5, it has
been held that the evidence establishes that the appellant
and his deceased mother were the only inhabitants of the
first floor of A-92, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. PW-5, the brother of
the appellant used to reside on the ground floor thereof.
The appellant and his mother were last seen on the first
floor of house no.A-92, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi and next day the
appellant absconded when the dead body of his mother was
found.
2. With reference to the post mortem report Ex.PW-2/A,
the learned trial judge has returned a finding that the same
evidences an attempt to burn the unfortunate lady.
Kerosene was sprinkled on her and she was set on fire.
3. The post mortem report Ex.PW-2/A records the
following:
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 2 of 10
“Both lower limbs were separated from the body
due to intense heat and charring. Right upper
limb was lying separated at the elbow level. Arm
bones and forearm bones were charred on the
right side. The web skin between fingers showed
slight blistering with moist pace. Whole body
showed muscle to bone deep burns. Scalp hair
were almost completely burnt. There was no
evidence of Kerosene oil smell. A piece of cloth
was found on the oral cavity. The cloth was
partly out of the mouth and was burnt and the
inner part showed sliva and blood stains which
was removed and preserved.
On internal examination skull bones were
charred on the surface. Brain showed roasting.
Traches contained sooty streak. Lungs were
congested and showed charring on the surface.
Abdomen organs showed roasting.”
4. It has not been disputed that body of Laxmi Devi was
seen extensively burnt in the morning of 16.1.1996 at
around 6 AM and the place where it was seen was the first
floor of house No.A-92, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. The only issue
which needs our attention to be drawn in the appeal is,
whether the circumstances of the case unerringly point the
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 3 of 10
finger of guilt against the appellant. Needless to state,
nobody claims to be an eye witness.
5. Omvati PW-1, resides at A-53, Gulabi Bagh. She
deposed on 31.10.96. She stated that she was the Secretary
of Rashtriya Ekta Manch and the deceased Laxmi Devi was
the member of the said Ekta Manch. She deposed that
Laxmi Devi died about ten months back and two days prior
to her death she had met her in her house. Laxmi Devi told
her that her son Amar Nath i.e. the accused was demanding
papers of the house in which she and Amar Nath used to
live. Laxmi Devi told her that Amar Nath was a dead
drunker and was of bad character and for said reason
Laxmi Devi was fearing that he may misuse the papers of
the house. Laxmi Devi also told her that Amar Nath had
even threatened to kill her if she had not handed over the
papers of the house to him. She deposed that Laxmi Devi
had not lodged a report with the police. She did not do so
because Amar Nath was her son. When she learnt that
Laxmi Devi had died due to burns, she went to her house
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 4 of 10
and saw her lying dead in the burnt condition in the
verandah of the first floor of her house.
6. Kanta Devi PW-3 is the sister of Amar Nath. She
deposed that she had four brothers. Dinanath PW-5 was the
youngest and was residing in house No.A-92, Gulabi Bagh
at the time of incident. Accused Amar Nath also used to
reside in the said house; that Amar Nath and her mother
Laxmi Devi used to live on the first floor and Dinanath used
to live on the ground floor. Dinanath used to bear the
expenses of her mother. She met her mother on the night
of 15.1.1996 and a quarrel had taken place in the house.
Her mother told her that Amar Nath should be either given
his share in the property or money in lieu thereof. She left
her mother’s house at 8 PM or 8.15 PM and learnt on the
next morning that her mother had been burnt. On being
cross-examined, Kanta Devi stated that in the night when
she was in the house of her mother, she saw Amar Nath in a
drunken state and that in the past also there used to be
quarrels between the family members regarding the
detention of property. We may note that Kanta Devi has
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 5 of 10
tried to give a slight twist to the matter by stating that the
wife of her brother Kailash used to initiate the quarrel and
that Amar Nath never used to participate in the quarrel.
7. Dinanath PW-5 deposed that he used to reside on the
ground floor of house No.A-92, Gulabi Bagh and the
accused along with his mother used to reside on the first
floor thereof. The house was purchased by funds provided
by him and purchase was by virtue of an agreement and a
power of attorney. The agreement to sell was in the name
of his mother. The power of attorney was in favour of the
appellant. Since he i.e. Dinanath was in government
service it was not possible for him to visit various municipal
authorities in connection with the affairs of the house and
for said reason it was decided that the power of attorney be
taken in the name of the appellant. He deposed that the
appellant used to repeatedly demand from his mother that
the papers pertaining to the property be handed over to
him. She refused to do so. On 15.1.1996, when he
returned from his office at 8 PM, as per his usual practice,
he went to the first floor to see his mother. The appellant
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 6 of 10
was present and was demanding papers of the property.
He took the matter in routine. He went up again to first
floor at 11 PM and saw the appellant and his mother on the
first floor. He returned. His mother bolted the door from
inside. He went down stairs and slept. The following
morning at 6 AM, as per his usual practice he went to the
first floor and saw his mother in a burnt condition and he
raised an alarm. People gathered. Police arrived and he
took the body of his mother to the mortuary.
8. As against the testimony of Kanta Devi pertaining to
the presence of the appellant in the house where the crime
was committed remaining unchallenged, Dinanath was
challenged with respect to his testimony and the appellant
being seen by him in the house. On being cross examined,
Dinanath stated as under:
“Whenever Amar Nath used to come to our
house, my mother used to cook his food also.
Amar Nath was residing separately. It is
correct that I stated on 7.8.98 that accused was
residing with my mother on the first floor of our
house. By this statement I meant to convey that
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 7 of 10
as and when accused came to the said house he
lived with my mother. I do not know Uttam
Nagar’s address of accused Amar Nath.
Accused Amar Nath sometimes used to come to
our house twice a week and sometimes he never
came for full one week.”
9. Omvati PW-1 has no axe to grind in the matter. We
see no reason as to why Omvati would depose falsely.
Similarly, PW-3 who is the sister of the appellant would
have no motive to depose falsely.
10. PW-3 has categorically deposed that the appellant was
present in the first floor of the house in the night of
15.1.1996. She has categorically deposed that the
appellant and his mother used to live on the first floor of
the house. She has categorically deposed that her brother
Dinanath used to live on the ground floor. She has
categorically deposed that a quarrel had taken place in the
house. No doubt, on being cross-examined, she has slightly
dented by stating that the wife of her brother Kailash was
one who used to demand share in the property. The same is
inconsequential for the reason, PW-3 has not deposed that
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 8 of 10
when she was present in house of her mother either Kailash
or the wife of Kailash were present. It is apparent that
while speaking the truth, out of some residual love for her
brother PW-3 has attempted to provide an escape route to
him. But, what is clinching is her testimony that the
appellant used to live with the deceased on the first floor.
Only they were the two residents of the first floor and none
else. Her testimony also clinches the issue that the
appellant was on the first floor of the house and was dead
drunk, in the night when her mother was killed.
11. It is apparent that the twin circumstances of a motive
and the appellant and the deceased last seen in the
company of each other on the first floor of the house stand
fully established.
12. There is no evidence of any outsider entering the
house and committing the crime.
13. The last seen theory requires the appellant to explain
the circumstances under which his mother died or else he
should own the guilt.
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 9 of 10
14. On the evidence on record, we are satisfied with the
finding returned by the learned Trial Judge.
15. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is
dismissed. The appellant has been released on bail. His
bail bond and surety bond are canceled.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(INDERMEET KAUR)
JUDGE
August 13, 2009
rb
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 10 of 10
th
% Date of Judgment: 13 August, 2009.
+ CRL.A.70/2001
AMAR NATH ...Appellant
Through: Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate.
Versus
STATE …Respondent
Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? Yes
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)
1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.1.2001,
the appellant has been convicted for the offence of having
murdered Laxmi Devi, his mother. The offence being
th th
committed in the intervening night of 15 and 16 January,
1996.
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 1 of 10
2. A perusal of the impugned decision shows that with
reference to the testimony of Omvati PW-1, Kanta Devi PW-
3 and Dinanath PW-5, learned Trial Judge has returned a
finding that the appellant had a motive to kill his mother.
With reference to the testimony of PW-3 and PW-5, it has
been held that the evidence establishes that the appellant
and his deceased mother were the only inhabitants of the
first floor of A-92, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. PW-5, the brother of
the appellant used to reside on the ground floor thereof.
The appellant and his mother were last seen on the first
floor of house no.A-92, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi and next day the
appellant absconded when the dead body of his mother was
found.
2. With reference to the post mortem report Ex.PW-2/A,
the learned trial judge has returned a finding that the same
evidences an attempt to burn the unfortunate lady.
Kerosene was sprinkled on her and she was set on fire.
3. The post mortem report Ex.PW-2/A records the
following:
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 2 of 10
“Both lower limbs were separated from the body
due to intense heat and charring. Right upper
limb was lying separated at the elbow level. Arm
bones and forearm bones were charred on the
right side. The web skin between fingers showed
slight blistering with moist pace. Whole body
showed muscle to bone deep burns. Scalp hair
were almost completely burnt. There was no
evidence of Kerosene oil smell. A piece of cloth
was found on the oral cavity. The cloth was
partly out of the mouth and was burnt and the
inner part showed sliva and blood stains which
was removed and preserved.
On internal examination skull bones were
charred on the surface. Brain showed roasting.
Traches contained sooty streak. Lungs were
congested and showed charring on the surface.
Abdomen organs showed roasting.”
4. It has not been disputed that body of Laxmi Devi was
seen extensively burnt in the morning of 16.1.1996 at
around 6 AM and the place where it was seen was the first
floor of house No.A-92, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. The only issue
which needs our attention to be drawn in the appeal is,
whether the circumstances of the case unerringly point the
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 3 of 10
finger of guilt against the appellant. Needless to state,
nobody claims to be an eye witness.
5. Omvati PW-1, resides at A-53, Gulabi Bagh. She
deposed on 31.10.96. She stated that she was the Secretary
of Rashtriya Ekta Manch and the deceased Laxmi Devi was
the member of the said Ekta Manch. She deposed that
Laxmi Devi died about ten months back and two days prior
to her death she had met her in her house. Laxmi Devi told
her that her son Amar Nath i.e. the accused was demanding
papers of the house in which she and Amar Nath used to
live. Laxmi Devi told her that Amar Nath was a dead
drunker and was of bad character and for said reason
Laxmi Devi was fearing that he may misuse the papers of
the house. Laxmi Devi also told her that Amar Nath had
even threatened to kill her if she had not handed over the
papers of the house to him. She deposed that Laxmi Devi
had not lodged a report with the police. She did not do so
because Amar Nath was her son. When she learnt that
Laxmi Devi had died due to burns, she went to her house
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 4 of 10
and saw her lying dead in the burnt condition in the
verandah of the first floor of her house.
6. Kanta Devi PW-3 is the sister of Amar Nath. She
deposed that she had four brothers. Dinanath PW-5 was the
youngest and was residing in house No.A-92, Gulabi Bagh
at the time of incident. Accused Amar Nath also used to
reside in the said house; that Amar Nath and her mother
Laxmi Devi used to live on the first floor and Dinanath used
to live on the ground floor. Dinanath used to bear the
expenses of her mother. She met her mother on the night
of 15.1.1996 and a quarrel had taken place in the house.
Her mother told her that Amar Nath should be either given
his share in the property or money in lieu thereof. She left
her mother’s house at 8 PM or 8.15 PM and learnt on the
next morning that her mother had been burnt. On being
cross-examined, Kanta Devi stated that in the night when
she was in the house of her mother, she saw Amar Nath in a
drunken state and that in the past also there used to be
quarrels between the family members regarding the
detention of property. We may note that Kanta Devi has
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 5 of 10
tried to give a slight twist to the matter by stating that the
wife of her brother Kailash used to initiate the quarrel and
that Amar Nath never used to participate in the quarrel.
7. Dinanath PW-5 deposed that he used to reside on the
ground floor of house No.A-92, Gulabi Bagh and the
accused along with his mother used to reside on the first
floor thereof. The house was purchased by funds provided
by him and purchase was by virtue of an agreement and a
power of attorney. The agreement to sell was in the name
of his mother. The power of attorney was in favour of the
appellant. Since he i.e. Dinanath was in government
service it was not possible for him to visit various municipal
authorities in connection with the affairs of the house and
for said reason it was decided that the power of attorney be
taken in the name of the appellant. He deposed that the
appellant used to repeatedly demand from his mother that
the papers pertaining to the property be handed over to
him. She refused to do so. On 15.1.1996, when he
returned from his office at 8 PM, as per his usual practice,
he went to the first floor to see his mother. The appellant
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 6 of 10
was present and was demanding papers of the property.
He took the matter in routine. He went up again to first
floor at 11 PM and saw the appellant and his mother on the
first floor. He returned. His mother bolted the door from
inside. He went down stairs and slept. The following
morning at 6 AM, as per his usual practice he went to the
first floor and saw his mother in a burnt condition and he
raised an alarm. People gathered. Police arrived and he
took the body of his mother to the mortuary.
8. As against the testimony of Kanta Devi pertaining to
the presence of the appellant in the house where the crime
was committed remaining unchallenged, Dinanath was
challenged with respect to his testimony and the appellant
being seen by him in the house. On being cross examined,
Dinanath stated as under:
“Whenever Amar Nath used to come to our
house, my mother used to cook his food also.
Amar Nath was residing separately. It is
correct that I stated on 7.8.98 that accused was
residing with my mother on the first floor of our
house. By this statement I meant to convey that
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 7 of 10
as and when accused came to the said house he
lived with my mother. I do not know Uttam
Nagar’s address of accused Amar Nath.
Accused Amar Nath sometimes used to come to
our house twice a week and sometimes he never
came for full one week.”
9. Omvati PW-1 has no axe to grind in the matter. We
see no reason as to why Omvati would depose falsely.
Similarly, PW-3 who is the sister of the appellant would
have no motive to depose falsely.
10. PW-3 has categorically deposed that the appellant was
present in the first floor of the house in the night of
15.1.1996. She has categorically deposed that the
appellant and his mother used to live on the first floor of
the house. She has categorically deposed that her brother
Dinanath used to live on the ground floor. She has
categorically deposed that a quarrel had taken place in the
house. No doubt, on being cross-examined, she has slightly
dented by stating that the wife of her brother Kailash was
one who used to demand share in the property. The same is
inconsequential for the reason, PW-3 has not deposed that
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 8 of 10
when she was present in house of her mother either Kailash
or the wife of Kailash were present. It is apparent that
while speaking the truth, out of some residual love for her
brother PW-3 has attempted to provide an escape route to
him. But, what is clinching is her testimony that the
appellant used to live with the deceased on the first floor.
Only they were the two residents of the first floor and none
else. Her testimony also clinches the issue that the
appellant was on the first floor of the house and was dead
drunk, in the night when her mother was killed.
11. It is apparent that the twin circumstances of a motive
and the appellant and the deceased last seen in the
company of each other on the first floor of the house stand
fully established.
12. There is no evidence of any outsider entering the
house and committing the crime.
13. The last seen theory requires the appellant to explain
the circumstances under which his mother died or else he
should own the guilt.
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 9 of 10
14. On the evidence on record, we are satisfied with the
finding returned by the learned Trial Judge.
15. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is
dismissed. The appellant has been released on bail. His
bail bond and surety bond are canceled.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(INDERMEET KAUR)
JUDGE
August 13, 2009
rb
Crl. A. No.70/2001 Page 10 of 10