Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. A. No. 49/1996
% Date of Decision : 21.10.2009
SHIV KUMARI … … … … … … ..APPELLANT
Through : Mr. N.R. Varghese and
Ms. Tessy Verghese,
Advocates.
- V E R S U S -
STATE … … … … … … ... ..RESPONDENT
Through : Mr. Sunil Sharma,
Advocate.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? No
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (ORAL)
“ Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned ” – the suspicions of
1.
the wife about her husband‟s character and the perceived
affection of her husband for another woman has resulted
in a crime in the present case. The appellant has been
convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, „IPC‟) of her husband and
sister-in-law and under Section 307 of the IPC for
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 1 of 12
attempt to commit murder of her son and daughter – all
as a consequence of her belief that her husband was
having an affair with his cousin and his consequent
behaviour with the appellant.
2. The appellant was married to one Shiv Kumar alias
Sukumaran (deceased) and from the wedlock were born
a boy and a girl, namely, Sanjeev and Seema. The
family was residing at D – 80, Karampura, New Delhi
where the sister of the deceased, namely, Chandrika was
also residing. The case of the prosecution is that the
appellant suspected an affair of her husband with his
cousin Shobhna, who was living as a tenant in House No.
C – 125, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi. The appellant was
naturally offended and there were quarrels between
husband and wife as a consequence thereof. On the
fateful night preceding 10.10.1990, Sukumaran is
alleged to have returned home late, at which the
appellant protested resulting in altercation between the
appellant and her husband. Sukumaran is alleged to
have remarked in anger that he would set on fire all the
members of his family. The anger seemed to have
subsided, but kept on burning in the heart of the
appellant. Sukumaran was sleeping in the inner room
while the two children and Chandrika slept on a double-
bed in the outer room where the appellant was sleeping
on the floor. At about 4.30 a.m. on 10.10.1990, the
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 2 of 12
appellant is alleged to have smashed the head of
Chandrika with a „moosli‟ (cylindrical bar of iron used for
crushing spices). This moosli was also used to cause
injuries on the head of her son and daughter whereafter
she assaulted her husband and finally hit herself on the
head.
3. The episode is stated to have been witnessed by a next-
door neighbour, namely, Smt. Anita when she heard the
cries of the daughter of the appellant and rushed to the
flat, but found it bolted from inside. A second neighbour,
Ram Kishore Shukla is stated to have joined in the effort
to open the door and it is the husband of Smt. Anita,
namely, Ram Lakhan who informed the PCR. DD Entry
No. 67/B was made at about 4.50 a.m. by SI Prakash
Chand, who along with SI Sukhdev Singh went to D – 80,
Karampura, New Delhi to investigate the crime. On the
site visit, SI Prakash Chand found that blood was spread
all over with Chandrika, the son and the daughter lying
in injured condition in the inner room. The appellant was
lying in a semi-conscious state and her husband was
lying in a pool of blood in the inner room. In the
meantime, information had been sent to CMO, ESI
Hospital and the ambulance carried Sukumaran to the
said hospital where he was declared brought-dead. The
two children along with Chandrika and the appellant
were taken in the PCR van to DDU Hospital where
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 3 of 12
Chandrika was declared brought-dead, while the other
injured were referred to RML Hospital. Fortunately, both
the children survived. At P.S. Moti Nagar, information
was recorded vide DD No. 67/B that a woman had
murdered her two children and the SHO along with an SI
rushed to the spot. The statement of Smt. Anita was
recorded and sent to the police station for registration of
the FIR. The trial court on filing of the charge-sheet
framed charges against the appellant and the appellant
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined 44 witnesses. Some of them
are formal in nature. The two eye-witnesses, Smt. Anita
and Ram Kishore Shukla were material witnesses, but
unfortunately Smt. Anita expired during trial and could
not be examined. Her husband Ram Lakhan was,
however, examined as PW – 30, who testified that his
wife had told him that the appellant had murdered her
husband and children and he informed the PCR van. The
most material witness for the case of the prosecution is
Ram Kishore Shukla, PW – 25. He deposed that while he
was sleeping in the cot in the gallery outside the room,
he was awakened by the sound of knocking of the door
and found Smt. Anita, who informed him of the cries she
had heard from the house of the appellant. On this,
PW – 25 woke up and watched through a window from
where he could see some light in the room. He saw the
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 4 of 12
appellant striking on the bed with something in her
hand. The endeavour of PW – 25 and Smt. Anita to
knock and persuade the appellant to open the door was
not successful. Some other persons are stated to have
come to the site and the door had to be kicked open
whereupon they saw the gory sight. The appellant was
found striking her own head with the moosli. The moosli
was snatched by PW – 25.
5. We may note at this stage that the son and the
daughter, i.e., PW – 34 and PW – 35 respectively, who
were injured in the occurrence and survived, deposed
that they did not know how they had received the
injuries and, thus, were declared hostile. The motive of
extra-marital affair was sought to be established by
Shoba Rani, PW – 18, the landlady of the cousin Shobhna
of the husband of the appellant and their neighbour,
Thimpy, PW – 24, but they also turned hostile though
PW – 18 did admit that the deceased Sukumaran used to
come in the evening to see Shobhna and he used to stay
up to 9.30 p.m. or 10.00 p.m. The real brother of the
deceased Sukumaran, namely, Surindaram, PW – 9
deposed that Sukumaran and his family were living
happily and that Chandrika had been brought to Delhi by
the appellant herself. The post-mortem on the bodies of
Sukumaran and Chandrika was done by Dr. L.K. Barua,
PW – 28, who examined the weapon of offence being the
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 5 of 12
moosli and expressed the opinion that fatal injuries could
be caused by that weapon.
6. In the statement under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short, „Cr.P.C.‟), the appellant
sought to set up a different story. She denied having
caused any injury to her family members and claimed
that the injuries may have been caused by some
unknown burglars as her husband was lending money
against pledge of gold ornaments. She claimed that the
money and ornaments were missing and that what she
was wearing herself as also what was worn by Chandrika
and her daughter were not found on the persons. She
explained the incident by claiming that she got up at
4.00 a.m. on 10.10.1990 to go to the toilet outside since
there was no attached toilet, but did not put any latch.
On her return after 10 or 12 minutes, she found three
persons standing there and before she could raise an
alarm, she was hit on the head with a heavy substance.
She also produced one witness in her support being one
of her colleagues, who has testified to normal
relationship between the husband and the wife.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the
conviction is based on the circumstances of the case
along with the testimony of the eye-witness, PW – 25,
who was examined. We have perused the impugned
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 6 of 12
judgment and the trial court record and have heard the
submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
8. The plea of learned counsel for the appellant is
predicated on the motive not having been established. It
is pleaded that the prosecution has rested its case on a
presumption of an illicit relationship between the
deceased husband Sukumaran with his cousin Shobhna
and the eye-witness account of PW – 25. Learned
counsel seeks to take advantage of the children having
turned hostile as also the landlady Sobha Rani of the
cousin Shobhna. It is further pleaded that there was no
reason why the sister-in-law Chandrika or the children
should have been attacked by the appellant if she had a
grievance against her husband about any illicit
relationship. The brother of the deceased, PW – 9, has
also deposed to the parties having living a happy life.
Learned counsel also sought to throw doubt on the case
of the prosecution by alleging that the moosli was a foot
long and weighing two kgs. and could not have been
used by the appellant. In case there was an altercation,
there was no reason to suggest as to why the appellant
would wait four to five hours before attacking her
husband. Learned counsel, in addition, seeks to read
into the testimony of PW – 25 an averment that Anita
had told him that the appellant opened the door when
they were knocking while, on the other hand, he has
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 7 of 12
claimed that the door had to be forced open along with
other persons (who were not examined). Anita had
passed away and, thus, her version was not available.
An additional plea raised is that PW – 25 was enimical
towards the family of the appellant and that the theory
of burglary as proposed by the appellant was a plausible
one and, thus, the benefit of doubt should, in any case,
go to the appellant.
9. We, however, find none of the aforesaid arguments
sustainable. The impugned judgment has dealt with all
the issues in a crisp and lucid manner. The question is
not whether the deceased husband of the appellant was
having an extra-marital relation with her cousin
Shobhna, but whether the appellant suspected such an
extra-marital relationship. No doubt, the evidence
towards this motive is weak as the children had become
hostile when they appeared in the Court.
Simultaneously, the theory sought to be propounded by
learned counsel for the appellant of any past enimical
relationship between her deceased husband and PW – 25
is belied by the testimony of the daughter herself, who
has denied such acrimony. PW – 25 has withstood cross-
examination and has, in fact, stated that he had only
once visited the house of the appellant. PW – 18, the
landlady while not sticking by her original story as
recorded in the statement under Section 161 of the
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 8 of 12
Cr.P.C. has conceded in the cross-examination that
Sukumaran did used to visit Shobhna and stayed on till
as late 9.30 p.m. / 10.00 p.m. This statement was not
challenged on behalf of the appellant. The trial court
has, thus, rightly noticed that such late arrival may have
created a suspicion in the mind of the appellant. This,
however, cannot be the basis of the conviction of the
appellant and the most material aspect is the testimony
of PW – 25, who had no axe to grind with the appellant.
10. The trial court in para 18 of the impugned judgment has
discussed the aspect of the testimony of PW – 25, his
ability to observe what was transpiring in the house of
the appellant by reference to the site-plan (Exhibit PW –
44/A) and the scaled site-plan (Exhibit PW – 22/A) and
came to the conclusion that the window in the flat of the
appellant opening towards the common gallery would
give clear view to PW – 25, who was sleeping in the
common gallery. The night bulb in the room has been
noted in the site-plan and the appellant striking her own
head was witnessed by PW – 25 when the door was
broken open and the complete gory sight was observed.
The photographs of the site (Exhibit PW – 23/12 & 13)
show half uprooted latch of the main entrance, which are
in line with the testimony of PW – 25 that the door was
forced open. The plea of learned counsel for the
appellant that PW – 25 had deposed that the appellant
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 9 of 12
had opened the door on the asking of Anita is not a
correct reading of the testimony. PW – 25 has deposed
that Anita was asking the appellant to open the door.
The phrase used is, “ Seema Ki Mumi, Darwaza Kholo ”.
Thus, the reference was to the mother of Seema
(daughter) asking the appellant to open the door and not
that she opened the door. This testimony is also against
the very premise of the statement made by the
appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that she had
left that door open. If the door was open when she
entered and saw three unknown persons standing, there
was no occasion for the door to be closed from inside.
The injury caused to the appellant as per the MLC
(Exhibit PW – 39/C) is contrary to her claim that she was
hit from behind. No sign of burglary was found at the
spot.
11. Sometimes, a word can wound more than an act.
Sukumaran coming back late and then threatening to
erase his own family in a fit of anger seems to have
caused an irreparable wound in the heart of the
appellant, who took the extreme step of not only
attacking her husband, but also her sister-in-law and her
two children. Faced with what she had done, she tried to
take her own life in the same way. The alternate story
set up by the appellant is totally unbelievable on account
of the circumstances discussed above and there is no
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 10 of 12
reason to doubt the eye-witness account of an
independent witness PW – 25. There was no one else in
the house other than the appellant and the two
deceased relatives and the injured children. There is,
thus, only one plausible theory as set up by the
prosecution and proved by the eye-witness account of
PW – 25, despite the endeavour of her family members
to resile from the earlier statement to help her. The
admitted evidence available as to what was said soon
after the incident is available from the testimony of Dr.
Y.K.S. Pundir, PW – 27, who was the CMO of ESI Hospital
and where the appellant worked as a nurse. He has
deposed that at 5.00 a.m., two persons came and
informed him that an employee has caused hurt to her
husband and others. The DD entry recorded on
intimation is to the same effect of the appellant having
committed murder of her family.
12. We, thus, find no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment of the trial court on merits. We may, however,
note that the appellant seems to have completely over-
reacted to a suspicion in her mind. She has suffered
incarceration for more than eight and a half years and is
now a retired lady having some medical problems. Her
sentence was suspended on 19.11.1999 whereafter she
remained on bail till her failure to appear in appeal which
resulted in NBWs being issued and she was finally
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 11 of 12
brought before this Court on 03.09.2009 and sent to
judicial custody as the surety was not willing to be
responsible for her presence in future.
13. The consequence of our order would, thus, be that the
appellant would have to serve the remaining sentence
after being out of custody for a decade, but then the
Legislature gives us no option once the case falls within
the parameters of Section 302 of the IPC, over which we
have no doubt, insofar as causing death of the two
deceased persons is concerned apart from her conviction
under Section 307 of the IPC for causing injuries to her
children.
14. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the appellant to
serve the remaining sentence.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
October 21, 2009 AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.
madan
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 12 of 12
+ Crl. A. No. 49/1996
% Date of Decision : 21.10.2009
SHIV KUMARI … … … … … … ..APPELLANT
Through : Mr. N.R. Varghese and
Ms. Tessy Verghese,
Advocates.
- V E R S U S -
STATE … … … … … … ... ..RESPONDENT
Through : Mr. Sunil Sharma,
Advocate.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? No
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (ORAL)
“ Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned ” – the suspicions of
1.
the wife about her husband‟s character and the perceived
affection of her husband for another woman has resulted
in a crime in the present case. The appellant has been
convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, „IPC‟) of her husband and
sister-in-law and under Section 307 of the IPC for
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 1 of 12
attempt to commit murder of her son and daughter – all
as a consequence of her belief that her husband was
having an affair with his cousin and his consequent
behaviour with the appellant.
2. The appellant was married to one Shiv Kumar alias
Sukumaran (deceased) and from the wedlock were born
a boy and a girl, namely, Sanjeev and Seema. The
family was residing at D – 80, Karampura, New Delhi
where the sister of the deceased, namely, Chandrika was
also residing. The case of the prosecution is that the
appellant suspected an affair of her husband with his
cousin Shobhna, who was living as a tenant in House No.
C – 125, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi. The appellant was
naturally offended and there were quarrels between
husband and wife as a consequence thereof. On the
fateful night preceding 10.10.1990, Sukumaran is
alleged to have returned home late, at which the
appellant protested resulting in altercation between the
appellant and her husband. Sukumaran is alleged to
have remarked in anger that he would set on fire all the
members of his family. The anger seemed to have
subsided, but kept on burning in the heart of the
appellant. Sukumaran was sleeping in the inner room
while the two children and Chandrika slept on a double-
bed in the outer room where the appellant was sleeping
on the floor. At about 4.30 a.m. on 10.10.1990, the
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 2 of 12
appellant is alleged to have smashed the head of
Chandrika with a „moosli‟ (cylindrical bar of iron used for
crushing spices). This moosli was also used to cause
injuries on the head of her son and daughter whereafter
she assaulted her husband and finally hit herself on the
head.
3. The episode is stated to have been witnessed by a next-
door neighbour, namely, Smt. Anita when she heard the
cries of the daughter of the appellant and rushed to the
flat, but found it bolted from inside. A second neighbour,
Ram Kishore Shukla is stated to have joined in the effort
to open the door and it is the husband of Smt. Anita,
namely, Ram Lakhan who informed the PCR. DD Entry
No. 67/B was made at about 4.50 a.m. by SI Prakash
Chand, who along with SI Sukhdev Singh went to D – 80,
Karampura, New Delhi to investigate the crime. On the
site visit, SI Prakash Chand found that blood was spread
all over with Chandrika, the son and the daughter lying
in injured condition in the inner room. The appellant was
lying in a semi-conscious state and her husband was
lying in a pool of blood in the inner room. In the
meantime, information had been sent to CMO, ESI
Hospital and the ambulance carried Sukumaran to the
said hospital where he was declared brought-dead. The
two children along with Chandrika and the appellant
were taken in the PCR van to DDU Hospital where
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 3 of 12
Chandrika was declared brought-dead, while the other
injured were referred to RML Hospital. Fortunately, both
the children survived. At P.S. Moti Nagar, information
was recorded vide DD No. 67/B that a woman had
murdered her two children and the SHO along with an SI
rushed to the spot. The statement of Smt. Anita was
recorded and sent to the police station for registration of
the FIR. The trial court on filing of the charge-sheet
framed charges against the appellant and the appellant
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined 44 witnesses. Some of them
are formal in nature. The two eye-witnesses, Smt. Anita
and Ram Kishore Shukla were material witnesses, but
unfortunately Smt. Anita expired during trial and could
not be examined. Her husband Ram Lakhan was,
however, examined as PW – 30, who testified that his
wife had told him that the appellant had murdered her
husband and children and he informed the PCR van. The
most material witness for the case of the prosecution is
Ram Kishore Shukla, PW – 25. He deposed that while he
was sleeping in the cot in the gallery outside the room,
he was awakened by the sound of knocking of the door
and found Smt. Anita, who informed him of the cries she
had heard from the house of the appellant. On this,
PW – 25 woke up and watched through a window from
where he could see some light in the room. He saw the
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 4 of 12
appellant striking on the bed with something in her
hand. The endeavour of PW – 25 and Smt. Anita to
knock and persuade the appellant to open the door was
not successful. Some other persons are stated to have
come to the site and the door had to be kicked open
whereupon they saw the gory sight. The appellant was
found striking her own head with the moosli. The moosli
was snatched by PW – 25.
5. We may note at this stage that the son and the
daughter, i.e., PW – 34 and PW – 35 respectively, who
were injured in the occurrence and survived, deposed
that they did not know how they had received the
injuries and, thus, were declared hostile. The motive of
extra-marital affair was sought to be established by
Shoba Rani, PW – 18, the landlady of the cousin Shobhna
of the husband of the appellant and their neighbour,
Thimpy, PW – 24, but they also turned hostile though
PW – 18 did admit that the deceased Sukumaran used to
come in the evening to see Shobhna and he used to stay
up to 9.30 p.m. or 10.00 p.m. The real brother of the
deceased Sukumaran, namely, Surindaram, PW – 9
deposed that Sukumaran and his family were living
happily and that Chandrika had been brought to Delhi by
the appellant herself. The post-mortem on the bodies of
Sukumaran and Chandrika was done by Dr. L.K. Barua,
PW – 28, who examined the weapon of offence being the
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 5 of 12
moosli and expressed the opinion that fatal injuries could
be caused by that weapon.
6. In the statement under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short, „Cr.P.C.‟), the appellant
sought to set up a different story. She denied having
caused any injury to her family members and claimed
that the injuries may have been caused by some
unknown burglars as her husband was lending money
against pledge of gold ornaments. She claimed that the
money and ornaments were missing and that what she
was wearing herself as also what was worn by Chandrika
and her daughter were not found on the persons. She
explained the incident by claiming that she got up at
4.00 a.m. on 10.10.1990 to go to the toilet outside since
there was no attached toilet, but did not put any latch.
On her return after 10 or 12 minutes, she found three
persons standing there and before she could raise an
alarm, she was hit on the head with a heavy substance.
She also produced one witness in her support being one
of her colleagues, who has testified to normal
relationship between the husband and the wife.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the
conviction is based on the circumstances of the case
along with the testimony of the eye-witness, PW – 25,
who was examined. We have perused the impugned
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 6 of 12
judgment and the trial court record and have heard the
submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
8. The plea of learned counsel for the appellant is
predicated on the motive not having been established. It
is pleaded that the prosecution has rested its case on a
presumption of an illicit relationship between the
deceased husband Sukumaran with his cousin Shobhna
and the eye-witness account of PW – 25. Learned
counsel seeks to take advantage of the children having
turned hostile as also the landlady Sobha Rani of the
cousin Shobhna. It is further pleaded that there was no
reason why the sister-in-law Chandrika or the children
should have been attacked by the appellant if she had a
grievance against her husband about any illicit
relationship. The brother of the deceased, PW – 9, has
also deposed to the parties having living a happy life.
Learned counsel also sought to throw doubt on the case
of the prosecution by alleging that the moosli was a foot
long and weighing two kgs. and could not have been
used by the appellant. In case there was an altercation,
there was no reason to suggest as to why the appellant
would wait four to five hours before attacking her
husband. Learned counsel, in addition, seeks to read
into the testimony of PW – 25 an averment that Anita
had told him that the appellant opened the door when
they were knocking while, on the other hand, he has
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 7 of 12
claimed that the door had to be forced open along with
other persons (who were not examined). Anita had
passed away and, thus, her version was not available.
An additional plea raised is that PW – 25 was enimical
towards the family of the appellant and that the theory
of burglary as proposed by the appellant was a plausible
one and, thus, the benefit of doubt should, in any case,
go to the appellant.
9. We, however, find none of the aforesaid arguments
sustainable. The impugned judgment has dealt with all
the issues in a crisp and lucid manner. The question is
not whether the deceased husband of the appellant was
having an extra-marital relation with her cousin
Shobhna, but whether the appellant suspected such an
extra-marital relationship. No doubt, the evidence
towards this motive is weak as the children had become
hostile when they appeared in the Court.
Simultaneously, the theory sought to be propounded by
learned counsel for the appellant of any past enimical
relationship between her deceased husband and PW – 25
is belied by the testimony of the daughter herself, who
has denied such acrimony. PW – 25 has withstood cross-
examination and has, in fact, stated that he had only
once visited the house of the appellant. PW – 18, the
landlady while not sticking by her original story as
recorded in the statement under Section 161 of the
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 8 of 12
Cr.P.C. has conceded in the cross-examination that
Sukumaran did used to visit Shobhna and stayed on till
as late 9.30 p.m. / 10.00 p.m. This statement was not
challenged on behalf of the appellant. The trial court
has, thus, rightly noticed that such late arrival may have
created a suspicion in the mind of the appellant. This,
however, cannot be the basis of the conviction of the
appellant and the most material aspect is the testimony
of PW – 25, who had no axe to grind with the appellant.
10. The trial court in para 18 of the impugned judgment has
discussed the aspect of the testimony of PW – 25, his
ability to observe what was transpiring in the house of
the appellant by reference to the site-plan (Exhibit PW –
44/A) and the scaled site-plan (Exhibit PW – 22/A) and
came to the conclusion that the window in the flat of the
appellant opening towards the common gallery would
give clear view to PW – 25, who was sleeping in the
common gallery. The night bulb in the room has been
noted in the site-plan and the appellant striking her own
head was witnessed by PW – 25 when the door was
broken open and the complete gory sight was observed.
The photographs of the site (Exhibit PW – 23/12 & 13)
show half uprooted latch of the main entrance, which are
in line with the testimony of PW – 25 that the door was
forced open. The plea of learned counsel for the
appellant that PW – 25 had deposed that the appellant
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 9 of 12
had opened the door on the asking of Anita is not a
correct reading of the testimony. PW – 25 has deposed
that Anita was asking the appellant to open the door.
The phrase used is, “ Seema Ki Mumi, Darwaza Kholo ”.
Thus, the reference was to the mother of Seema
(daughter) asking the appellant to open the door and not
that she opened the door. This testimony is also against
the very premise of the statement made by the
appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that she had
left that door open. If the door was open when she
entered and saw three unknown persons standing, there
was no occasion for the door to be closed from inside.
The injury caused to the appellant as per the MLC
(Exhibit PW – 39/C) is contrary to her claim that she was
hit from behind. No sign of burglary was found at the
spot.
11. Sometimes, a word can wound more than an act.
Sukumaran coming back late and then threatening to
erase his own family in a fit of anger seems to have
caused an irreparable wound in the heart of the
appellant, who took the extreme step of not only
attacking her husband, but also her sister-in-law and her
two children. Faced with what she had done, she tried to
take her own life in the same way. The alternate story
set up by the appellant is totally unbelievable on account
of the circumstances discussed above and there is no
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 10 of 12
reason to doubt the eye-witness account of an
independent witness PW – 25. There was no one else in
the house other than the appellant and the two
deceased relatives and the injured children. There is,
thus, only one plausible theory as set up by the
prosecution and proved by the eye-witness account of
PW – 25, despite the endeavour of her family members
to resile from the earlier statement to help her. The
admitted evidence available as to what was said soon
after the incident is available from the testimony of Dr.
Y.K.S. Pundir, PW – 27, who was the CMO of ESI Hospital
and where the appellant worked as a nurse. He has
deposed that at 5.00 a.m., two persons came and
informed him that an employee has caused hurt to her
husband and others. The DD entry recorded on
intimation is to the same effect of the appellant having
committed murder of her family.
12. We, thus, find no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment of the trial court on merits. We may, however,
note that the appellant seems to have completely over-
reacted to a suspicion in her mind. She has suffered
incarceration for more than eight and a half years and is
now a retired lady having some medical problems. Her
sentence was suspended on 19.11.1999 whereafter she
remained on bail till her failure to appear in appeal which
resulted in NBWs being issued and she was finally
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 11 of 12
brought before this Court on 03.09.2009 and sent to
judicial custody as the surety was not willing to be
responsible for her presence in future.
13. The consequence of our order would, thus, be that the
appellant would have to serve the remaining sentence
after being out of custody for a decade, but then the
Legislature gives us no option once the case falls within
the parameters of Section 302 of the IPC, over which we
have no doubt, insofar as causing death of the two
deceased persons is concerned apart from her conviction
under Section 307 of the IPC for causing injuries to her
children.
14. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the appellant to
serve the remaining sentence.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
October 21, 2009 AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.
madan
Crl. A. No. 49 of 1996 Page No. 12 of 12