LexVIJAY KUMAR ARORA versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 1069 VIJAY KUMAR ARORA v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2009) JANUARY 13, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder of wife - Death due A B to more than 90% burn injuries - Circumstantial evidence - Verbal dying declaration of deceased before five witnesses C implicating the accused - Parents and sister of deceased alleging physical and mental cruelty meted out to deceased by accused - Extra marital relations of accused also proved - Defence case that the death was either suicidal or accidental - Conviction by courts below - Held: Conviction justified - D The facts and circumstances of the case prove that the case was neither suicidal nor accidental, it was homicidal -Physical and mental cruelty against the deceased is proved - Motive of the accused for the murder is also proved - Testimony of the witnesses establish that the deceased made the dying E declaration - These witnesses are truthful - Medical evidence also proves that the case was homicidal - The circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn are proved conclusively - Circumstantial evidence. Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Yardsticks for F reliance on - Discussed. The appellant-accused was prosecuted for causing death of his wife. The prosecution case was that the injured wife who had sustained burn injuries, was G admitted to the hospital by (appellant-accused) at 2.30 a.m. on the fateful night. On the information of the Duty Constable posted at the said hospital, Daily Diary entry was made in the police station and one ASI was deputed. 1069 H 1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R. A He collected MLC of the injured, wherein it was mentioned that she died due to exploding of stove; that her clothes were smelling of kerosene. As per the MLC, the injured was declared unfit to make statement at about 4.30 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. The injured ultimately succumbed B to the burn injuries. Thereafter, father of the deceased gave a written complaint to police, mentioning that his daughter was burnt to death by her husband and mother-in-law and C other family members. He stated that the victim had, at 12.15 p.m., declared before him that the appellant- accused and his mother and his other .relatives had set her on fire. · Case was registered against the appellant-accused D and his mother u/s. 302/34 IPC. Plea of the appellant- accused was that the deceased died as the stove exploded when the deceased had gone to boil the milk for their infant daughter. On hearing the cry, he got up and tried to extinguish the fire to save the deceased. In E the process, he also received burn injuries on his palms. Trial court held that the deceased had neither committed suicide nor received the injuries accidentally, but was set ablaze. The court convicted the appellant- F accused u/s. 302 IPC. However, his mother was acquitted in absence of sufficient evidence against her. High Court dismissed the appeal against the trial court judgment confirming the conviction. Hence the G present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion H lingering on mind may take place of proof. Suspicion, VIJAY KUMAR ARORA v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF1071 DELHI however strong, cannot be allowed to take place of proof A and, therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof. However, it is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual incident, but the B circumstances can not fail. [Para 9] [1083-G-H; 1084-A], 1.2. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of. guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully · C established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle, a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them, on the other. [Para 9] [1084-A-C] 1.3. With regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, D the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.