HIGH COURT OF DELHI  CRL.A. No. 13/2013
VIKAS GUPTA @ BOBBY  Vs  STATE

CORAM
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

• Murder By the instant appeal, the appellant assails the judgment passed in SC arising out of FIR, holding the appellant guilty of commission of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC with which he was charged as well as the order awarding sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/and in default of payment of fine, ordering simple imprisonment for six months Even the investigating officer had informed the doctor that the “deceased had consumed an unknown substance after a quarrel with her husband at home” On a conjoint readings of the DD No.39B; the MLC; the marginal note on the post mortem report, which is corroborated by the first statement of Master ‘M’, and statement of the daughter of the deceased it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had duped the deceased into consuming a poisonous substance more specifically Organo – phosphorous pesticide (Dichlor VOS) leading to her death — The judgment as well as the order of sentence awarding sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/and in default of payment of fine, ordering simple imprisonment for six months are not sustainable and are hereby set aside and quashed.

Relevant Paras :

39. The MLC records this very disclosure by Himanshu, son of the deceased to the doctor. The marginal note on the post mortem report Ex.PW-15/A also states that the history disclosed by the investigating officer was that the deceased had consumed some unknown substance after quarrel with her husband at home. No allegation was made that the same had been offered to her by the husband.
40. The marginal note on the post mortem report and the MLC shows that the deceased had been rushed to hospital by her husband, the present appellant with the alleged history of ingestion of some unknown substance. The appellant alleges that all these circumstances proved on the record establish that the appellant could not have been held guilty for commission of the offence with which he was charged. We find substance in these submissions.
41. We extract hereunder the material explanation given by the appellant when the evidence regarding the commission of the offence was put to him under Section 313 of the CrPC:

“Q.17 It is further in evidence against you that PW-2 Himanshu Gupta, your son and PW-3 Baby Samishtha, your daughter, both have deposed that you used to drink daily and pick up quarrel with deceased Bharti Gupta. They have also stated that on 20.09.2009, their mother had gone to market to purchase vegetables and she became late and when she returned, you were under influence of liquor and started abusing her and beating her. What you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.
Q.18 ItisfurtherinevidenceagainstyouthatPW2& 3 have also stated that you continued beating Bharti till next day i.e. 21.09.09. you again started quarrel with Bharti and at around 2:15 p.m. Their mother being fed up with you uttered words that “isse acha hai ki main mar jaon” on which you gave insecticide (used for killing cockroaches) mixed in water to their mother and since said insecticide (used for killing cockroaches) mixed in water to their mother and since said insecticide after mixing with water was still transparent like water, she consumed the same as a result of which jhag started coming out of her moth and she started vomiting. What you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. I never gave any insecticide to Bharti at any point of time. Rather at the time when she consumed insecticide, I was not present at home.
I came at the spot later on and on finding Bharti in the intoxicated condition, I rushed her to hospital for her treatment. The allegations levelled against me is false and totally baseless. Deceased Bharti was fed up and used to remain tense as my daughter Kajal was not being given by my father-in-law and mother-in- law as she was very lucky to them. My wife used to make various request to them to return her to us as she might be very lucky for us but they were adamant not to return her. On 20.09.09, my wife went to her parental home to take our daughter kajal being very lucky but they flatly refused and they scolded her not to come again for this purpose. I used to work with my inlaws at their kite shop for the period from January, 2009 upto 20.09.2009 and I have also been given a sum of Rs.20,000/- by my father in law. I also used to take the payment during this period from time to time. My relation with my wife were very cordial. The demonstration with dead body was also held on 22.09.09 by my inlaws, other people including the Leaders of Political parties in the mohalla and also at the Police Station after that police came in action and a DD no. 18A was made and after that the statements were recorded and the false FIR was registered in which I have been falsely implicated by the police.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. 24 Do you want to say anything else?
Ans. I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. I never gave any insecticide to Bharti at any point of time. Rather at the time when she consumed insecticide, I was not present at home. I came at the spot later on and on finding Bharti in the intoxicated condition, I rushed her to hospital for her treatment. The allegations levelled against me is false and totally baseless. Deceased Bharti was fed up and
used to remain tense as my daughter Kajal was not being given by my father-in-law and mother-in-law as she was very lucky to them. My wife used to make various request to them to return her to us as she might be very lucky for us but they were adamant not to return her. On 20.09.09, my wife went to her parental home to take our daughter kajal being very lucky but they flatly refused and they scolded her not to come again for this purpose. I used to work with my inlaws at their kite shop for the period from January, 2009 upto 20.09.2009 and I have also been given a sum of Rs.20,000/- by my father in law. I also used to take the payment during this period from time to time. My relation with my wife were very cordial. The demonstration with dead body was also held on 22.09.09 by my inlaws, other people including the Leaders of Political parties in the mohalla and also at the Police Station after that police came in action and a DD no. 18A was made and after that the statements were recorded and the false FIR was registered in which I have been falsely implicated by the police.”
42. On a conjoint readings of the DD No.39B; the MLC No.7539/09 EX.PW-13/A; the marginal note on the post mortem report dated 22nd September, 2009, which is corroborated by the first statement dated 21st September, 2009 (Ex.PW-2/B) of Master Himanshu @ Honey, and statement dated 21st September, 2009 (EX.PW-18/C) of the daughter of the deceased, namely, Samishtha, it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had duped the deceased Bharti Gupta into consuming a poisonous substance more specifically
Organo – phosphorous pesticide (Dichlor VOS) leading to her death.
43. In view thereof, the judgment dated 17th July, 2012 as well as the order of sentence dated 20th July, 2012 awarding sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, ordering simple imprisonment for six months are not sustainable and are hereby set aside and quashed.

 

To read the judgment Kindly click here 

VIKAS GUPTA @ BOBBY VERSUS STATE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT THE LAW LITERATES

 

All Rights Reserved ( 𝔸𝕕𝕧 Vaibhav Tomar)