Muni Lal Gupta, Appellant V. State, Respondent.
DATE : 01-05-1987
1988-(094)-CRLJ -0627 -DEL

JUDGE(S) :
Jagdish Chandra
R N Aggarwal
DELHI HIGH COURT
JUDGMENT
AGGARWAL, J. :- Muni Lal Gupta, the appellant herein, was tried in the Court of Shri S. C. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, for offences under sections 302, 307 and 309 of the Penal Code. He was found guilty of the first two offences and on the first charge he has been sentenced to death and on the second charge to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. He was acquitted of the offence under S. 309 of the Penal Code. The charge against the accused was that on the night of 17th-18th September, 1984 he had caused the death of his son Vicky 2 years old and the daughter Muni 4 or 5 months old, and further had caused grievous injuries to his wife Sankesh and daughter Kiran aged about 5/6 years. He was further alleged to have attempted to commit suicide. There is a reference by the State for the confirmation of the death sentence. The appellant also has filed appeal against his convictions and sentences. This judgment shall dispose of both the reference and the appeal.
2. A brief description of the scene of crime would help in appreciating the evidence, P.W. 8 Suresh Kumar and P.W. 21 Ramesh Chander are the owners of house bearing No. WZ-283, Village Naraina. A two-room set on the ground floor in the said house was in the tenancy of the appellant Muni Lal Gupta and his brother P.W. 3 Suraj Prakash. There is a door in between the two rooms. Muni Lal Gupta along with his wife Sankesh and three children named Kiran, Vicky and Muni resided in one room and in the second room Suraj Prakash along with his wife Manbasi (P.W. 2) and one child resided. There is one door opening in the courtyard on the west from the room of Suraj Prakash and another door on the east opens in the verandah from the room of Muni Lal Gupta. P.W. 21 Ramesh Chander resided in the ground floor on the west of the rooms of Muni Lal Gupta and Suraj Prakash. On the night of the occurrence Ramesh Chander was sleeping in the verandah in front of his room. P.W. 8 Suresh Kumar resided on the first floor in the back side. P.W. 7 Rajinder Singh is another tenant in the house and his room is near the room of Muni Lal Gupta.
3. The appellant and his brother are doing the business of fabrication of garments and they have a factory in Naraina. On the night of the occurrence Suraj Prakash was sleeping in the factory. Manbasi was sleeping in her room. The appellant, his wife and the three children were sleeping in their room.
4. The prosecution case is this. In the night at 1.30 a.m. Ramesh Chander (P.W. 21) on hearing the shouts of Manbasi was aroused from his sleep. Manbasi shouted that her brother-in-law (Jeth) was killing his wife and children. P.W. 21 rushed to the room of Muni Lal. Meanwhile, Sankesh drenched in blood came out of the room crying that "he had already killed the children and wanted to kill her". Muni Lal was seen running after Sankesh holding a scissors in his hand. P.W. 8 Suresh Kumar on hearing the alarm also reached there. Both Suresh and Ramesh tried to overpower Muni Lal. Muni Lal slipped and fell on the floor. The scissors also dropped from the hand of Muni Lal Gupta. Muni Lal started striking his head against the floor. P.W. 8 and P.W. 21 caught Muni Lal. Meanwhile, P.W. 7 Rajinder also reached there on hearing the alarm. On entering the room P.W. 21 saw Muni and Vicky lying dead in a pool of blood. Sankesh and Kiran were also badly injured. Rajinder was sent to call the police. Sankesh and Kiran were sent to the hospital.
5. Sankesh was examined by Dr. G. S. Thakkar (P.W. 11). He found a number of incised wounds in the neck, chest, abdomen and face of Sankesh. Ex. P.W. 11/A is the medico legal report in respect of Sankesh.
6. P.W. 27 Dr. Pankaj Vats performed autopsy on the bodies of Muni and Vicky. Ex. P.W. 26/A is the post-mortem report in respect of Muni and Ex. P.W. 26/B is the post-mortem report in respect of Vicky. Multiple stab injuries were found on the various parts of bodies of Muni and Vicky. The scissors Ex. P. 3 was seized by the police from the spot and the doctor gave the opinion that the injuries found on the bodies of Vicky and Muni could be caused by the scissors produced before him. The accused Muni Lal was examined by Dr. Prem Pal (P.W. 9) and he found some abrasion marks on the neck and a contused lacerated wound on the right side of the scalp of Muni Lal. The doctor gave the opinion that the injuries were simple and were caused with a blunt object. Kiran was also examined and Ex. P.W. 13/B is the medico legal report pertaining to her. A number of clean incised wounds were found on various parts of her body.
7. P.W. 7 Rajinder Kumar informed the police on telephone about the occurrence. Ex. P.W. 20/B is the copy of the report that was recorded at the police station at 1.45 a.m. A copy of the report was given to Sardar Piara Singh, Sub-Inspector for investigation. Shri Piara Singh reached the spot and recorded the statement Ex. P.W. 21/A of Ramesh Chander Bhardwaj. The formal report was recorded at the police station at 3.15 a.m. The investigating officer took into custody Muni Lal Gupta. The clothes worn by Muni Lal Gupta were stained with blood and they were taken into possession. The scissors was also seized. The investigating officer further recorded the statements of the witnesses.
8. The accused in his statement at the trial admitted that he along with his family resided in a room in house No. WZ 283 Naraina and that in another adjoining room his brother resided with his family. He further admitted that on the night of the occurrence he and his wife and the children were sleeping in the room and his brother's wife and the children were sleeping in the adjoining room. The accused further stated that he came to know that his son and daughter had died but he does not know if his wife and Kiran were sent to hospital. As regards the injuries found on his person the accused stated that he was beaten by the police. The accused further stated that Ramesh and Suresh have given evidence against him as they wanted to evict him from the house. The accused stated that they have given false evidence. The accused further stated that he is innocent.
9. P.W. 1 Smt. Sankesh Gupta testified that last year in the month of September at about 1.30 a.m. she along with her husband and the children was sleeping in the room and that she was hit with some object and she got up but since it was dark she could not identify the assailant. She further testified that her son Vicky aged 2 years and her daughter Muni 5 months old had died on the night of 17-18th September and further she and her daughter Kiran had also received injuries. She further deposed that she does not know who had caused the injuries. The witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined. She denied to have made the statement Ex. P.W. 1/A before the police. Suggestions were made to the witness that her husband was insisting on her going to the village with the children but she wanted her Devrani (P.W. 2 Manbasi) to go but the witness denied the aforesaid suggestions.
10. P.W. 2 Manbasi deposed that on the night of the occurrence she was sleeping in the house and that she heard some noise and got up. The witness further stated that Muni Lal, his wife and the children were sleeping in their room and their room was bolted from inside. The witness further deposed that she did not see anything else. P.W. 2 was also declared hostile and was cross-examined. The witness was confronted with her statement Ex. P.W. 2/A made before the police but she denied to have made the said statement.
11. P.W. 3 Suraj Prakash on the night of the occurrence was sleeping in his factory. P.W. 3 deposed that at about 1.30 a.m. Rajinder had come to his factory but he did not tell him anything. The witness further stated that on going home he saw his brother Muni Lal and Sankesh weeping. This witness also did not support the prosecution case. P.W. 6 Kiran, daughter of Muni Lal, was found to be not understanding the questions and, therefore, she was given up as not being a competent witness.
12. P.W. 8 Suresh Kumar and P.W. 21 Ramesh Chander are the star witnesses of the prosecution. We have earlier stated that Ramesh Kumar on the night of the occurrence was sleeping in the verandah in front of his house and Suresh Kumar was sleeping on the first floor. P.W. 21 deposed that on the night of the occurrence at about 1.30 a.m. he was aroused from his sleep on hearing the noise raised by Manbasi. The witness testified that Manbasi told him that Muni Lal was killing his children, that he went to the room of Muni Lal and he saw the wife of Muni Lal bleeding and crying 'Bachao Bachao', that she also said that Muni Lal had killed the children and he was going to kill her, that at the same time Muni Lal came from behind holding a scissors in his hand and he wanted to stab Sankesh with that scissors, that at that very time his brother Suresh also came, that he and Suresh tried to secure Muni Lal but Muni Lal fell on the ground and the scissors dropped from his hand, that thereafter Muni Lal started hitting his head on the floor, that in the meanwhile Rajinder Kumar also arrived there. The witness further deposed that he saw Muni and Vicky lying dead in a pool of blood.
13. P.W. 8 Suresh Kumar gave evidence that on the night of 17-18th September 1984 he was sleeping on the first floor in the house WZ 283, that at about 1.30 a.m. he heard the cries of Manbasi 'Bachao Bachao', that he came down stairs, that at the same time his brother Ramesh came there, that he heard Sankesh saying that the children have been killed and Muni Lal was also beating her with a scissors. The witness further deposed that he and his brother caught hold of Muni Lal but Muni Lal fell on the ground and the scissors fell from his hand that thereafter Muni Lal started striking his head on the floor.
14. We have very carefully considered the depositions of P.Ws. 8 and 21. We find they are witnesses of truth and there is no reason at all to doubt the veracity of their testimony.
15. It is clear from the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that on the night of the occurrence the accused along with his wife and the children was sleeping in his room and Manbasi with her children was sleeping in their room. It is in the statement of Manbasi that the room of the accused was bolted from inside. The occurrence took place at about 1.30 a.m. in the night. There was no other person in the room of the accused.
16. P.W. 21 was aroused on hearing the cries of Manbasi. Manbasi told P.W. 21 that Muni Lal, elder brother of her husband, was killing the children. P.W. 21 soon thereafter saw Sankesh running out of her house crying 'Bachao Bachao'. She was further heard saying that Muni Lal had killed the children and he also was going to kill her. P.W. 21 saw Muni Lal running after Sankesh holding a scissors in his hand. It was thereafter that P.W. 21 with the help of P.W. 8 had tried to apprehend Muni Lal who fell down and in that process the scissors also fell from his hand. Muni Lal was further seen by P.W. 21 hitting his head against the ground. P.W. 21 went inside the room and found Muni and Vicky lying dead in a pool of blood. Sankesh and Kiran were also found badly injured. P.W. 8 Suresh Kumar had heard Manbasi crying 'Bachao Bachao'. P.W. 8 had further heard Sankesh saying that the children had been killed and Muni Lal was also going to beat her with the scissors P.W. 8 and P.W. 21 had caught Muni Lal after he had fallen down.
17. Shri Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the testimony of P.Ws. 8 and 21 that they had heard Manbasi and Sankesh saying that Muni Lal had killed the children and he was further going to beat Sankesh with the scissors is hearsay and not admissible in evidence because Sankesh and Manbasi do not state in court to have made any such statement before P.Ws. 8 and 21.
18. We do not agree in this contention of the counsel. P.W. 21 saw Sankesh running out of the house crying 'Bachao Bachao'. He further heard her saying that Muni Lal had killed the children and he also was going to kill her. He further was told by Manbasi that Muni Lal, elder brother of her husband, was killing the children. The above statements would definitely be admissible in evidence. Similarly, the statement made by P.W. 8 that he heard Sankesh saying that the children had been killed and Muni Lal was also going to beat her with scissors would be admissible in evidence. The above statements are not hearsay. These statements were made by Sankesh and Manbasi to P.Ws. 8 and 21 and they are relevant facts under the Evidence Act.
19. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 SC 22 : (1978 Cri LJ 26) a Bench of the Supreme Court held :
"Certain witnesses stated that they not only saw but also relied on the version given by the other witnesses immediately after the occurrence that the accused was assailant. Held, even taking that the witnesses relied on the version given by the person at the scene immediately after the occurrence it was admissible as a relevant fact under the Evidence Act.
20. Even otherwise we are of the view that the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 21 clinches the case for the prosecution. P.Ws. 8 and 21 saw the accused running after Sankesh armed with scissors. Soon thereafter P.W. 21 saw Muni and Vicky lying dead in a pool of blood in the room. Sankesh and Kiran were also seriously injured. It is in the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that on the night of the occurrence the accused with his wife and the children was sleeping in the room. P.W. 2 has testified that the room of the accused was bolted from inside. From the above statement it is clear that no outsider could have entered the room of the accused. Immediately after the occurrence the Pyjama, Baniyan and the Kurta of the accused were taken into possession. They on chemical examination were found to be stained with human blood of 'o' group. This was the blood group of the two children Vicky and Muni. The scissors with which the accused had caused the murders and also caused injuries to Sankesh and Kiran was seized by the police from near the door outside the house. P.W. 27 has given evidence that the injuries on the bodies of Vicky and Muni could have been caused with the scissors in question. We further find that the scissors on chemical examination was found to be stained with human blood. The scissors Ex. P-3 immediately after the occurrence was seen in the hand of the accused. This circumstance is a strong piece of evidence against the accused.
21. On a consideration of the entire material placed before us we have no hesitation in holding that it was the appellant Muni Lal who had caused the deaths of his son Vicky and daughter Muni. It is also proved beyond doubt that he had caused grievous injuries to Sankesh and Kiran. We maintain the convictions under sections 302 and 307 of the Penal Code.
22. The only question remains to be decided is whether the reference for confirmation of death sentence should be confirmed. There is no manner of doubt that the accused had taken the innocent lives of his two young children and also caused grievous injuries to his wife and daughter Kiran. The crime is gruesome. But there must be some strong reason for a man to commit such a crime. The motive has not very clearly come on the record. From the suggestions, put to P.W. 1 it seems that accused wanted the wife to got the village and live with the parents there. The wife, it seems, became adamant and refused to go. The crime seems to be the outcome of emotional outburst. There must be a strong reason for this outburst. Of course, it cannot be said that if the wife had refused to obey the husband he should have resorted to such a crime. We can quite see why P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have not supported the prosecution case. The wife having lost her two children she did not further want to lose the husband. Shri Lao, learned advocate for the State, frankly and, to our mind, fairly stated that this was not a case for imposing the extreme penalty of death. We in the circumstances of this case think that a sentence of imprisonment for life would meet the ends of justice. We decline the reference for the confirmation of the death sentence. We commute the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The conviction and the sentence on the charge under S. 307 of the Penal Code are affirmed. The sentences under sections 302 and 307 of the Penal Code shall run concurrently. The appeal and the reference are decided accordingly.

 

HOME

INDEX

TOP

Next Judgement