- (1.) VISHNU Sahai, J. For committing murders of his wife Vidya and four daughters, Madhu, Neetu, Kiran and Suman, Chandra Jeet Yadav was charged by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow on five separate counts under Section 302 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 20-5-2003, passed in Sessions Trial No. 1157 of 2000, found Chandra Jeet Yadav guilty for committing the murders of the aforesaid persons and sentenced him to death.
(2.) CAPITAL Sentence No. 2 of 2003 arises from is the reference made by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow under Section 366 (1) Cr. P. C. for confirmation of the death sentence of Chandra Jeet Yadav. Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2003 has been preferred by Chandra Jeet Yadav against his aforesaid conviction and sentence. Since both Capital Sentence No. 2 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2003 arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment, we are disposing them off by one judgment. Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under: Appellant Chandra Jeet Yadav was the husband of the deceased Vidya and the father of the deceased Neetu, Kiran, Madhu and Suman. At the time of the incident he was employed as a traffic constable and was living in a two room quarter, (quarter No. 561) alongwith the five deceased persons, his son Pankaj PW 1, his daughter Purnima PW 2 and another son Ankit in Reserve Police Lines, Lucknow. The appellant suspected the fidelity of Vidya and on some occasions, prior to the incident had beaten her. On the night of 31-3-2000-1-4-2000 in the front room of the appellant's quarter Purnima, Neetu, Kiran and Suman slept and in the room which was at the rear, the appellant, Vidya, Madhu, Pankaj and Ankit slept. Electric light was burning in both the rooms. Sometimes between 3. 00 a. m. to 6. 00 a. m. Pankaj and Purnima woke up on hearing the cries of their mother Vidya. They saw the appellant assaulting their mother Vidya with a farsa. When Purnima rushed to save her mother the appellant pushed her. Neetu, Kiran, Madhu and Suman also rushed to save to their mother and implored the appellant not to assault her, but the appellant did not listen to them and assaulted them. As a consequence of the assault, Vidya, Neetu, Kiran and Madhu died on the spot and Suman was precariously injured. At about 6. 00 a. m. , Pankaj slipped out from the quarter and told S. I. Ranveer Singh PW 3, who was present in front of the office (Aadesh Kaksh) that the previous night the appellant had murdered his mother Vidya, his sisters Neetu, Kiran and Madhu and injured Suman. On the information, SI Ranveer Singh informed the officials of Police Lines and telephoned A. P. Singh PW 4, Reserve Inspector Police Lines. Thereafter, SI Ranveer Singh and Reserve Inspector A. P. Singh proceeded to Quarter No. 561, wherein the incident had taken place. After receiving information on wireless at about 7. 00 a. m. , S. I. Harish Chandra Singh alongwith two constables also reached the appellant's quarter. They found that the appellant had locked it from inside and the corpse of the four deceased persons, namely, Vidya, Kiran, Madhu and Neetu were lying. They also found that Suman was lying in a precariously injured condition. They asked the appellant to open the door, but he refused. They thereafter, broke open the main-door and entered inside the house. In the meantime, the appellant had hid in the bathroom and had bolted the door from inside. After great persuasion he opened the door. There was a blood stained farsa in his hand. Seeing Suman precariously injured they sent her to hospital. Thereafter, SI Ranveer Singh went to Kotwali Mahanagar and lodged his FIR.
(3.) THE evidence of Head Moharrir Ranjan Kumar PW 7 shows that on 1-4-2000 at 7. 05 a. m. SI Ranveer Singh came to Kotwali Mahanagar and lodged his FIR. THE chik FIR was also prepared. Its perusal shows that the distance between the place of the incident and Police Station Kotwali Mahanagar was 1-1/2 kilometers and a case under Section 302/307 IPC was registered against the appellant. The evidence of SHO Moin Ahmad PW 10, in short, shows : The FIR was lodged in his presence. He thereafter, left for the place of the incident and found that the appellant was present in his quarter. He seized the farsa, which was in the hands of the appellant under a recovery memo and arrested him. He thereafter, directed SI Harish Chandra Singh PW 9 to perform the inquest on the corpse of the four deceased persons Vidya, Neetu, Kiran and Madhu. He inspected the place of the incident and recorded the statements of Pankaj and Purnima and prepared the site- plan. From the place of the incident he seized blood-stained articles like mattress, bed-sheet, guilt blanket etc. under a recovery memo. On 5-4-2000 he learnt that Suman was dead. Thereafter, inquest on her corpse was performed. He did some other investigation also, but since, in our view, a reference to it is not necessary for the decision of these matters we are not adverting to them. On 7-5-2000, after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant.;