VIJAY KUMAR ARORA Vs. STATE
LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-349
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
May 15,2008
VIJAY KUMAR ARORA
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KING VS-PLUMMER [REFERRED TO]STIRLAND V. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS [REFERRED TO]
RAM AVTAR V. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) [REFERRED TO]
SURAJDEO OJHA V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
KAKE SINGH V. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. KRISHNAMURTI LAXMIPATI NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
NANHAU RAM V. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED TO]
HATE SINGH BHAGAT SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT [REFERRED TO]
MARACHALIL PAKKU VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
BIMBADHAR PRADHAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
JAI DEV HARI SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA GOVIND PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BAKSHISH SINGH DHALIWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
NIKA RAM VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI SAHABRAO BOBADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
RASHEED BEG VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MUNNU RAJA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
K RAMACHANDRA REDDY VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [REFERRED TO]
RAMA NAND VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAM MANORATH CHHOTEY VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MOHANLAL GANGARAM GEHANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
GAMBHIR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
RAMAWATI DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
EARABHABRAPPA ALIAS KRISHNAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM SAGAR YADAV [REFERRED TO]
NANHAU RAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MADAN MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
BRATHI ALIAS SUKHDEV SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
PANIBEN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
MULAKHRAJ VS. SATISH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
GANESHLAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAVINDRA PRAKASH MITTAL [REFERRED TO]
PRABHUDAYAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
GULAB CHAND VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GOLLA PULLANNA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. RAJENDRAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SURESH [REFERRED TO]
KANS RAJ VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
GANESH LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
VITHAL TUKARAM MORE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
NALLABOTHU VENKAIAH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. KARNAIL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
TRIMUKH MAROTI KIRKAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. KASHI RAM [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAMJIT SINGH ALIAS VICKY VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR PRASAD TAMAKAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. PARTHU [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THIS Appeal is against the Judgment dated 29. 9. 1992 of the learned additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (ASJ for brevity) in FIR 154/83 P. S. Moti nagar, whereby the Appellant/convict, Shri Vijay Kumar Arora, son of Shri S. P. Arora, was awarded a sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and in default of its payment further rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short ). On 11. 1. 1985 the Appellant/convict as well as his mother, Smt. Beena arora, wife of Shri S. P. Arora, were charged thus-That you in the night intervening between 5. 4. 83 and 6. 4. 83 at the house no. F-503, Karampura, within the jurisdiction of P. S. Moti Nagar, Delhi, in furtherance of the common intention you both, committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Smt. Shashi Arora w/o Shri Vijay Kumar Arora and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and within the cognizance of this court of Sessions. And, I hereby direct you that you be tried by this court on the aforesaid charge.
(2.)THE uncontroverted facts are that the deceased, Smt. Shashi Arora, was brought to and admitted in the Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Narain Hospital (LNJP Hospital), New Delhi at 2:45 A. M. on 6. 4. 1983 with 90 per cent burns; and that she died at 3:15 P. M. on that same day. She was brought to the hospital by her husband, the Appellant/convict herein, accompanied by Dr. Satish k. Bindal. The Report, DD 25-A dated 6. 4. 1983, Ex. PW 18/g, prepared by ASI hansraj (PW/18), records the version given by the Appellant/convict to the effect that his wife woke up to prepare milk for their three month old daughter and while lighting the stove her clothes caught fire. He, accompanied by his friend Dr. Satish, admitted her to LNJP Hospital. In the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC) the appellant/convict has stated that - "i was asleep. I was awakened by the shrieks of Smt. Shashi, I came out in the verandah and saw her in flames. I tried to extinguish the fire by my hands and water. My hands were injured in this process. I called a Doctor and rang up the house of my father-in-law. I do not remember the exact time. I told the family of my father-in-law to come. . . . . . Shashi herself told me that she caught fire when she had gone to the stove to boil milk. She told me that the stove "bhabak gaya". I will file a written statement if so advised".
(3.)SO far as Smt. Beena Arora is concerned the learned ASJ has concluded that "smt. Beena Arora could participate in this ghastly crime while Smt. Shashi Arora was held by her beloved son Appellant/convict Vijay Kumar Arora and therefore discard and reject the defence of Smt. Beena Arora as well. . . . . It has already been held in the earlier part of the judgment that the circumstances noticed in the judgment do not form an unbreakable chain inconsistent with the hypothesis of the innocence of Smt. Beena Arora, under section 302 IPC. I have already held that the oral dying declaration of Smt. Shashi Arora in this case cannot be said to be totally acceptable to be sufficient for holding accused persons guilty under section 302 IPC and that this oral dying declaration can be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence. Hence notwithstanding the false and improbable defence of accused smt. Beena Arora the evidence against her in the shape of circumstantial evidence and the oral dying declaration is not that weighty and clinching to prove her guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. I, therefore, feel that she deserves benefit of doubt. I accordingly acquit Smt. Beena Arora giving her benefit of doubt". The State has not preferred any Appeal against the acquittal of Smt. Beena Arora.
(2.)THE uncontroverted facts are that the deceased, Smt. Shashi Arora, was brought to and admitted in the Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Narain Hospital (LNJP Hospital), New Delhi at 2:45 A. M. on 6. 4. 1983 with 90 per cent burns; and that she died at 3:15 P. M. on that same day. She was brought to the hospital by her husband, the Appellant/convict herein, accompanied by Dr. Satish k. Bindal. The Report, DD 25-A dated 6. 4. 1983, Ex. PW 18/g, prepared by ASI hansraj (PW/18), records the version given by the Appellant/convict to the effect that his wife woke up to prepare milk for their three month old daughter and while lighting the stove her clothes caught fire. He, accompanied by his friend Dr. Satish, admitted her to LNJP Hospital. In the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC) the appellant/convict has stated that - "i was asleep. I was awakened by the shrieks of Smt. Shashi, I came out in the verandah and saw her in flames. I tried to extinguish the fire by my hands and water. My hands were injured in this process. I called a Doctor and rang up the house of my father-in-law. I do not remember the exact time. I told the family of my father-in-law to come. . . . . . Shashi herself told me that she caught fire when she had gone to the stove to boil milk. She told me that the stove "bhabak gaya". I will file a written statement if so advised".
(3.)SO far as Smt. Beena Arora is concerned the learned ASJ has concluded that "smt. Beena Arora could participate in this ghastly crime while Smt. Shashi Arora was held by her beloved son Appellant/convict Vijay Kumar Arora and therefore discard and reject the defence of Smt. Beena Arora as well. . . . . It has already been held in the earlier part of the judgment that the circumstances noticed in the judgment do not form an unbreakable chain inconsistent with the hypothesis of the innocence of Smt. Beena Arora, under section 302 IPC. I have already held that the oral dying declaration of Smt. Shashi Arora in this case cannot be said to be totally acceptable to be sufficient for holding accused persons guilty under section 302 IPC and that this oral dying declaration can be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence. Hence notwithstanding the false and improbable defence of accused smt. Beena Arora the evidence against her in the shape of circumstantial evidence and the oral dying declaration is not that weighty and clinching to prove her guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. I, therefore, feel that she deserves benefit of doubt. I accordingly acquit Smt. Beena Arora giving her benefit of doubt". The State has not preferred any Appeal against the acquittal of Smt. Beena Arora.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.