MAHENDER SINGH DAHIYA Vs. STATE CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Dr. Mahender Singh Dahiya, an Indian Orthopaedic Surgeon convicted for the offences punishable tinder Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of his wife Namita, a British National of Indian origin on the interventing night of 27th and 28th May, 1979 (their honeymoon night itself) in Room No. 415, hotel Arenberg, Brussels, Belgium for dismembering and extensively mutilating and disposing of her body parts at different places in the city of Brussels in order to cause disappearance of evidence relating to the commission of crime. He hasbeen sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with the stipulation that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment will run concurrently. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged his said conviction and sentences.

(2.) This is an unusual case and perhaps the first of its kind. What makes this case a rare one is not only the ghastly and brutal manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed but the complexities which this case presents on account of various factors viz. the accused being an Indian, victim of the crime Namita, though of Indian origin but having acquired British citizenship by long stay with her parents in London and the offence having been committed yet in a third country i.e. Belgium; the investigation of the case having been conducted by the agencies of three countries to begin with in Belgium and UK and concluding in India. Most of the material witnesses being foreign witnesses (there being 28 Belgium witnesses and 24 UK witnesses), the investigation in Belgium and UK having been conducted according to the law and procedure of those countries and most of the material witnesses relied upon by the prosecution being citizens of those two countries, their depositions have been recorded on commission issued by the Indian Trial Court to it counterparts in those countries. Yet another fact is that based on the investigation conducted in Belgium, initially the Belgium authorities had intended to hold the trial in Belgium and made a request for extradition of the appellant but ultimately after the arrest of the accused on 9,5.1979, after about four years of the commission of the crime, the Belgium authorities abandoned the said request for extradition. The case was registered arid ultimately investigated by the Indian investigators of CBI and a charge-sheet dated 30.7.1985 came to be filed by the CBI against the appellant after more than six years of the commission of crime. Then the trial by the Indian Court was also a protracted one, on account of large number of witnesses produced at the trial and most of the witness being foreign citizens. The trial culminated into conviction and sentence of the appellant only on 1.3.1999 that is after about 14 years of the filing of the charge sheet and 20 years of the commission of the crime. Added to these factors is yet another important fact that there is no direct evidence to link the appellant as perpetrator of the crime and the case of the prosecution solely rests on circumstantial evidence alone. These are the factors which in our opinion have made this case an unusual or of complex nature presenting arduous task not only for the investigators in the three countries, the prosecution, the Trial Court and now for this Court. We have noted these facts at the outset not with a view to express our dismay at the time taken and consideration involved in the matter but simply with a view to have a glimpse of the case which we wish to keep in view while examining the merits of this appeal. However, these factors have not dissuaded vis in any way from examining the merits of the appeal.

(3.) First the undisputed facts. The appellant hails from village Turkpur, District Sonepat, Haryana. He obtained his MBBS degree from Punjab University, Rohtak in 1973 and M.S. Degree in (Orthopaedic) from A.I.M.S., New Delhi in December, 1978. He got himself registered with Punjab Medical Council and possessed an Indian Passport No. K005420 issued on 18.9.1974 by the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh. Jagdish Singh Lochab (PW 48) a native of Punjab had gone to London in 1962 and was settled there with his family viz. wife Smt. Chandermukhi (PWUK- 1), three daughters namely, Namita, Amita Lochab (PWUK-2), and Shiela (PWUK- 3) and two sons. Namita born in India in May, 1956 and had acquired British citizenship. During, 1978, Namita was working as accounts trainee with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), London. In July-August, 1978, Jagdish Singh Lochab (PW 48) visited India in connection with the matrimonial alliance of his daughter Namita and zeroed his choice on the appellant and thereafter Namita was called from London and an engagement ceremony was held between the appellant and Namita on 31.8.1978 at village Turkpur followed by a marriage ceremony according to Hindu rites and customs at Delhi on 5.9.1978. However, as per the understanding of the parents of Namita, the said marriage was to be deemed an engagement only and a legal marriage was to be effected only after the registration of the marriage in London subsequently.