Dharmendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan

Vide this order, above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of as they have arisen out of common judgment/order dated 18.05.2017 passed by

the trial court.

Appellants had faced trial under Section 302 read with Section 120-B and Section 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') in

FIR No. 6 dated 04.01.2002 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur Rural.

Appellant Dharmendra Kumar has appeared in person and has submitted that he had been falsely involved in this case by co-convict Prerana. He was

innocent. He had no reason or motive to commit the murder of his first wife Archana and daughter Aroma. He was living happily with his first wife

and daughter and had no reason to commit their murder. He has drawn our attention to the Post Mortem Report of deceased Archana and has

highlighted that the left finger nails and toe nails were painted and pubic hair had been recently shaved. This showed that deceased (wife Archana)

was living happily with him. Hence, he had no reason to commit her murder. The entire story of commission of offence by him had been concocted by

Prerana, whose relatives were journalists. Prerana using the influence of her relatives and by bribing the police as well as advocates had falsely

involved him in this case. A Perusal of the Post Mortem Report of Archana revealed that undigested non-vegetarian food had been found in her

stomach. He was a pure vegetarian, whereas, Prerana was a non-vegetarian. Hence, Prerana with a view to please Archana might have served her

non-vegetarian food and had thereafter, committed her murder as she was jealous of Archana. So far as Aroma is concerned, she had not taken non-

vegetarian food as his daughter might have been scared that she would get scolding from him as he was a pure vegetarian. In the present case,

investigation had been conducted in such a designed manner with a view to falsely implicate him in this case. In support of his arguments, appellant

Dharmendra Kumar has placed reliance on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Rakesh Kr. Singh Vs. State of Assam, 2003 CriLJ 3206, wherein it

was held as under:

There is another aspect of the matter also. On perusal of the record we find that although PW 6 was arrested on 26.9.1996 and when she was

sent to the Magistrate for recording her confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she declined to confess. Thereafter, she filed an application seeking

pardon and pardon was granted after recording her statement on 27.11.1996. Ext. 5 is the said statement and this seems to be the only statement of

PW 6, besides the evidence given by her before the Court. Learned Public Prosecutor could not show any statement of PW 6 recorded by I.O. prior

to this date although police was required to record her statement soon after her arrest. Thus, we find that after two months of the incident the witness

PW 6 disclosed for the first time and made a statement implicating the accused appellant in the above incident. In ASN Reddy (supra) the Apex Court

observed that the evidence of a person witnessing the occurrence but not divulging the same to anybody for 2/3 days should be scanned with much

caution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in absence of any corroboration whatsoever we hold that the statement of PW 6

does not inspire much confidence and cannot be relied on for basing conviction. As we feel that she has not stated the whole truth after two months of

the incident and there is something against, her evidence no doubt cast a strong suspicion regarding the involvement of the appellant. But in a criminal

trial the conviction cannot be based on the basis of suspicion only.

Learned counsel for the appellant Prerana has submitted that so far as appellant Prerana is concerned, she has been falsely involved in this case. In-

fact, Prerana was being threatened by the appellant Dharmendra Kumar that in case she narrated about commission of crime by him to anybody, she

would be done to death.

Appellant Dharmendra Kumar and learned counsel for the appellant Prerana have also argued that the place of incident was already known to the

police and the statements of the appellants recorded with regard to disclosure of the place of incident at the behest of the appellants were liable to be

discarded.

Learned counsel for the appellant Prerana has placed reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in Sundiya @ Hansraj Vs.

State of Rajasthan, RCC, May, 2006(2) 657, wherein it was held as under:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The place of occurrence as conceded during the course of arguments was known to the police

before same came to be disclosed by the accused on 28.11.1999. It is admitted that immediately on receipt of information, i.e. FIR Ex.P3, police had

visited the place of occurrence. This circumstance has to be excluded from the chain of circumstances on the basis of which the prosecution

endeavours to secure conviction of the appellant.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Learned State counsel has opposed the appeals.

Facts of the present case are peculiar. Appellant Dharmendra Kumar got married to Archana in the year 1991. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter,

namely Aroma, was born to the parties. Appellant Dharmendra Kumar got married to appellant Prerana on 30.08.2001 and out of their wedlock, a

daughter was born in March, 2007.

On 15.12.2001, it was reported vide Exhibit P-1 by Phoolchand Meena P.W.1 to the Police Station Harmada that a dead body of unknown lady was

lying by the side of the road. Foul smell was emitting from the dead body. Thereafter, police reached the spot. Dead body was sent for post mortem

examination. Exhibit P-62 is Post Mortem Report of the unknown lady aged about 25 years. As per the Post Mortem Examination Report Exhibit P-

62, which was proved on record by Dr. Manju Maheshwari P.W.40, following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:

(1) On dissection of scalp, staining of scalp tissue effected and extrarasated blood present in an area of 3 x 2 cm at the occipital in centre and 3 x 1.5

cm on the right and left side of occipital region, suggesting antemortem haemotoma.

(2) Darkening of skin seen in the lower part of neck in front, below thyroid extending on either sides horizontally towards back, where at the nape

region, it is not seen. This dark zone measures 33 cm x 2 cm whereas the neck length horizontally is 36 cm. On dissection of the neck region, the

underlying subcutaneous tissue is found stained with blackish red colour, a ligature mark tied encircling the neck and perimortem in nature.

(3) Blackish green discoloured skin with swelling is seen on front of neck in submandibular region on either side of upper part of laryngeal apparatus

side, above thyroid region measuring 5 cm x 3 cm on left side and 2 x 2 cm on right lateral side. On dissection of subcutaneous, deep fascra and

muscles with - and extrarasated blood of the underlying sites over and left later side of neck is seen. This straining is also found on front and sides of

upper part of trachea and thyroid region. No fracture of tracheal rings, thyroid bone or laryngeal apparatus is seen. These are antemortem in nature.

Trachea is found congested and larynx also congested.

As per Post Mortem Report, cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to manual strangulation.

On 17.12.2001, dead body of an unknown 10-11 years old girl was recovered. P.W.2 Murari Lal, who found the dead body, informed the police and

the police reached the spot. Site plan, Exhibit P-2(A) was prepared. Dead body was recovered from the area of Police Station Shahpura, District

Jaipur Rural. Dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Post Mortem Report, Exhibit P-27 was proved by P.W.15 Dr. Rajendra Katta and

P.W.22 Dr. Girwar Singh. As per the Post Mortem Report, following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:

(1) Irregular incised wound 3"" x 2"" x muscle deep on left side of supraclavicular region of chest. (2) Lacerated wound 1"" x 11"" x bone deep on

palmar surface of left hand.

(3) Echymosis 4"" x 2 1/2"" on right side of chest wall. (4) Echymosis 3"" x 2"" on right thigh.

(5) Rounded charred skin (due to corrosive material) of size 1½"" x 1½"" on left forearm.

(6) Skin was absent, subcutaneous tissue exposed on forehead and both cheeks.

(7) Ligature 1"" wide present around the neck. Pubic hairs absent.

Bruise on inner side of both thighs.

Vagina teared, hymen ruptured, hyper-mic area in situ (due to penetration of hard foreign body)."" Cause of death of the deceased was due to

excessive bleeding from injury no. 1. There was tear of vagina with red area due to penetration of hard foreign body.

Crime-in-question came to light when appellant Prerana lodged a report against appellant Dharmendra Kumar.

P.W.37 Rajendra Tyagi deposed that on 24.01.2011, he was In-Charge of Police Station Ramganj, Ajmer and on that day, Prerana had lodged a

report Exhibit P-45. Another report Exhibit P-46 was also lodged on the same day. Both the reports were entrusted to Prem Kumar, ASI for

investigation. Prem Kumar, ASI called Prerana and Dharmendra Kumar to the police station.

Dharmendra Kumar was apprehended under Section 151 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') and was

questioned. During questioning, appellant Dharmendra stated that he was resident of Delhi. He had got married to Archana and one daughter was

born out of the said wedlock. There used to be fights between them and as a result, his wife used to go to her parental house. Thereafter, he got

published an advertisement in the newspaper, Times of India and on the basis of the said advertisement, he got married to Prerana.

He took Prerana to Delhi and started residing with her. After two months, his first wife also started living with him. When Prerana came to know that

he was already married, a dispute arose between Prerana and Archana. Then, they made a plan and strangulated Archana and his daughter Aroma.

They threw some acid on their faces and threw one dead body (Aroma) in the area of Police Station Shahpura and another dead body (Archana) in

the area of Police Station Harmada. Thereafter, they left Delhi and started residing at Jaipur and thereafter at Ajmer. However, there used to be

dispute between him and his wife. Prerana had submitted a report in the Police Station and as a result, proceedings under Section 151 Cr.P.C. were

initiated against him.

P.W. 37 Rajendra Tyagi proved enquiry note vis-Ã -vis appellant Dharmendra Kumar as Exhibit P-21. P.W. 37 also proved enquiry note of appellant

Prerana, also marked as Exhibit P-21.

A perusal of Exhibit P-21 reveals that appellant Prerana had stated that she was resident of Ajmer. In the year 2001, a matrimonial advertisement

was published in the newspaper Times of India at the behest of appellant Dharmendra. On the basis of the same, her marriage was performed with

appellant Dharmendra on 30.08.2001 at Ajmer. Thereafter, she started residing with her husband at Delhi. In November, 2001, she came to know that

her husband was already married to Archana and he had six years old daughter Pinky @ Aroma. Archana and Dharmendra used to have lot of fights

and she started residing with them. On 10.12.2001, her husband and his first wife Archana had a serious fight and Dharmendra strangulated Archana

by pressing her neck. When she objected to it, her husband started giving beatings to her. After some time, her husband pressed the neck of his

daughter Pinky, who was sleeping. She fought with her husband but he threatened her that in case she narrated the incident to anybody, he would kill

her. Her husband locked her in the bathroom and took both the dead bodies in his car. On the next day, she was taken out of from the bathroom and

her husband told her that he had thrown both the dead bodies at Delhi and Jaipur. Her husband used to give beatings to her and used to force her to

bring money from her parents. They shifted to Jaipur from Delhi and stayed there for five years. She gave birth to a daughter on 02.03.2007 and

thereafter, appellant Dharmendra Kumar left her and a compromise was effected after payment of rupees one lac. Then they shifted to Ajmer on

01.06.2010. There also, her husband used to beat her and she started residing in her parental house. On 21.01.2011, her husband raised a demand of

rupees two lacs and gave beatings to her and tried to strangulate her. On 25.01.2011, she managed to escape along with her daughter. She stated that

she had apprehension that her husband would kill her and her daughter.

Thereafter, investigation of the case started. P.W.36 Dharmveer Singh, In-charge of Police Station Harmada, deposed that on 25.01.2011, he received

information from Rajendra Tyagi, Inspector of Police, S.H.O. Police Station Ramganj, Ajmer that Dharmendra Kumar had been arrested in

proceedings under Section 151 Cr.P.C. and during enquiry, he had submitted that he had committed murder of his wife Archana and daughter Aroma

in December, 2001 and had thrown dead bodies at Harmada and Shahpura and the information be verified. Thereafter, it transpired that in the year

2001, dead body of an unknown woman had been recovered and case bearing no. 324/2001 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered. After

investigation, untraced report was submitted in the Court and the same was accepted by the Court. On 26.01.2011, Dharmendra Kumar was produced

before P.W. 36 Dharmveer Singh. Dharmendra was arrested vide Exhibit P-19 and during investigation, he disclosed that in December, 2001, he had

committed murder of his wife and daughter with the help of his second wife Prerana Kumari and had thrown both the dead bodies at different places.

He also stated that he could disclose the place where he had thrown the dead body of his wife. Exhibit P-54 disclosure statement of Dharmendra

under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Evidence Act') was recorded, which was duly signed by

Dharmendra. Thereafter, on the basis of disclosure statement, Dharmendra took them to Jaipur-Delhi Express Highway and near the bridge, he

disclosed the place, where he had thrown dead body of Archana. In this regard, site plan, Exhibit P-7 was prepared, which was duly signed by the

appellant Dharmendra and witnesses. Santro Car bearing registration no. DL-3CP 1401 used at the time of commission of crime was taken in

possession vide Exhibit P-36 on the basis of statement of appellant Dharmendra under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Exhibit P-55. Thereafter, Sub

Inspector Om Prakash went to Delhi and got the photograph of Archana duly identified from Virendra Kumar, younger brother of Dharmendra, vide

Exhibit P-22. Virendra had stated that the photograph shown to him was of his sister-in-law Archana and also stated that she had gone missing about

9-10 years ago. Photograph of deceased Archana was also got identified from her relatives Chandrashekhar Prasad (Maternal Uncle) and Maharana

Pratap Singh (brother-in-law) and memo Exhibit P-5 was prepared in this regard. Since it transpired during investigation that appellant Prerana was

also involved in the crime, she was arrested vide memo Exhibit P-38. During interrogation, appellant Prerana also stated of her own free will that in

December, 2001 they had taken the dead bodies of Archana and her daughter Aroma in a Santro car after committing their murder and they had been

thrown on the road leading from Delhi to Jaipur after putting the dead body in a sac. She could identify the place where the dead body of Archana had

been thrown. Disclosure statement of Prerana under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and the same was Exhibit P-56. On the basis of

the said statement, Prerana showed them the place where the dead body of Archana had been thrown and in this regard, memo Exhibit P-35 was

prepared. An enquiry was made from Police Station Dhaula Kuan, Delhi Cantt as to whether any missing person report had been lodged with regard

to missing of Archana and Aroma, but no such missing person report had been registered in the said police station. In this regard, report of S.H.O.,

Police Station Delhi Cantt was Exhibit P-58.

P.W.28 Madan Lal deposed that on 30.01.2011, he was In-Charge, Police Station Shahpura. On that day, he received an information from Police

Station Harmada that Dharmendra Kumar had been arrested in a case relating to murder of his wife and daughter. Dead body of daughter had been

thrown in the area of Police Station Shahpura. On the basis of the said information, FIR No. 6/2002 had been registered at Police Station Shahpura

under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Initially untraced report had been submitted by the investigating agency. He obtained production warrants of both the

appellants. Statements of appellant Dharmendra and appellant Prerana were recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, i.e., Exhibit P-40 and

Exhibit P-41 respectively wherein they offered to disclose the place where the dead body of Aroma had been thrown.

P.W.20 Amar Singh deposed that on 25.02.2011, he had prepared site plan of the place Exhibit P-31 at the instance of appellant Dharmendra, where

dead body of Aroma had been thrown. He also proved site plan Exhibit P-32, which was prepared at the instance of appellant Dharmendra with

regard to the spot where murder had been committed. A perusal of Exhibit P-31 reveals that the same had been prepared at the instance of both the

appellants.

P.W.7 Prabhudas deposed that in July, 2001, he had read a matrimonial advertisement in the newspaper and on the basis of the same had performed

marriage of his daughter Prerana with Dharmendra on 30.08.2001. Thereafter, Dharmendra and Prerana had started residing at Delhi. In March,

2007, Prerana gave birth to a daughter. Dharmendra used to demand money from him and started harassing Prerana. When they reported the matter

to the police, Dharmendra got upset and told them that they should take back the report otherwise they would meet the same fate as his earlier wife.

Then, he came to know that Dharmendra was already married and he had committed an untoward incident with his first wife.

P.W.8 Maharana Pratap deposed that Archana was his sister-in-law and was married to appellant Dharmendra in the year 1991. After one and a half

years of marriage, Dharmendra started demanding money from his wife and used to send her to her parental house. On some occasions, he had given

money to Dharmendra. After June, 2000, they did not come to know about the whereabouts of Archana. In-laws family of Archana did not inform

them about her whereabouts. In the year 2010, they came to know that appellant Dharmendra had been arrested. Thereafter, they identified the

photographs of dead body of Archana and Aroma shown to them by the police. Photograph of Archana was Exhibit P-8, whereas, photographs of

Aroma were Exhibit P-9 to Exhibit P-18. P.W. 9 Chandrashekhar has corroborated statement of P.W.8.

Prosecution has also examined witnesses to establish the fact that initially in December, 2001, dead bodies of unknown lady and girl child had been

recovered from the area of Police Station Harmada and Shahpura respectively. Untraced reports were filed by the police and were accepted by the

Court. The persons, who had informed the police with regard to the recoveries of dead bodies of Archana and Aroma, were also examined during

trial. Police officials, who had conducted investigation in the case, have been examined and they have deposed with regard to the investigation

conducted by them.

Thus, the present case relates to double murder, i.e., of Archana and Aroma. Admittedly, appellant Dharmendra Kumar is the husband of Archana

and father of Aroma. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that Dharmendra Kumar had got married to Archana in the year 1991 and out of

their wedlock, daughter Aroma was born. There is also no dispute about Dharmendra Kumar getting married to appellant Prerana on 30.08.2001. It is

the case of appellant Dharmendra Kumar himself that Archana was also residing in the same house with him along with his second wife. Appellant

Dharmendra Kumar has alleged that murder of his wife and daughter had been committed by appellant Prerana, whereas, case of appellant Prerana is

that murder of Archana and Aroma had been committed by appellant Dharmendra Kumar.

Appellant Prerana has stated in her plea under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that she was innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. Her husband had

threatened to kill her in case she told anyone about the commission of crime. In Ajmer, she gathered courage and informed her family members but

Dharmendra threatened her that he would kill her entire family members.

Appellant Dharmendra Kumar in his plea under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has prayed that he was innocent. False and fabricated evidence had been

created by the prosecution to involve him in this case and proceedings under Section 194 IPC be initiated against the erring officials. Appellant

Dharmendra Kumar also submitted a detailed plea under Section 313 Cr.P.C., inter alia, alleging that he had been falsely involved in this case as well

as case under Section 498A and 406 IPC. He had been abducted in May, 2010 by Prerana and others and had been falsely involved in this case as he

had refused to sign the divorce papers.

So far as appellant Dharmendra Kumar is concerned, he has argued that deceased Archana had no grievance against him and was living happily with

him and therefore, there was no reason for him to commit her murder. Thus, it has been projected by appellant Dharmendra Kumar that he had no

motive to commit murder of his wife Archana and daughter Aroma. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why appellant did not lodge any

proceedings with regard to missing of his wife and daughter. In normal circumstances, husband is expected to lodge complaint before the police in

case his wife and daughter go missing. However, appellant Dharmendra Kumar did not bother to ever lodge any complaint with the police with regard

to missing of his wife and daughter. Since deceased Archana and Aroma were residing with appellant Dharmendra Kumar, it was for him to have

explained as to what happened to them and what proceedings he had initiated on account of the fact that they had gone missing. Appellant

Dharmendra Kumar remained quiet till proceedings under Section 151 Cr.P.C. were taken against him on a complaint lodged by appellant Prerana.

So far as appellant Prerana is concerned, she has alleged that murder of Archana and Aroma had been committed by appellant Dharmendra Kumar

but she also did not make any effort to lodge any report against appellant Dharmendra. As per law, appellant Prerana was required to give information

to the police on coming to know about the fact that serious offence like double murder had been committed by appellant Dharmendra. Rather,

appellant Prerana also remained quiet for so many years and the cat was out of the bag only when proceedings under Section 151 Cr.P.C. were

initiated against the appellant Dharmendra on the basis of complaint lodged by Prerana.

On the basis of disclosure statements made by the appellants, places where they had thrown the dead bodies were got identified by them. Thereafter,

investigating agency approached the concerned police stations and the record relating to recovery of unknown dead bodies of a lady and a girl child

was checked and enquired. Photographs of the deceased were got identified from the brother of appellant Dharmendra as well as P.W.8 Maharana

Pratap Singh and P.W. 9 Chandrashakhar Prasad.

It is an unfortunate case where double murder had been committed but no proceedings were lodged by the family members of Archana. Truth would

have never come to light in case the relations between the appellants had remained cordial. Truth came to light only because the marital relations

between the appellants became strained and they started fighting with each other. Due to strained relationship between the appellants, appellant

Prerana approached the police and proceedings under Section 151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the appellant Dharmendra Kumar. During

investigation, appellant Dharmendra Kumar levelled allegations of commission of murder of Archana and Aroma against Prerana. Consequently,

Prerana was interrogated and during her enquiry, she alleged that murder of Archana and Aroma had been committed by appellant Dharmendra

Kumar and she had been threatened to stay quiet.

From the evidence/material on record, it transpires that Prerana got married to Dharmendra on 30.08.2001 on the basis of matrimonial advertisement

given by appellant Dharmendra in the newspaper Times of India and believing him to be unmarried. However, when Archana along with her daughter

also came to the house where appellants were residing together, trouble arose. Since both the appellants did not inform the police with regard to

missing of Archana and Aroma, the only inference that can be drawn, in the facts of the present case, is that both of them had connived with each

other and had committed murder of Archana and Aroma and thrown their dead bodies in the area of Police Stations Harmada and Shahpura

respectively. When the crime committed by the appellants came to light, they offered to get the places identified where the dead bodies had been

thrown and on the basis of their disclosure statements recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, they identified the places where the dead

bodies of Archana and Aroma had been thrown. In consequence thereto, the record relating to recovery of unknown dead bodies of Archana and

Aroma in Police Station Harmada and Shahpura respectively was traced and thus, unknown dead bodies were got identified from witnesses. Hence,

argument raised by appellant Dharmendra Kumar as well as learned counsel for appellant Prerana that the place of incident was already known to the

police and identification which was got done from the appellants was a mere eyewash is without any basis because in the present case, the police had

no clue about the places where the dead bodies had been thrown. In the year 2001, recovered dead bodies were of unknown lady and a girl child. Said

unknown dead bodies could only be identified after the places where they had been thrown were identified by the appellants. Appellants, after

committing murder of Archana and Aroma, had thrown their dead bodies at different places with a view to destroy evidence of crime. Hence, in the

facts of the present case judgments relied by appellant Dharmendra and learned counsel for appellant Prerana fail to advance the case of the

appellants as they are based on different facts.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned trial court rightly held the appellants guilty of the charges framed against them.

Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellants as ordered by the trial court are liable to be upheld.

No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.