Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
VERSUS
JUDGMENT
1
and also imprisonment for seven years and fine of
2
appeal. The High Court upon re-appraisal of the
Court.
3
committed in a third country, i.e., Belgium.
4
5. We may now notice some of the undisputed facts,
Council.
5
August, 1978, Jagdish Singh Lochab (PW-48) visited
September, 1978.
6
the same time, he pursued his medical studies. He
the bank.
7
7.30 pm and returned at about 1.30 a.m. in the
She told her mother that it did not seem possible for
8
accused wrote a letter, to Namita addressing her as
9
fourth floor of Hotel Arenberg, Brussels. Mahender
10
suitcases. He, however, could not give any
11
and could not be traced in spite of various efforts
Dr. M. Singh.
12
offences with which the accused had been charged
13
clerk, Benselin Myriam (PWBG-24) who
wanted to enter his room to check the
refrigerator; visit of the chamber maid,
Ms. Mujinga Maudi (PWBG-22) for the
purpose of cleaning the room and her
observations about the condition of the
accused at that time; the condition in
which the room of the Hotel was found
and request of the accused for his stay in
the hotel for extra night; and what these
point out to ?
14
K. Evidence collected from the suitcase
allegedly brought by the accused to
London establishing that the blood in the
suitcase was of Namita.
15
which provided strong motive to the respondent for
16
placed strong reliance on the cumulative effect of
27/28th May,1979
Belgium Police.
days.
17
is only two hundred meters away from the
hotel.
Namita.
Namita.
hotel.
that of Namita.
18
(13) He ran away from the father of the
got.
19
the opinion of the doctor, who conducted the
20
of the customs authorities. Giving the
21
different locations where they were discovered.
22
much later than 28th May, 1979 or a few days
23
(Ex.CW/3) had been purchased
24
respondent had no need for any clothes. He
course of action.
25
PWUK-3 (on commission) and PW-48, in the
26
his in-laws and expecting trouble from them.
27
produced witnesses from the village where he
at Kharkhoda.
28
with them to ensure compliance with the
Cr.P.C. be followed.
doubt.
29
19. Undoubtedly, this case demonstrates the actions of a
30
20. In our opinion, the High Court has examined the
reads thus:-
as follows:
21. We are of the opinion that the High Court was fully
2
(1974) 3 SCC 668
32
summed up the final conclusion. We are unable to
Motive
33
the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable
Administration4).
that -
3
1993 Supp (3) SCC 681
4
1994 Supp (3) SCC 367
5
1989 Supp (1) SCC 91
34
Again reiterating the role played by motive in deciding as
as under:-
the trial court and the High Court, in our opinion, have
36
thereafter. It is accepted by all that the marriage was
37
was nothing to suggest that Namita or her family
Namita at any stage till the couple left for the honeymoon
being solemanised.
38
observed that it was for the respondent to explain about
her disappearance.
tour. The red suitcase with which she had traveled from
murder of his wife and has used the aforesaid suit case
also narrated before the police that his wife had left him
39
was further reiterated by him in the letter to the Prime
40
29. The most important circumstance relied upon by
inform the couple that the tour party was ready to leave.
41
that this witness had prepared two reports Ext.CW42/A
when they visited room no.415 and could not have talked
42
morning. The arranged marriage having given her
away. I did not enter the room at any stage during that
she could not even give the correct room number. She
the door nor did he take any extra precaution to keep the
43
room closed. This witness was able to enter the room
Court, however, notices that this witness did not find any
44
enter the room in his absence. We do not accept the
45
explanation was forth coming as to where the body or
46
and a shoe were also recovered form the rubbish
the waste container and found a pair of legs and the feet.
47
one of the two legs and the feet in other side of the
near the body parts was a black pullover and some red
the report of the police dated 30th May, 1979. The report
48
report of recovery of these clothings was prepared. The
49
Articles had already been seized from the house of
this report that clothes are mentioned for the first time.
plausible.
50
been allegedly taken on 12th June, 1979 i.e.
51
prosecution. The High Court notices that the
he denied it. The High Court also notices that there was
52
Certain safeguards had to be observed to rule out the
Namita.
53
examined the dental specifics of the body and the report
report as under:-
supplied)
54
iv) The victim had a special feature at the teeth
incisor tooth.
doctor/surgeon or a butcher.
(Emphasis supplied)
55
40. The Stomatologist PWBG-20 Wackens Georges
feminine sex.
(Emphasis supplied)
56
given about seven months later on 11th December, 1979.
57
later date do correspond to the same body namely to the
58
Female individual, at least thirty years old and
of North African type. Lived for a long time in a
civilized, upper middle-class environment.
Good education. Taking much care for her
teeth. Regularly visited her dentist, who looks
tidy, experienced and serious.
59
45. A perusal of the aforesaid clearly shows that in the
60
matter of record that Namita was born in 1956, that
her right knee. The High Court also took note of the fact
61
PWUK-1 was that one of the Namitas front tooth was
her left knee. She also stated that Namita had three
postmortem examination.
62
comparison of palm prints found in the house of her
63
rejected the blood report on the grounds that report in
64
of affairs, the High Court was constrained to conclude
65
Mr. Aggarwal had relied on Parikhs Textbook of Medical
The issue was raised before the High Court. The High
only drop of blood that was found was at the base of the
66
This apart, the very recovery of the blood stains from the
67
in drawing an adverse inference against the respondent
68
the police authorities as well as the Home Minister and
7
(1971) 2 SCC 75
69
concluded that he was hiding because of a guilty
conscience.
70
commencement of the honeymoon trip. Even Namitas
71
55. Before we part with this judgment, we must place
..J.
[B.Sudershan Reddy]
..J.
[Surinder Singh Nijjar]
New Delhi:
January 28, 2011.
72