A murder appeal decided by Supreme Court last week had a twist in the tale as the matter ended with the judges ordering a disciplinary enquiry against a Delhi Government official who appeared as a witness in the case. The officer in question, a sub-registrar working in Delhi’s Pitampura office had registered the power of attorney document and a will executed in favour of one Rajvinder Singh by his employer Pushpa Verma, an aged woman, over properties held by her in Gurgaon and Panipat. Singh had later killed the woman for greed of acquiring her property.
The apex Bench of Justices FM Ibrahim Kalifulla and UU lalit, on examining the case in detail found a disturbing fact. The officer, SP Meena had told the trial court that he saw neither the woman nor the accused. This he attributed to the existing practice in his office where the personal presence of individuals who came to register their documents was not insisted upon. The same officer later appeared as a witness for the accused in a related civil suit where he admitted he had read out the contents of the documents to the woman, who signed the document in his presence. The suit was instituted for cancelling sale of deceased’s properties entered by the accused based on forged documents. The suit was filed by the slain woman’s brother.
The court faulted the officer on two counts. Going by his statement made during trial, the Bench found him guilty of “rank dereliction of duty”. It said, “It was expected of him and was fundamental part of his duty to see that the persons who are entering into transactions must appear before him in person and the documents would be registered only after the essential formalities were undertaken.”
But with the subsequent development, the bench questioned his conduct and said, “His attempt to strike a different chord in the private proceedings by appearing as a witness for the appellant (accused) is also questionable.” The Bench condemned the contradictory stands and ordered the supervisory authorities governing him to “initiate suitable proceedings” in this regard. It said, “Such conduct must be dealt with strictly so that the matters of registration continue to have confidence in the eyes of people.”
The transaction in question related to the period November-December 2002 before the woman in question suddenly disappeared in January 2003. She was unmarried, but possessed properties in Gurgaon, Panipat and Karnal as she retired as headmistress.
A missing report was filed by her brother, who suspected her helper who later spilled the beans how he throttled the woman to death and dumped her body in the Ganges Canal near Roorkee in UP.
The Court established that the signature of the woman on property papers transferring interest in all properties in favour of the accused was false. He earned a fortune from its sale. His act also stood exposed as the Court found it hard to accept how an educated woman sharing good relations with her siblings could transfer property to a total stranger.