State vs . Khem Chand on 6 January, 2021

[Cites 25, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . Khem Chand on 6 January, 2021

IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIVAJI ANAND, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
                    (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. 58584/2016
CNR No. DLNT010022232015

State               Vs.                             Khem Chand
                                                    S/o Sh. Ram Kumar
                                                    R/o H.No. 20, MCD Colony,
                                                    Samaipur, Delhi.

                    FIR No.         : 405/15
                    Police Station : S.P. Badli
                    Under Sections: 302/498A/304B IPC

Date of committal to Sessions Court:                                     20/07/2015
Date of institution before Magisterial Court:                            02/07/2015
Date of institution before Sessions Court:                               22/07/2015
Date of Argument                          :                              06/01/2021
Date on which Judgment pronounced:                                       06/01/2021

                                         JUDGMENT

1. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 02/04/2015, at 7.05 p.m., DD no. 43A was recorded at PS S.P. Badli to the effect that at MCD Colony, S.P. Badli, near Church, the inlaws had killed a lady and were trying to immolate/burnt her. The contents of said DD were teleponically conveyed to SI Suresh Chand for taking necessary action. Accordingly, SI Suresh Chand along with Ct. Net Ram reached at H.No. 20, MCD Colony, Samaipur, Delhi, dead body of Reena, aged 24 years, was lying on the floor and on enquiry, it was revealed that Reena was taken to hospital but doctor had declared her dead and as such her dead body was brought to house from the hospital. At the spot, Smt. Saroj and Manoj, SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 1 of total pages 53 mother and brother respectively of Reena were found present, who told that Reena was married to Khem Chand s/o Ram Kumar, r/o H.No. 20, MCD Colony, Samaipur, Delhi, on 19/11/2011 with Hindu rites and ceremonies and she was harassed by her inlaws and they had killed Reena. SI Suresh Chand apprised the facts to Sh. Jasbir Singh, Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate on phone and requested him for visiting the spot. Senior officers Inspector Mohar Singh, ATO, S.P. Badli and ACP/S.P. Badli came at the spot. Executive Magistrate also came at the spot and inspected the dead body. Statements of Manoj (brother of deceased) & Smt. Saroj (mother of deceased) were recorded.

2. In his statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Manoj (brother of deceased), has stated that his sister Reena was married to Khem Chand s/o Ram Kumar, R/o H.No. 20, MCD Colony, Samay Pur Badli, on 19/11/2011 with Hindu rites and ceremonies. He further stated therein that on 19/11/2011, his two sisters Reena and Meenakshi were married together and in the marriage, his parents gave dowry according to their capacity and whatever was given to his sister in the marriage was given with own will. His sister Reena has two daughters, elder one is 2 years and younger one is 6 months. He further stated therein that his 'Jija' Khem Chand used to beat his sister. Manoj further stated in his statement that today (i.e. 02/04/2015), at 5.30 p.m., 'devar' (brotherinlaw) of his sister Reena, had conveyed telephonically that "Reena kee tabiyat kharab hai, haspatal main Rohini aa Jao" (Reena is not well and to come at hospital at SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 2 of total pages 53 Rohini). He further stated that when he asked about the name of the hospital, Sheru told him to call Khem Chand and when Khem Chand was called telephonically, he told to come at home. Manoj further stated in his statement that when he, his mother and his brother Deepak reached at MCD Colony, they saw that Reena was lying on the floor and Reena had expired. He further stated that his sister was being beaten and harassed by her husband and inlaws and that legal action may be taken against Khem Chand, his father Ram Kumar and motherinlaw of Reena.

3. Smt. Saroj, mother of deceased Reena, has stated in her statement given to Executive Magistrate that name of her eldest daughter is Reena and that Reena was married to Khem Chand s/o Ram Kumar, R/o H.No. 20, MCD Colony, Samaipur Badli, on 19/11/2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Reena has two daughters, elder one is two years and younger one is six months old, namely Aaradhana and Sadhna respectively. She has further stated that at the time of marriage, they gave articles to the inlaws family as per their own will and the inlaws family of her daughter did not make any demand of dowry. Today evening (i.e. 02/04/2015), at 5.30 p.m., devar of her daughter namely Sheru had phoned her and told her that "Mausiji main sheru bol raha hoon, Reena kee tabiyat kharab hai, aap Rohini pahucho" and when she asked at what place in Rohini, then Sheru told to call his brother Khem Chand (Bali) and in the meantime, Sunita, mother of Sheru, took the phone and told her to come at home, Reena is not well. Saroj further stated that she along with her son Manoj reached at SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 3 of total pages 53 the matrimonial house of her daughter Reena at MCD Colony, Samaipur, and saw that her daughter Reena was lying on the floor in the room and her daughter Reena had already died. She further stated in her statement that 2025 days prior, one day Sunita, motherinlaw of her daughter, had telephonically called her at her home and told her that "Khem Chand aaj kal galat chal raha hai, kisi doosri aurat ke paas jata hai, isliye Reena ko kuch din ke liye apne saath le jao" . Saroj further stated that she brought Reena and his two daughters to her home. Her daughter Reena told her that Khem Chand used to beat her. She did not make any complaint anywhere in this regard nor made any complaint to police. She further stated that on 18/03/2015, motherinlaw of Reena namely Sunita called her telephonically and told that "Khem Chand was suffering from chickenpox, so she should drop Reema to home today itself. Hence she sent her son Manoj for dropping Reena at her matrimonial house and her son dropped Reema at her matrimonial house. She further stated that 34 days prior to death of Reena, she talked to Reeena on phone and Reena told her that everything was well. She further stated that for the death of her daughter, her inlaws family was responsible and legal action may be taken against them.

4. The Executive Magistrate made endorsement on the aforesaid statements of Saroj and Manoj and directed SHO PS S.P. Badi to take necessary action as per law. Accordingly, FIR of the present case was got registered u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. SI Suresh Chand carried out the investigation.

SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 4 of total pages 53

5. During investigation, spot was got inspected through crime team. Spot was got photographed. Exhibits were seized. Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Reena was got conducted from BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri.

6. Accused Khem Chand was arrested in the present case and he was also found involved in two other two cases.

7. Postmortem report was collected, as per which, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation, via the injury no.1, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, injury no.1 was antemortem, fresh in duration prior to death and caused by ligature material. After collecting PM report, further investigation was carried out by Inspector Mohar Singh and Section 302 IPC was added.

8. On 30/04/2015, further investigation of the case was assigned to Inspector Ramesh Kumar. During investigation, scaled site plan was got prepared. Proof (photograph) of marriage of Reena (deceased) and Khem Chand was obtained. Statements of witnesses were recorded. CDRs, CAF and location of mobile phone numbers 9990312175 (of accused Khem Chand), 9268335513 (of Ram Kumar, father of accused Khem Chand), 9911386420 (brother of accused Khem Chand), 9811165822 (of witness Ashok Kumar) and 9268498754 (of complainant Manoj) were obtained and it was revealed that on 02/04/2015, at the time of death of Reena at about SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 5 of total pages 53 5.00 p.m., accused Khem Chand was at his home. As per CDR, accused Khem Chand gave information regarding the death of Reena to Ashok Kumar, social worker on his phone no. 9811165822 and the location of accused Khem Chand at that time was found at his home. The information regarding illhealth of Reena was given to her brother/complainant Manoj on his aforesaid number by the aforesaid mobile phone of Ram Kumar, father of accused Khem Chand and complainant also talked to accused Khem Chand, then the location of accused Khem Chand was found at Sector15, Delhi, where at Nirvana Hospital Reena was taken for treatment and when complainant reached at the house of accused Khem Chand, Khem Chand was found present there.

9. On 19/05/2015, one written complaint given by complainant Manoj and Smt. Saroj (mother of deceased) to ACP office, was marked to Inspector Mohar Singh, wherein they alleged that Reena who was married to Khem Chand on 19/11/2011, was killed by her husband Khem Chand on 02/04/2015 and had further requested that their statements may be recorded before the Magistrate since they did not disclose everything in their statements recorded by the SDM and as said statements were not properly written. Accordingly, statements of complainant Manoj and Smt. Saroj were got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before ld. MM, wherein complainant Manoj raised only pointing finger towards accused Khem Chand that he had killed his sister by strangulating her but did not level any allegation against the inlaws of her sister qua demand of dowry or SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 6 of total pages 53 harassment. Similarly, Smt. Saroj, mother of deceased, had claimed that her daughter never complained to her that she was harassed for dowry or anything. She claimed that accused Khem Chand had killed her daughter. She further stated that her inlaws had killed her daughter.

10. Since both complainant Manoj and mother of deceased Smt. Saroj did not level any allegation against Ram Kumar & Sunita (fatherinlaw & motherinlaw of deceased Reena) in their statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C., no sufficient evidence was found against them to arrest them in the present case and as such they were not arrested. During investigation, it was revealed that at the time of incident, both Ram Kumar and Sunita were present at the room on ground floor and accused Khem Chand was present with Reena in a room at first floor. It was further revealed that accused Khem Chand, Ram Kumar and Sunita brought down the dead body of Reena from first floor to ground floor and took her to Nirvana Hospital, Sector15, Rohini, but no direct evidence could come against Ram Kumar & Reena and as such they were kept in column no. 12 of the chargesheet.

11. Seized viscera and exhibits were sent to FSL for examination on 09/06/2015. On completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 302/498A/304B IPC was filed against accused Khem Chand before the concerned Magisterial Court on 02/07/2015 and it was committed to the Court of session on 20/07/2015 and was received on assignment by Sessions Court on 22/07/2015. It is pertinent to mention here that by the SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 7 of total pages 53 time the challan was filed before the concerned Magisterial Court, FSL result was awaited.

12. On 12/08/2015, viscera result was filed. Vide order dated 19/01/2016, charge u/s 302 IPC was framed against the accused Khem Chand, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 25/02/2017, FSL result was filed and accused did not dispute the contents of the FSL report and as such it was exhibited as EX. PX.

13. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 26 witnesses in all. The details of said witnesses are as under: S. Name of prosecution witness Purpose of examination No. 1 PW1 Jasbir Singh, the then Executive Who came to prove the statements Ex. PW1/A Maigstrate/Tehsildar, Alipur. and Ex. PW1/B of Manoj and Saroj respectively recorded by him, his endorsement at portion X to X1 on said statements qua direction to SHO S.P. Badli to take necessary action as per law, application Ex. PW1/C requesting concerned autopsy surgeon for conducting postmortem on the body of deceased, brief facts preapred by SI Suresh Chand Ex. PW1/D, death report form Ex PW1/E, dead body identification statements of Manoj and Deepak Ex. PW1/F & Ex. PW1/G respectively recorded by SI Suresh Chand.

2 PW2 Anuj Bhatia, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Who came to prove the CDR of mobile no.

Mobile Services Ltd. 9811165822 for the period from 01/04/2015 to 03/04/2015 of Ashok Kumar Yadav Ex.

PW2/C, its CAF Ex.PW2/A, attested copy of DL Ex. PW2/B,certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW2/D & Cell ID chart Ex.

PW2/E. SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 8 of total pages 53 3 PW3 Sh. Kapil Kumar, the then ld. Who came to prove the statements u/s 164 Metropolitan Magistrate Cr.P.C. of Smt. Saroj and Manoj Ex. PW3/B & Ex. PW3/E respectively on applications of IO SI Suresh Chand Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/D & copy of which was supplied to IO vide application Ex. PW3/F. 4 PW4 ASI Ram Kumar, incharge, Mobile For proving inspection report Ex. PW4/A. Crime Team, Outer District, Delhi.

5 PW5 Smt. Saroj, mother of deceased Reena Who came to prove the factum of marriage of Reena (since deceased) with accused Khem Chand, factum of death of Reena (since deceased), her statement Ex. PW1/B recorded by Executive Magistrate, her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B & statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Mark PW1/X. 6 PW6 Manoj, brother of deceased Who came to prove the factum of death of Reena (since deceased), his statement Ex.

PW1/A recorded by Executive Magistrate, complaint Ex. PW6/A given to ACP concerned, his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/E & Mark PW6/X. 7 PW7 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Who came to prove the Call detail record in Cellular Ltd. respect of mobile nos. 9911386420 & 9990312175 for the period from 01/04/2015 to 03/04/2015, which were in the name of Goldy (brother of accused Khem Chand) and Mohd.

Irshad Ex. PW7/C & Ex. PW7/F respectively, Photocopies of their CAFs Ex. PW7/A & 7/D respectively, attested copy of election I/Cards Ex. PW7/B & Ex. PW7/E respectively & certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.

                                            PW7/G.
8      PW8 Deepak, brother of deceased.                       Who came to prove the factum of marriage of
                                                              his sister Reena (since deceased) with
                                                              accused       Khem   Chand,  dead     body
                                                              identification statement Ex. PW1/G &
                                                              statement Mark PW8/A.
9      PW9 Dr. Shambhu Nath Sharma, the Who came to prove that Reena (since

concerned doctor of Nirwana Hospital, deceased) was brought to said hospital on Sector15, Rohini, Delhi. 02/04/2015 by accused Khem Chand along with his mother and 34 public persons, whom SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 9 of total pages 53 he declared dead on checking, qua the factum of misbehaving by Khem Chand and his accompanying persons, written note Ex.

PW9/A given by Ram Kumar (father of accused), which was further handed over to IO & handing over of CCTV footage of relevant period showing the presence of accused Khem Chand and above persons, in the form of two DVDs EX. P1 & Ex. P2 respectively to the IO.

10 PW10 Dr. Jatin Bodwal, the then Sr. Who came to prove the postmortem report Ex.

Resident, BJRM Hospital. PW10/A & his subsequent opinion Ex.

PW10/B qua injury no.1.

11 PW11 Anil Sharma Who came to prove the factum of videographing the postmortem proceedings & handing over of Digital Video Cassette, which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW11/A. 12 PW12 Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Who came to prove the following record: Tele Services Ltd. i) CDR of mobile no. 9268498754 for the period from 01/04/2015 to 03/04/2015 Ex.

PW12/C, which was issued in the name of Ombir Singh, its CAF Ex. PW12/A & attested copy of election I/card Ex. PW12/B.

ii) CDR of mobile no. 9268335513 for the period from 01/04/2015 to 03/04/2015 Ex PW12/F, which was issued in the name of Ram Kumar (father of accused Khem Chand), its CAF Ex. PW12/D and attested copy of election I/card EX. PW12/E. Iii) Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW12/G &

iv) Cell ID Location chart of aforesaid mobile connections Ex. PW12/H. 13 PW13 Satish Kumar, neighbour of accused. Who came to prove that noises were coming from the house of Ram Kumar (father of accused) & coming to know about the demise of daughterinlaw of Ram Kumar.

14 PW14 W/Ct. Anu Kumari Who came to prove PCR form Ex. PW14/A. 15 PW15 Ct. Naveen Who came to prove scaled site plan Ex.

PW15/A. 16 PW16 Ashok Kumar Who came to prove the factum that of SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 10 of total pages 53 receiving a phone call from accused Khem Chand on 02/04/2015, at about 5 pm., who told him that his wife had lost consciousness and asked him to reach at his house, on which, he asked Khem Chand to take his wife to hospital, who in turn, took his wife to Nirvana Hospital, Sector15, qua his reaching to said hospital, examining of wife of Khem Chand by doctor who declared her brought dead, insistence of accused to take his wife to some better hospital, taking back of Reena to house of accused, where accused apprised him that while they were present in the room of their house, his wife Reena lost consciousness.

17 PW17 Sohan Pal Who came to prove that he saw accused Khem Chand informing his parents in his presence that Reena (since deceased) was eating something and upon eating, she lost her consciousness and taking of Reena to hospital by the accused, his parents, his brother and few other persons.

18 PW18 HC Giri Raj, duty officer Who came to prove the computerized copy of FIR EX. PW18/A, his endorsement on rukka at point X to X1 Ex. PW18/B and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW18/C. 19 PW19 Ct. Danveer Who came to prove the factum of arrest of accused Khem Chand vide arrest memo EX.

PW19/A and conducting of his personal search vide memo Ex. PW19/B, making of disclosure by accused Ex. PW19/C and pointing out the place of commission of offence vide memo Ex. PW19/D. 20 PW20 ASI Net Ram Qua the investigation conducted in his presence by SI Suresh Chand.

21 PW21 Ct.Suresh Kumar Qua the investigation conducted in his presence & has proved seizure memo Ex.

PW21/A. 22 PW22 Ct. Mahesh Kumar, crime team Who came to prove the negatives of the photographer photographs Ex. PW22/A collectively which were taken by him but which could not be developed due to some technical fault in the SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 11 of total pages 53 camera.

23 PW23 HC Gordhan Lal, the then MHC(M) Who came to prove the relevant entries qua depositing and sending of case property vide Ex. PW23/A, copy of RC no. 92/21/15 Ex.

PW23/B & 91/21/15 EX. PW23/C 24 PW24 HC Dilbag Who came to prove the factum of depositing the sealed pullanda stated to be containing viscera of deceased along with one sample seal at FSL, Rohini, vide RC no. 92/21/15.

25. PW25 SI Suresh Chand, first IO Qua the investigation conducted by him. 26 PW26 Inspector Ramesh Kumar, IO Qua the investigation conducted by him.

14. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he has admitted the factum of his marriage with Reena (since deceased) but has denied the case of prosecution and claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely arrested & implicated in this case. However, he chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.

TESTIMONIES OF MAIN WITNESSES

15. PW5 Saroj, PW6 Manoj & PW8 Deepak are mother & brothers respectively of Reena (since deceased). PW5 Saroj has deposed that she was having five children i.e. two sons and three daughters and her daughter namely Reena (since deceased) was eldest amongst all her children. She further deposed that Reena was married to accused Khem Chand on 19.11.2011 & out of the wedlock, two daughters namely Aradhna and Sadhna were born, aged about 3½ years and one year respectively. She further deposed that at the time of marriage of deceased Reena with SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 12 of total pages 53 accused Khem Chand, they had given the articles out of their own will and there was no demand of any dowry from the side of accused Khem Chand or any of his family members.

16. PW5 further deposed that on 02.04.2015, at about 5.30 pm, she had received a phone call from Sheru (brotherinlaw of his daughter), who told her that 'Reena ki tabiyat ki kharab hai' (Reena is not well) and asked her to reach at Rohini. She further deposed that upon this, she enquired from Sheru as to where should she reach at Rohini and Sheru replied her that he would talk to his brother i.e. accused Khem Chand. She further deposed that while she was talking to Sheru, his mother namely Sunita had taken over the phone and told her to reach at their house and further told that 'Reena ki tabiyat kharab hai'. PW5 further deposed that thereafter, she alongwith her son Manoj (PW6) went to the matrimonial house of his daughter Reena i.e. MCD Colony, Samaypur, Delhi, where they found his daughter lying in the room, who had already expired by that time. She further deposed that on seeing the dead body of Reena, she fainted and became unconscious & when she regained her consciousness, it was informed to him that Reena had already been taken to hospital, where the concerned doctor has declared her brought dead. She further deposed that she also went to the hospital, where police officials met her and made enquiries from her and she narrated the same facts, which she deposed above (on the day of her examination). PW5 further deposed that the concerned police official had obtained her thumb impression on few blank SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 13 of total pages 53 documents and stated to her that they would record her statement as told by her to them. She further deposed that she did not know as to what facts they had mentioned over the said documents. She further claimed that her statement was not recorded by any police official or by any Executive Magistrate/ Tehsildar.

17. PW5 further deposed that after about one month or so of the death of her daughter Reena, some police official visited her house and asked her to accompany him to the Court for making statement and she stated to the said police official that she did not want to say anything else except the facts which she has deposed above. PW5 further deposed that the said police official insisted/tutored her for making statement before the Court/MM & accordingly she accompanied the said official to the Court and on the way, the said police official tutored her that she should make the statement before the Magistrate against accused Khem Chand and accordingly she appeared before Ld. MM and being pressurized/ tutored by the said police official whose name she did not remember, she made the statement before Ld. MM.

18. PW5 further deposed that her daughter was living happily at her matrimonial house and even after her marriage till her death, she had visited her house many a times, but she never lodged any complaint and never levelled any allegation against her husband or against any of her inlaws. Since PW5 Saroj turned hostile and did not support her statement made to SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 14 of total pages 53 Executive Magistrate/police/ ld. MM, the then Ld. Additional PP has sought permission to cross examine her. During said crossexamination, the statement Ex.PW1/B recorded by Executive Magistrate dated 02.04.2015 was put to PW5 and she identified her RTI at pointsB on all the three pages of said statement. However, she has voluntarily stated that she did not make any such statement before Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate. She has denied that suggestion that she stated in her statement Ex.PW1/B that around 2025 days of occurrence, she received a phone call from Smt. Sunita i.e. motherinlaw of her daughter Reena, who called her (PW5) at her house or that accordingly she went to the matrimonial house of her daughter and met Smt. Sunita or that said Sunita stated to her that Khem Chand (accused herein) was visiting some other lady or that Sunita asked her for taking Reena with her or that she took her daughter Reena to her house alongwith both her daughters. She has further denied the suggestion that she stated in her statement Ex.PW1/B that when she took her daughter to her house, her daughter told to her that accused Khem Chand had been giving beatings to her. She has admitted neither she nor her daughter Reena lodged any complaint before the police regarding the said beatings. PW5 has further denied the suggestion that she stated in her statement Ex.PW1/B that on 18.03.2015, she received a phone call from Smt. Sunita (motherinlaw of her daughter Reena) or that over the said phone call, Sunita stated to her that Khem Chand was suffering from Chickenpox or that Sunita asked her (PW5) for leaving Reena at her matrimonial house or that she (PW5) asked her son Manoj for taking Reena to her matrimonial SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 15 of total pages 53 house or that Manoj took Reena at her matrimonial house.

19. PW5 has further denied the suggestion that she stated in her statement Ex.PW1/B that around 34 days of occurrence, she made a call to her daughter Reena, who did not state anything adverse to her. She has further denied the suggestion that she stated in her statement Ex.PW1/B that the inlaws of her daughter Reena are responsible for her death.

20. During crossexamination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, original statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW3/B was put to PW5 and she identified her signature at pointB on the same. She has admitted that in her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW3/B, she had stated that her daughter had been killed by accused Khem Chand. Statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was read over to PW5 Saroj and she stated that she made said statement Ex.PW3/B before Ld. MM, but has voluntarily stated that she made the said statement being tutored/pressurized by the said police official and she could not gather courage to inform the said fact to Ld. MM as she was under constant fear of the said police official and nothing of the sort had happened as mentioned in statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW3/B. PW5 has further admitted that before recording her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM had put certain questions to her and she told to him that she was not under any kind of pressure, threat or coercion to make statement before him. She has voluntarily stated that being pressurized by the said police official, she could not tell to Ld. MM that she was tutored by the police official. PW5 has further admitted that SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 16 of total pages 53 she did not move any application before Ld. MM till the day of her examination before the Court that she was pressurized/tutored by the said police official before making statement Ex.PW3/B. She has voluntarily stated that she is an illiterate lady and was not knowing about the law. PW5 has denied the suggestion that she was intentionally not supporting statement Ex.PW1/B made before the Executive Magistrate / Tehsildar as she had entered into out of Court settlement with the accused or that she was deposing falsely to the effect that she was pressurized / tutored by any police official before making statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. as she had entered into out of Court settlement with the accused.

21. During crossexamination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 03.04.2015 was also read over to PW5 Saroj and she has denied the suggestion that she had stated in his statement Mark PW1/X that around 2025 days of occurrence, she received a phone call from Smt. Sunita ( motherinlaw of her daughter Reena), who called her at her house or that accordingly she went to the matrimonial house of her daughter and met Smt. Sunita or that said Sunita stated to her that Khem Chand (accused herein) was visiting some other lady or that she asked her (PW5) for taking Reena with her or that accordingly she took her daughter Reena to her house alongwith both her daughters. PW5 has further denied the suggestion that she stated in her statement Mark PW1/X that when she took her daughter to her house, her daughter stated to her that accused Khem Chand had been giving beatings to her or that she had SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 17 of total pages 53 lodged any complaint before the police or that her daughter Reena had lodged any complaint before the police regarding the said beatings. PW5 has further denied the suggestion that she had stated in her statement Mark PW1/X that on 18.03.2015, she received a phone call of Smt. Sunita i.e. (motherinlaw of her daughter Reena), who told her over the phone call that Khem Chand was suffering from Chickenpox or that Sunita asked her (PW5) for leaving Reena at her matrimonial house or that she (PW5) asked her son Manoj for taking Reena to her matrimonial house or that Manoj took Reena at her matrimonial house. She has further denied the suggestion that she had stated in her statement Mark PW1/X that around 34 days of occurrence, she made a call to her daughter Reena, who stated nothing adverse to her. PW5 has further denied the suggestion that she stated in her statement Mark PW1/X that the inlaws of her daughter Reena are responsible for her death. She has further denied the suggestion that she was intentionally not supporting statement Mark PW1/X made before the police as she had entered into out of Court settlement with the accused. PW5 Saroj has admitted that her daughter Reena was not suffering from any disease and further admitted that she had identified the body of her daughter Reena in the hospital. However, she has denied the suggestion that her daughter Reena was killed by accused Khem Chand or that she had entered into out of court settlement with the accused, she was intentionally not supporting the statements Ex.PW1/B, Mark PW1/X or that she was intentionally making a false statement to the effect that she had made statement Ex.PW3/B before Ld. MM being tutored by the police.

SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 18 of total pages 53

22. PW6 Manoj, brother of the deceased, has deposed that he was having four siblings i.e. one brother and three daughters and his sister namely Reena (since deceased) was eldest amongst all siblings. He further deposed that Reena was married to accused Khem Chand on 19.11.2011 & out of the said wedlock, two daughters namely Aradhna and Sadhna, aged about 3½ years and one year respectively were born. He has further deposed that at the time of marriage of Reena (since deceased) with accused Khem Chand, his parents had given the articles out of their own will & there was no demand of any dowry from the side of accused Khem Chand or any of his family members. PW6 has further deposed that on 02.04.2015, at about 5.30 pm, his mother Smt. Saroj (PW5) had received a phone call made by Sheru i.e. brotherinlaw of his sister Reena and over the said phone call, Sheru told to his mother that 'Reena ki tabiyat ki kharab hai' and asked his mother to reach at Rohini. He further deposed that over the said phone call, Smt. Sunita (motherinlaw of his sister) had also talked to his mother and asked her to reach at their house and as such he alongwith his mother went to the matrimonial house of his sister Reena i.e. MCD Colony, Samaypur, Delhi, where he found his sister lying in the room, who had already expired by that time. PW6 further deposed that he also went to the hospital, where police officials met him and made enquiries from him and he narrated the same facts, which he deposed before the Court. He further deposed that the concerned police official obtained his signature on blank document and stated to him that they would record his statement as told by him to them. PW6 further deposed that he did not know as to what SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 19 of total pages 53 facts the said police official had mentioned over the said document. He has further deposed that his statement was not recorded by any police official or by any Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar.

23. PW6 Manoj has deposed the same facts in the later part of his testimony which were deposed by his mother PW5 Saroj qua the visit of some police official at their house, qua making of tutored statement before the ld. MM on the asking of some police official against accused Khem Chand, qua appearing before Ld. MM & making of statement before ld. MM being under the pressure & tutoring of police official, qua happy living of his sister Reena at her matrimonial house, visiting of his sister to their house many times, qua nonstating of any complaint before him or any of my family member by his sister against her husband or her inlaws and non leveling of any allegation against her husband or against any of her inlaws. Since PW6 Manoj has not supported the case of the prosecution, the then ld. Addl. PP for the State has sought permission to cross examine him since he resiled from his previous statements made before the Executive Magistrate/ police/ Ld. MM.

24. During said crossexamination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, the statement recorded by Executive Magistrate dated 02.04.2015 Ex.PW1/A was put to PW6 and he identified his signatures at pointsB on the same. However, he has voluntarily stated that he did not make any such statement before Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate. He has denied the suggestion that SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 20 of total pages 53 he stated in his statement Ex.PW1/A that accused Khem Chand used to give beatings to his sister. He has further denied the suggestion that he stated in his statement Ex.PW1/A that his sister was being given beatings by her husband and inlaws and she was being tortured or that he wanted legal action against Khem Chand, his father Ram Kumar as well as against motherinlaw of his sister. Even one complaint Ex.PW6/A written by PW6 Manoj to the ACP concerned was put to him and he identified his signature at pointA on the said complaint. He has voluntarily stated that he had only stated in his said complaint that they do not want any legal action against any of the inlaws of his sister & it was one police official (whom he cannot identify), who approached him and asked him to sign and that neither the said complaint was in his handwriting nor he was aware about the contents thereof. On being put the contents of said complaint Ex. PW6/A,wherein it was recorded that Khem Chand had committed the murder of Reena on 02.04.2015 and that the concerned SDM had not recorded their proper statements as they could not disclose the complete facts before the concerned SDM and that they wanted that their statements be recorded before Magistrate, PW6 Manoj denied the same or having lodged the said complaint to ACP concerned. He has denied the suggestion that he was intentionally deposing contrary facts before the Court or that he was intentionally not supporting the contents of complaint Ex.PW6/A being entered into out of Court settlement with the accused.

SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 21 of total pages 53

25. During crossexamination by ld. Addl. PP, original statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW3/E was also put to PW6 Manoj and he identified his signature at pointB on the same. He has admitted that in his statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW3/E, he stated that his sister was killed by accused Khem Chand by strangulating her. On being read over statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/E, PW6 Manoj has deposed that he made said statement before Ld. MM, but has voluntarily stated that he had made the said statement being tutored/pressurized by the said police official and he could not gather courage to inform the said fact to Ld. MM as he was under

constant fear of the said police official and nothing of that sort had happened as mentioned in statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW3/E. He has admitted that before recording his statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM had put certain questions to him and he stated that he was not under any kind of pressure, threat or coercion to make statement before him. However, he has voluntarily stated that on being pressurized by the said police official, he could not tell to Ld. MM that he was tutored by the police official. PW6 Manoj has admitted that he did not move any application before Ld. MM till the day of recording of his testimony before the Court and that he was pressurized/tutored by the said police statement before making statement Ex.PW3/B. He has voluntarily stated that he has studied upto 10 th Class and was not knowing about the law. PW6 Manoj has denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not supporting statement Ex.PW1/A made before the Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar being entered into out of Court settlement with the accused or that he was deposing falsely to the effect that he was SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 22 of total pages 53 pressurized/tutored by any police official before making statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C.

26. PW6 Manoj has further admitted that during investigation, he visited the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital and in the said Mortuary, he identified the dead body of his sister Reena and made statement Ex.PW1/F bearing his signature at pointA. He has also admitted that during investigation, he handed over to IO four photographs of marriage of his sister Reena with accused, who had seized the said photographs Ex.P1 (colly.) vide seizure memo, which are annexed with the judicial file. PW6 has also admitted that IO had also enquired from him about the user of mobile no. 9268498754 and he stated to IO that the said SIM was issued in the name of his friend Omvir, but they have been using the said SIM connection/number.

27. During further crossexamination by ld. Addl. PP, statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 01.07.2015 Mark PW6/X was also read over to PW6 Manoj and he has denied the suggestion that he stated in his statement Mark PW6/X that on 02.04.2015 at about 5.30 pm, he received a phone call from phone no. 9268335513 being made by Ram Kumar (fatherinlaw of his sister Reena), who had stated to him that Reena had been taken to hospital or that Ram Kumar further stated to him for calling Khem Chand or that accordingly he made a call at phone no. 9990312175 of accused Khem Chand or that over the said phone call, accused Khem Chand had stated to him for visiting at his house as Reena was lying dead over there.

SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 23 of total pages 53

28. PW6 Manoj has further admitted that his sister Reena was not suffering from any disease. He has denied the suggestion that his sister Reena was killed by accused Khem Chand or that since he had entered into out of court settlement with the accused, he was intentionally not supporting the statements Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW6/F or that he was intentionally making a false statement to the effect that he had made statement Ex.PW3/E before Ld. MM being tutored by the police.

29. PW8 Deepak has also deposed about the same facts as deposed by PW5 Saroj and PW6 Manoj qua the marriage of his sister Reena with accused Khem Chand, qua birth of two daughter of Reena, giving of articles in the marriage by his parents out of their own will, qua nondemand of any dowry from the side of accused Khem Chand or any of his family members, qua coming to know about the illness of his sister Reena, his visiting to the matrimonial house of his sister Reena alongwith his brother Manoj and mother Smt. Saroj, seeing the dead body of his sister Reena lying in a room on the ground floor, qua identifying the dead body of his sister Reena in the mortuary of BJRM hospital on 03.04.2015 vide statement Ex.PW1/G & handing over of dead body of his sister Reena after postmortem. Since PW8 did not support the case of the prosecution, ld. Addl. PP for the State has sought permission to crossexamine him and during his said crossexamination, statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 03.04.2015 Mark PW8/A was read over to him and he has denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police in statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 24 of total pages 53 accused Khem Chand was having relations with some other lady or that they came to know the said fact or that said accused used to give beatings to his sister or harass her or that his sister was killed by accused Khem Chand. He has denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not supporting statement Mark PW8/A made before the police being entered into out of Court settlement with the accused or that he was deposing falsely as his family had entered into out of Court settlement with the accused and his family.

30. PW9 Dr. Shambhu Nath Sharma has deposed that on 02.04.2015, he was working as Doctor in Nirwana Hospital, situated at C 1/10, Sector15, Rohini, Delhi and on that day in the evening hours, accused Khem Chand alongwith his mother and 34 public persons brought Reena to the hospital, who told him that Reena was his wife and she had suddenly lost his consciousness in her matrimonial house. He has further deposed that he checked said Reena and after checking, he told the abovesaid persons that Reena was no more and had already expired. He further deposed that he tried to prepare the MLC of Reena, but accused Khem Chand and persons accompanying him, did not allow him to prepare MLC. PW9 further deposed that thereafter, the aforesaid persons took the body of Reena with them on the pretext that they are taking her to some other hospital. He further deposed that accused Khem Chand and persons accompanying him had also misbehaved with him and upon his repeated requests, father of accused Khem Chand namely Ram Kumar had given SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 25 of total pages 53 note Ex.PW9/A in writing on the letter head of the hospital, which he handed over the to the IO. PW9 further deposed that during investigation, IO made enquiries from him and he also handed over the CCTV Footage of the relevant period when accused Khem Chand and persons accompanying him, had brought Reena to Nirwana Hospital, in the form of two DVDs to the IO Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively. He has further submitted that CCTV Footages showing the presence of accused Khem Chand, his parents and neighbourers in the said hospital and nothing was audible in the CCTV Footage when same was converted in the form of aforesaid DVDs.

31. During his crossexamination by ld. Counsel for the accused, PW9 has admitted that he did not see any kind of external injury appearing on the body of Reena at the time of declaring her brought dead. He has voluntarily stated that the neck of Reena was covered with chunni at that time and after checking Reena through Stethoscope and her pulse rate, he declared her brought dead. He has further stated that there was nothing sort of bleeding from mouth or nose or from any other part of body of Reena noticed by him at that time.

32. PW13 Satish Kumar has deposed that in the year 2015, while he was present at his house, he heard certain noises coming from the gali and on hearing the said house, he came outside his house and noticed that said noises were coming from the house of Ram Kumar. He further deposed that he saw many persons gathered inside the galiu and on SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 26 of total pages 53 eqnuiry, it was revealed that daughterinlaw of Ram Kumar had expired inside the house of Ram Kumar. Since PW13 did not support the case of the prosecution, ld. Addl. PP sought permission to crossexamine him and during his said crossexamination, he has denied the suggestion that when he came in the gali, he met accused Khem Chand, son of his neighbour Ram Kumar or that accused Khem Chand told him that in the first floor room, his wife lost her consciousness or that in his presence, Ram Kumar, his wife and accused Khem Chand brought Reena downstairs, who was in unconscious state and took her to hospital. He has further denied the suggestion that it was within his knowledge that accused Khem Chand and his wife were alone in the said room where Reena had lost her consciousness. Statement Mark PW13/A was read over to PW13 by ld. Addl. PP for the State and he denied having made any such statement to the police. He has further denied the suggestion that being residing in the neighbourhood of accused Khem Chand & being won over by the accused, he was intentionally not supporting the contents of statement MarkPW13/A or that he was intentionally deposing complete true facts before the Court.

33. PW16 Ashok Kumar has deposed that on 02.04.2015, while he was present at Sector18, Rohini, at about 5 p.m., he received a phone call from accused Khem Chand @ Bali, who informed him that his wife had lost consciousness and asked him to reach at his house, on which, he told the accused to take his wife immediately to hospital and he would be reaching in the hospital. He further deposed that accordingly accused Khem SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 27 of total pages 53 Chand took his wife to Nirvana Hospital situated at Sector15, Rohini, and he also reached at the said hospital, where he met accused Khem Chand and his relatives namely Ram Kumar, Sunita, etc. He further deposed that the concerned doctor examined Reena & after examining her, declared her dead, on which, accused Khem Chand insisted for taking Reena to a better hospital, but since Reena had already expired, they took her to the house of accused Khem Chand, where accused Khem Chand had informed him that while they were present in the room of their house, his wife Reena lost her consciousness.

34. PW17 Sohan Pal has deposed that on 02.04.2015 at about 5 pm, while he was present at his house, he heard noises from the gali and he went towards the house of accused Khem Chand and saw accused Khem Chand coming downstairs and informing his parents that Reena had lost his consciousness and that in his (PW17's) presence, accused Khem Chand also informed his parents that Reena was eating something and upon eating, she lost his consciousness. He further deposed that in the meantime, many other residents of locality also gathered and in his presence, accused Khem Chand, his parents, his brother and few other persons took Reena to hospital & lateron, it was revealed to him that Reena had expired.

35. PW10 Dr. Jatin Bodwal, Specialist, Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU Hospital, Delhi, has deposed that on 03.04.2015, SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 28 of total pages 53 he was posted as Sr. Resident, BJRM Hospital, Delhi and on that day, he conducted the postmortem examination on the body of deceased Reena W/o Khem Chand, who brought with alleged history that on 02.04.2015 at 7.05 pm, deceased was found dead at her home. He further deposed that he carried out the postmortem examination on the dead body of said deceased and prepared his detailed report dated 03.04.2015 Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that after carrying out postmortem examination, he gave opinion that the cause of death of Reena was due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation, via injury no. 1 as detailed in postmortem report Ex.PW10/A, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that he also opined that injury no. 1 was ante mortem in nature, fresh in duration prior to death caused by ligature material. He further deposed that after postmortem, he took clothes, nail clippings and blood on gauze piece as well as viscera in saturated solution of salt and blood in sodium fluoride, of deceased and after sealing the same, he handed over the same to Investigating Agency alongwith 14 inquest papers and postmortem report. PW10 has further deposed that on 19.08.2015, he received an application from Inspector Ramesh Kumar alongwith postmortem report, whereby IO had asked as to whether the injury no. 1 detailed in PM report Ex.PW10/A, was homicidal or suicidal and he replied that injury no. 1 was homicidal in nature. He has further deposed that he also asked whether the injury no. 1 caused by hanging in ordinary course of nature or otherwise, to which he replied that injury no. 1 could not be caused by hanging. He has further clarified that inadvertently, in his SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 29 of total pages 53 report dated 21.08.2015, he had mentioned injury no. 2 in place of injury no.

1. He has proved his aforesaid report dated 21.08.2015 as Ex.PW10/B.

36. PW25 SI Suresh Chand is the first IO. He has deposed that on 02.04.2015, he was posted at PS S.P. Badli and was on day emergency duty with Ct. Net Ram. He further deposed that on that day, DD no. 43A was marked to him and accordingly, Ct. Net Ram (PW20) accompanied him to H. No. 20, MCD Colony, Samaypur, Delhi, where they found the dead body of Reena wife of Khem Chand lying inside the room. He further deposed that it was informed to him that Reena was taken to hospital, where she was declared dead and from the hospital, the dead body of Reena was brought back to the aforesaid house. PW25 further deposed that he contacted the concerned Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate, senior police officers as well as Crime Team officials. He further deposed that Crime Team Photographer took the photographs of the place of occurrence & crime Team Incharge inspected the place of occurrence. He further deposed that from the first floor room of the said house i.e. from the wooden table kept near the bed, he lifted one big steel plate, one small steel plate, one steel glass, one spoon (kanta) & one plastic bottle of 2 ltrs and kept the same in a cloth pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of "SK" and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. PW25 further deposed that he filled form no. 25.35(b) and also prepared an application for preservation of dead body and called official vehicle from District Line & on his instruction, the body of Reena was sent to BJRM Hospital Mortuary through the said official SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 30 of total pages 53 vehicle. He further deposed that PW20 Ct. Net Ram had also accompanied the body in the said vehicle and remained in the Mortuary. PW25 SI Suresh Chand further deposed that on the same day, upon his call, Sh. Jasbir Singh, Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar (PW1) reached the aforesaid address and thereafter he accompanied Sh. Jasbir Singh to PS S.P. Badli, where at about 10 pm, he met PW6 Manoj S/o Sh. Banarsi and PW5 Ms. Saroj W/o Sh. Banarsi. He further deposed that firstly, PW1 Sh. Jasbir Singh recorded the statement of Manoj & thereafter of Smt. Saroj & after recording their statements, PW1 Jasbir Singh directed SHO PS S.P. Badli to take necessary action as per law and the concerned SHO marked the said statements to him. PW25 further deposed that he made endorsement Ex.PW25/A and got the FIR registered through Duty Officer and after registration of FIR, he collected the copy of FIR and original rukka from Duty Officer as the investigation of the present case was marked to him.

37. PW25 further deposed that thereafter, on 03.04.2015, he accompanied PW1 Sh. Jasbir Singh to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital, where they met relatives of deceased namely Manoj (PW6) and Deepak (PW8). He further deposed that in the said hospital, PW1 Sh. Jasbir Singh had moved an application Ex.PW1/C thereby requesting the Autopsy Surgeon for conducting postmortem on the body of deceased Reena. He further deposed that he (PW25) also prepared brief facts Ex.PW1/D & PW1 Sh. Jasbir Singh also filled Death Report Form Ex.PW1/E. PW25 further deposed that he also recorded the statements of Manoj and Deepak SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 31 of total pages 53 Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G respectively in the presence of PW1 Sh. Jasbir Singh qua identification of dead body of Reena. He further deposed that after postmortem, PW1 Jasbir Singh instructed him for handing over the dead body of deceased Reena to her relatives & accordingly, he handed over the dead body of Reena to the aforesaid relatives. He further deposed that the postmortem proceedings were also got videographed & he seized the DVC containing videography of the postmortem proceedings vide seizure memo already Ex.PW11/A & thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex.PW25/B.

38. PW25 further deposed that on the same day, Ct. Danvir (PW19) joined the investigation of the present case with him and during investigation, they went to H. No. 20, MCD Colony, Samaypur, Delhi, where they found accused Khem Chand standing outside his house. He further deposed that he interrogated accused Khem Chand and after interrogation effected his arrest vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/A, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW19/B, said accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW19/C and also pointed out the place of commission of offence vide memo Ex.PW19/D. He further deposed that thereafter, accused was got medically examined from BSA Hospital and he also seized the wearing clothes of accused Khem Chand i.e. brown colour Tshirt and one jeans pant of blue colour, after sealing the said clothes in a cloth pullanda with the seal of "SK", vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/C. PW25 further deposed that accused Khem Chand also pointed out the place of commission of offence SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 32 of total pages 53 vide memo Ex.PW19/D.

39. PW25 further deposed that on the same day i.e. 03.04.2015, PW21 Ct. Suresh Kumar produced before him one sealed pullanda stated to be containing viscera and another sealed pullanda stated to be containing clothes, nail clippings and blood gauze of deceased alongwith sample seal, which were sealed with the seal of "MAMC JB10" and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/A. PW25 further deposed that during investigation on 06.04.2015, he seized the CCTV Footage of Nirwana Hospital, Sector15, Rohini dated 02.04.2015 i.e. 2 CDs, vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/D & recorded the statement of Dr. Shambhu Nath Sharma (PW9).

40. PW25 further deposed that during investigation, he obtained the postmortem report and since in the postmortem report, the cause of death was mentioned as asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation, offence U/s 302 IPC was added in the investigation and further investigation was marked to Inspector Mohar Singh.

41. PW26 Inspector Ramesh Kumar, who is the last IO, has deposed that on 02.05.2015, he was posted at PS S.P. Badli as ATO and on that day, on the instructions of SHO, present case file was assigned to him for further investigation of the case and he gone through the file. He further deposed that photographs of the marriage had to be collected and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was to be got recorded. He further SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 33 of total pages 53 deposed that during investigation, he received an application from mother of the deceased stating that she and her son want to get recorded their statement before Ld. MM and on his instructions, PW25 SI Suresh got recorded the statement of Smt.Saroj wife of Banwari Lal on 29.05.15. He further deposed that on 30.05.15, he got recorded the statement of Sh.Manoj son of Sh.Banwari Lal vide application Ex.PW3/B and after recording the statement, he obtained the copy of the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. vide my application Ex.PW3/F. PW26 further deposed that on 18.05.2015, he along with PW25 SI Suresh and Asstt. Draftsman Naveen (PW15) reached at the spot i.e. H.No. 20, MCD Colony and at the instance of PW25 SI Suresh, PW15 Naveen prepared the site plan Ex.PW15/A in his presence and he collected the PCR FormI. He further deposed that he also collected the CAF, CDR and location chart of accused Khem Chand, complainant Manoj and Ashok Kumar and after completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet against the accused.

42. As per FSL report Ex. PX of biology division dated 07/02/2017, prepared by Dr Ruchi Sharma, Jr. Forensic/Chemical Examiner (Biology), FSL Laboratory, Delhi, (which is not disputed by accused) clothes of deceased Reena i.e. Ex. 1A, 1b and 1c, right hand & left hand nail clippings Ex. 2A & 2b, blood gauze piece of deceased Reena Ex. 3 and clothes of accused i.e. Ex. 4A and 4b were sent to FSL for examination and on biological examination, blood was detected on exhibits 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b & 3, whereas blood could not be detected on exhibits 1c, 4a & 4b. The exhibits SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 34 of total pages 53 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b and 3 were subjected to DNA isolation. DNA was isolated from source of exhibits 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b & 3 and identifier plus kit was used for PCR amplification & data was analyzed by using Gene Mapper ID & Genotype Software. As per said report, femaleDNA profile was obtained from source of exhibit 1a (kurta of deceased Reena), 1b (salwar of deceased), 2a(cuttings of nailsright hand nail clipping of deceased), 2b (cuttings of nailset hand nail clipping of deceased) and 3 (gauze cloth piece of deceased Reena). The aleles from source of exhibit 3 (gauze cloth piece of deceased Reena) were accounted in alleles from source of exhibit 1a (kurta of deceased), 1b (salwar of deceased), 2a(cuttings of nailsright hand nail clipping of deceased), 2b (cuttings of nailset hand nail clipping of deceased).

43. As per serological report, human blood was detected on exhibits 1a, 1b, 3 i.e. kurta, salwar and gauze cloth piece of deceased, but it gave no reaction.

44. I have heard the arguments from both the sides and have also perused the record. It is submitted by ld Substitute Additional P.P for State that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused, he may be convicted in the present case. On the other hand, ld counsel for accused has submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and hence accused may be acquitted in the present case.

SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 35 of total pages 53 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

45. In the present case, there is no eyewitness and whole of the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Generally, when there are eye witnesses to the incident, the Court has to rely upon the veracity of the witnesses to establish the incident, but while dealing with the case based on circumstantial evidence, not only the veracity of the witness but also other points become relevant. Before we proceed further it is necessary to state the requirements in a case based on circumstantial evidence. In this regard, we can rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79), which have laid down the requirements with regard to circumstantial evidence as under: "10. ........ This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests :

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra )."

(6 of 22) (CRLDR7/2020) It has also been SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 36 of total pages 53 held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1552, as under: "There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The Court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 37 of total pages 53 basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial."

In Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984: 1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88, the honorable supreme Court upheld as under: "Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.(1) This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions uptodate, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2) and Ramgopal v. Stat of Maharashtra(3). It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant's case (supra):

"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground far a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 38 of total pages 53 before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra(') where the following observations were made:"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."

SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 39 of total pages 53

46. As discussed above that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the abovestated requirements are to be fulfilled and the facts on which the case is based, has to be cogently and firmly established. After reading the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the other evidence placed on record, this Court has considered that the following facts have been fully established: Presence of the accused at the relevant location at the relevant time.

47. In the present case although the prime witnesses namely PW5 Smt. Sarjo(mother of the deceased) and PW6 Sh. Manoj(brother of the deceased) both have given their statement to the SDM. PW5 Smt. Saroj has stated to the SDM that accused Khem Chand used to give beatings to her daughter but later on in her testimony before the Court, she did not support the allegations of harassment and dowry demand. PW5 has deposed that on 02.04.2015, at about 5.30 pm, she had received a phone call from Sheru (brotherinlaw of his daughter), who told her that 'Reena ki tabiyat ki kharab hai' (Reena is not well) and asked her to reach at Rohini. She further deposed that upon this, she enquired from Sheru as to where should she reach at Rohini and Sheru replied her that he would talk to his brother i.e. accused Khem Chand. PW5 further deposed that thereafter, she alongwith her son Manoj (PW6) went to the matrimonial house of his daughter Reena i.e. MCD Colony, Samaypur, Delhi, where they found his daughter lying in the room, who had already expired by that time. Thus from the testimony of PW5 it is clear that accused Khem Chand was present in the house at that time. In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, given to ld Magistrate, PW5 has stated that accused Khem Chand had killed her daughter. Though she resiled from her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C while deposing in the Court, but the fact that SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 40 of total pages 53 accused was at H.No. 20, MCD Colony, Samaypur, Delhi(the matrimonial home of deceased Reena), where she reached after receiving information regarding illness of her daughter is averred by her.

48. PW6 Sh. Manoj has also deposed that he alongwith his mother went to the matrimonial house of his sister Reena. In his statement Mark PW6/X, PW6 has deposed that he had made a call at mobile phone No. 9990312175 of accused Khem Chand and over the said phone call accused Khem Chand had stated to him for visiting at his house as Reena has been lying dead over there. Although PW5 has resiled from her statement given u/s 164 Cr.P.C wherein she has levelled allegations against accused Khem Chand and PW6 Manoj has also residence from his statement given u/s 164 Cr.P.C, wherein he has deposed that only his brotherinlaw has killed his sister, but both the witnesses have not denied the fact that accused was present at the premises at the time of incident, where deceased expired on the fateful day. So from their testimony with regard to factum that accused was at that place on the fateful day is fully admissible, which establishes the presence of the accused at the place of incident.

49. PW7 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Limited has also proved the CDRs record of the mobile phone bearing No. 9911386420 and 9990312175 for the period w.e.f 01.04.2015 to 03.04.2015. The mobile number 9990312175 as per the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C of PW Manoj was used by accused Khem Chand and on SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 41 of total pages 53 02.04.2015 he(PW6) had made a phone call to accused Khem Chand on the said mobile number. Although as per the CDR record the said number was issued in the name of Mohd. Irashad, s/o Sh. Latif as per the customer application.

50. Presence of the accused at his house at the relevant time period has also been established from statement of PW13 Sh. Satish Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C has stated that accused Khem Chand has stated to him that in the first floor room his wife had lost her consciousness. He has further stated that accused Khem Chand had brought Reena downstairs, who was in unconscious state and took her to the hospital, but in the Court PW13 has resiled from his statement. Since the deposition of PW13 before the Court is totally different from his version given by him in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C, the possibility of his being won over by the accused side can not be ruled out.

51. In this regard the testimony of PW16 Sh. Ashok Kumar is very important. PW16 has deposed that on 02.04.2015, while he was present at Sector18, Rohini, at about 5 p.m., he received a phone call from accused Khem Chand @ Bali, who informed him that his wife had lost consciousness and asked him to reach at his house, on which, he told the accused to take his wife immediately to hospital and he would be reaching in the hospital. He further deposed that accordingly accused Khem Chand took his wife to Nirvana Hospital situated at Sector15, Rohini, and he also reached at the SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 42 of total pages 53 said hospital, where he met accused Khem Chand and his relatives namely Ram Kumar, Sunita, etc.

52. Presence of accused Khem Chand in the house at the relevant time period has also been proved from the testimony of PW17, Sh. Sohal Pal, who has deposed that on 02.04.2015 at about 5 p.m, while he was present at his house, he heard noises from the gali and on hearing the said noises, he went towards the house of accused Khem Chand. He has further deposed that accused Khem Chand downstairs and informing his parents that Reena had lost his consciousness. Since PW17 is not an interested witness hence his testimony is trustworthy. Thus presence of the accused in the house at the relevant time period has been successfully proved.

PRESENCE OF ONLY THE ACCUSED AND THE DECEASED AT THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE HOUSE I.E PLACE OF INCIDENT AT RELEVANT TIME.

53. From the testimony of PW17, it has also been proved that at the relevant time period only the deceased and the accused were present at the floor where accused and deceased were residing separately from the other family members. PW17 has categorically deposed that in his presence accused Khem Chand had informed to his parents that Reena was eating something and upon eating, she lost her consciousness. In view of the categorical deposition of PW17, who is an independent witness, it is clear that at the relevant period of time, none else was present in the room except the deceased and the accused.

SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 43 of total pages 53

54. The testimony of PW9 Dr. Shambhu Nath Sharma of Nirwana hospital corroborates that only the accused and his wife were present at the residence since when deceased Reena was brought to the hospital by accused Khem Chand, his mother and 34 public persons, it was accused Khem Chand, who has stated to him that Reena was his wife and she(Reena) had suddenly lost her consciousness in her matrimonial home. In view of the said deposition it is clear that accused Khem Chand and deceased Reena were the only persons who were present in house I.e first floor at the time of incident.

CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED

55. PW9 Dr. Shambhu Nath of Nirwana Hospital, where accused and his family members took deceased Reena immediately after the incident has deposed that on 02.04.2015 in the evening hours accused Khem Chand alongwith his mother and 34 public persons brought Reena to the hospital . He has further deposed that accused Khem Chand told him that Reena was his wife and she had suddenly lost his consciousness in her matrimonial house. He has further deposed that he checked said Reena and after checking, he told the above said persons that Reena was no more and had already expired. He further deposed that he tried to prepare the MLC of Reena, but accused Khem Chand and persons accompanying him, did not allow him to prepare MLC. PW9 further deposed that thereafter, the aforesaid persons took the body of Reena with them on the pretext that they are taking her to some other hospital. He further deposed that accused SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 44 of total pages 53 Khem Chand and persons accompanying him had also misbehaved with him and upon his repeated requests, father of accused Khem Chand namely Ram Kumar had given note Ex.PW9/A in writing on the letter head of the hospital, which he handed over the to the IO. It is pertinent to mention that though accused had stated to the doctor of Nirwana hospital that he was taking his wife to some other hospital, but instead of taking the deceased to some other hospital, accused and his family members brought the deceased to their house. Further during cross examination PW9 has voluntarily deposed that neck of Reena was covered with Chunni at that time and after checking Reena through Stethoscope and her pulse rate, he had declared her brought dead. He has categorically deposed that since no misbehaviour was caused to him by the accused so he did not lodge any police complaint.

WHETHER PRESUMPTION OF SECTION 106 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE

56. For the sake of convenience Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is reproduced herein below: " 106. Burden of proving fact especially within the knowledge When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him"

Relevant law regarding Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is discussed in the following judgments.

"40 In the case of Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar Vs. State of Bihar (2007) 10 SCC 403 the Apex Court held that " If some one occurrence happens inside the residential portion of the accused, where he was also available, at or SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 45 of total pages 53 about the time of the incident, he is bound to offer his version as to how the occurrence had taken place. The only other person who can speak about the occurrence will be the deceased and now that she is dead, if at all, the accused alone can offer an explanation. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. It is true that this section can not be used, so as to shift the onus of proving the offence, from the prosecution to the accused.

However, in the present, there is satisfactory evidence, which fastens or conclusively fixes the liability, for the death of Gandhi Mathi on the inmate of the house, present therein at the relevant time. So, in the absence of any other explanation, the only possible inference is that the accused participated in the act. If he claims contrary, under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving that fact is upon him, since that is within his special knowledge".

41. In the case of Prithpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10, the Apex Court in the following para has held as under: "...... If fact is especially in the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. It is impossible for the prosecution to prove certain facts particularly within the knowledge of the accused. Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the Section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding suspects, fail to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases, in which, it would be impossible for SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 46 of total pages 53 the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused"

42. In the case of Harijan Bhala Teja Vs. State of Gujarat,(2016) 12 SCC 665, it has been held as follows: " Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that facty is upon him. Since it is proved on the record that it was only the appellant who was staying with his wife at the time of her death, it is for him to show as to in what manner she died, particularly, when the prosecution has successfully proved that she died homicidal death."

57. Now the question arises whether presumption of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable in the present or not. In this case the presumption of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is very much applicable since from the record it has been proved that at the time of incident only the accused and deceased were present in the first floor of the house where accused and deceased were residing separately alongwith their daughters from the other family members since the other family members were residing in other floors of the house. From the testimony of PW17 Sh. Sohan Lal, who is neighbour of the accused and is an independent witness, it has been proved that only the accused and deceased were present at the time of incident. It is deposed by PW17 that on 02.04.2015 at about 5 p.m, while he was present at his home he heard some noises and after hearing the said noises, he went towards the house SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 47 of total pages 53 of accused Khem Chand. He has further deposed that he had seen accused Khem Chand was coming downstairs and accused Khem Chand has informed to his parents in his presence that Reena(deceased) was eating something and upon eating she lost her consciousness. Thus it is clear from the testimony of PW17 that only the deceased and Reena were present in the house at the time of incident. He has further deposed that meanwhile many other residents of the locality gathered and in his presence accused Khem Chand, his parents, his brother and few other persons took Reena to hospital. PW17 has further deposed that lateron it was revealed to him that Reena had expired. Thus since only the accused and deceased were present in the room at the relevant period of time the burden is upon accused to prove his innocence since it was the accused only who knows what had happened to the deceased due to which she expired. MEDCIAL EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO THE PLEA OF ACCUSED.

58. Although accused in the presence of PW17 Sh. Sohan Pal has informed to his parents that Reena was eating something and upon eating, she lost her consciousness. But the medical evidence is contrary to this version of the accused. PW10 Dr. Jatin Bodwal, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased has deposed that he gave opinion that the cause of death of Reena was due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation, via injury no. 1 as detailed in postmortem report Ex.PW10/A, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that he also opined that injury no. 1 was ante mortem in nature, fresh in duration prior to death caused by ligature SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 48 of total pages 53 material. PW10 has further deposed that on 19.08.2015, he received an application from Inspector Ramesh Kumar alongwith postmortem report, whereby IO had asked as to whether the injury no. 1 detailed in PM report Ex.PW10/A, was homicidal or suicidal and he replied that injury no. 1 was homicidal in nature. He has further deposed that he also asked whether the injury no. 1 caused by hanging in ordinary course of nature or otherwise, to which he replied that injury no. 1 could not be caused by hanging. He has further clarified that inadvertently, in his report dated 21.08.2015, he had mentioned injury no. 2 in place of injury no. 1. Thus from the testimony of PW10, Dr. Jatin Bodwal, it is proved that deceased died due to injury No. 1, which was homicidal in nature, which as per the opinion of PW10 could not be caused by hanging. The report Ex. PW10/B, contradicts the story of accused Khem Chand, who has stated that his wife lost her consciousness while eating something.

EFFECT OF TURNING HOSTILE OF WITNESSES I.E PW5, PW6, PW8 AND PW13.

59. Ld counsel for the accused has submitted that although prosecution has examined total 26 witnesses in support of its case, but out of these total witness, three material witnesses namely PW5 Smt. Saoj(mother of the deceased), PW6 Sh. Manoj and PW8 Sh. Deepak(both brothers of the deceased) have not supported the prosecution witnesses. He has further submitted that none of above said three witnesses who are family members of the deceased have levelled any allegation against the SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 49 of total pages 53 accused. It is further submitted that since material witnesses have not supported the story of the prosecution, the accused may be acquitted in the present case. Ld counsel for accused has placed on record following case laws in support of his submissions:

1) Ulhas Sudam Gorhe Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 All.M.R(Cri) 4804, passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court.

2) Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer, 1956 AIR(SC) 404, passed by Hon'ble Apex Court.

3) Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab, 1977 AIR(SC) 1091, passed by Hon'ble Apex Court.

60. As far as defence of ld counsel for accused that although in their statements given to the SDM as well as in the statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C recorded by ld M.M, mother and brother of the deceased have made false allegations of beatings and harassment against the accused, but in the Court they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Ld counsel has also taken the defence that mother and brother of the deceased have deposed in the Court that they have given statement against the accused due to pressure of the police. As far as the defence taken by ld counsel for the accused is concerned although the same is there on the record and both the said PWs have not supported the case of prosecution regarding dowry demands and harassment upon the deceased, but from the evidence of both the above said PWs, the story of prosecution qua presence of the accused with the deceased at the time of incident is proved. Since both the SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 50 of total pages 53 PWs have not stated anywhere that accused Khem Chand was not in the home at the time of incident. So read with other evidence available on record the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act regarding Section 300 IPC still remain intact.

WHETHER THE CHAIN HAS BEEN COMPLETED OR NOT

61. Further ld counsel for accused has taken defence that the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete in the present case. In this regard, I am of the considered opinion that even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that chain is not complete in the present case, still for the shake of raising presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, all the circumstances are there against the accused. It has already been observed above the accused was alone present with the deceased at the time of incident in the first floor and no one else from the family was there at that time.

INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 300 (thirdly fulfilled) IPC

62. Section 300(iii) IPC requires that there must be specific injuries caused to the deceased which is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the present case PW10 Dr. Jatin Bodwal, who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Reena has categorically deposed that on 03.04.2015, he carried out the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and prepared his detailed report dated 03.04.2015 Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that after carrying out postmortem examination, he gave opinion that the cause of death of Reena was due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation, via injury no. 1 as SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 51 of total pages 53 detailed in postmortem report Ex.PW10/A, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that he also opined that injury no. 1 was antemortem in nature, fresh in duration prior to death caused by ligature material. PW10 has further deposed that on 19.08.2015, he received an application from Inspector Ramesh Kumar alongwith postmortem report, whereby IO had asked as to whether the injury no. 1 detailed in PM report Ex.PW10/A, was homicidal or suicidal and he replied that injury no. 1 was homicidal in nature. He has further deposed that he also asked whether the injury no. 1 caused by hanging in ordinary course of nature or otherwise, to which he replied that injury no. 1 could not be caused by hanging. Since injury No. 1, mentioned in Ex. PW10/A was homicidal in nature and were got by the deceased while she was in the company of accused, the onus was upon the accused in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act as dealt in the judgment supra. As the accused has not produced any evidence to thwart the embargo of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, no doubt is left that it was the accused himself who had caused the said injuries, which were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the present case.

63. It was the accused only who was present alongwith the deceased on the fateful day at the time of incident and only he could explain as to what had happened to the deceased and the cause of death of the deceased is only within the specific knowledge of the accused. However accused has failed to explain his innocence and has not explained the facts SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 52 of total pages 53 which were within his specific knowledge and the medical evidence is totally contrary to the version of the accused, which raises doubts that accused is concealing the true facts and is not explaining what has actually happened on the fateful day. In view of the above discussion accused Khem Chand is held guilty for the offence of murder of deceased Reena under the clause thirdly to Section 300 of IPC and consequently he is convicted for the offence u/s 302 IPC.

                                                                                                       Digitally signed
                                                                                                       by SHIVAJI
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY
                                                                             SHIVAJI                   ANAND

I.E 06.01.2021.
                                                                             ANAND                     Date:
                                                                                                       2021.01.06
                                                                                                       16:52:49 +0530
                                                                         (SHIVAJI ANAND)
                                                                   ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
                                                                   NORTH DISTRICT/ROHINI COURTS
                                                                            DELHI.

SC No. 58584/2016 FIR no. 405/15 PS S.P. Badli State Vs Khem Chand Page no. 53 of total pages 53

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs . Khem Chand on 6 January, 2021