Delhi District Court
State vs Narender @ Lala on 6 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. BABRU BHAN: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 : NORTH WEST
1 DISTRICT : ROHINI :
DELHI
STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA
FIR No.919 /2016
PS Mangol Puri
(a) Session Case No. 88/17
(b) Date of offence 21/22.09.2016
(c) Accused Narender @ Lala
S/o Sh. Munni Lal
R/o F-187/22, Nihal Vihar, near
CR Saini Public School,
Laxmi Park, Nangloi,
Delhi-110041
(d) Plea of accused Not guilty
(e) Final Order Convicted for offence u/s 302 IPC
(f) Date of institution 26.09.2022
(g) Date when judgment 03.12.2024
was reserved
(h) Date of judgment 06.12.2024
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. The case set up by the prosecution against accused Narender @ Lala is that he had married deceased Anju in 2013. It was a love marriage. Their matrimonial relationship continued peacefully for sometime but subsequently, accused developed relation with some other girl and this extra marital affair of the BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 17:04:33 +0000 Date: 2024.12.07 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 1 of 34 accused led to continuous dispute between the accused and his wife Anju. 2
2. On 22.09.2016, at about 10:15 a.m. an information was transmitted to P.S. Mangol Puri by Ct. Krishan from S.G.M. Hospital regarding a lady namely Anju brought to the hospital by her husband and had been declared brought dead vide MLC No. 18103/16. This information was recorded vide DD No. 11 A which was assigned to SI Amit Rana who alongwith constable Sanjeev reached at S.G.M. Hospital and collected the MLC of deceased Anju.
3. On external examination of the body, some ligature marks were noticed on the neck. Since the death was apparently not natural, therefore, the body was shifted to Mortuary and preserved. A ccused Narender @ Lala was also present in the hospital and on inquiry, he revealed that the deceased was his wife and they had married 2 years ago.
4. As has been noted above, the death was not natural, therefore, SDM of the area concerned was informed about the incident and the parents of the deceased were also called. Crime team was called at the spot and the spot was got inspected by the In-charge crime team. Further inquiries were conducted from accused Narender Lala regarding sequence of events of the said incident who told that as a daily routine, in the morning he had gone to his work in the factory. After reaching the factory, he noticed that he had left his wallet at home and therefore, he returned back to his home to fetch his wallet.
Digitally signedBABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2024.12.07 17:04:39 +0000 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 2 of 34
5. On reaching the home, he found3 that his wife Anju was lying motionless on the floor. Initially, he thought that she probably had suffered electric shock. He lifted his wife and put her on the bed and called the neighborers for help. His neighbourer Simran came there and gave massage on the legs and hands of his wife but she could not be resuscitated. Thereafter, he handed over his daughter to his sister-in-law (bhabi) Premwati who was living in his neighbourhood and on the asking of Simran, he called Dr. Bihari from his neighbourhood who advised him to remove Anju to the hospital. Then accused Narender @ Lala alongwith his sister-in-law (bhabi) removed his wife to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where she was declared "brought dead".
6. Sh. Amit Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Rohini got conducted the postmortem of deceased Anju and recorded the statement of Kanta Devi (mother of the deceased). In the postmortem report, t h e c a u s e of death was given as asphyxia due to strangulation.
7. After recording of the statement of Smt. Kanti, mother of the deceased, the present case F.I.R. was registered and investigation was set into motion. During the course of investigation, accused Narender @ Lala was arrested. After the completion of investigation, final chargesheet accusing the accused for the offence u/s 302 IPC was filed in the Court which was committed to this Court for trial as per procedure.
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU BHAN
Date:
STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 3 of 34
BHAN 2024.12.07
17:04:47
+0000
8. A formal charge for the offence U/s 302 IPC was framed against 4 accused Narender @ Lala on 29.03.2017, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined 29 witnesses.
10. PW-1 Kanti has deposed that the accused and her daughter Anju got married in the year 2013 in a temple. Thereafter they both started residing at L Block, Mangol Puri. The marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed without informing her parents but later on their matrimonial relations were accepted by the family of the deceased. She further deposed that the accused had not demanded any dowry at any point of time. She further deposed that sisters of the accused used to taunt her deceased daughter, however, accused used to keep her happily and used to take care of her. After some time, accused Narender developed relations with a younger girl residing in the same street and due to such matrimonial affair, he started quarreling with the deceased and he also used to beat deceased Anju and did not allow her to touch his mobile phone. She further deposed that because of such affair of the accused, her deceased daughter left the house at L-Block and they started living in a house at C Block Mangol Puir but the accused continued his extra marital affair with the said girl. She further deposed that on 19-09-2016, it was birthday of daughter of Anju and her others daughters namely Suman and Neha attended her birthday ceremony and informed her that Anju was very happy. She further deposed that on 21-09- 2016 at about 10:30 p.m her daughter Suman made a telephonic call to Anju Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
BHAN 2024.12.07 17:04:52 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 4 of 34 +0000 who told her that everything was fine now and she was happy. But on 22- 5 09-2016, she was present with her son and husband at their tea stall. Two persons came to her shop at about 10-11 a.m and told her son Rakesh that Anju had expired in S.G.M. Hospital. She went to the hospital and identified the dead body of her daughter. The accused was not found in the hospital. Her statement Ex. PW 1/A was recorded by the executive magistrate.
11. This witness was cross-examined in detail by Ld. Defence Counsel.
12. PW-2 Ram Ratan and PW-3 Rakesh are father and brother of the deceased respectively. They have deposed in sync with PW-1.
13. PW-4 Simran who is the neighbor of the accused, deposed that on 22-09-2016, she was present at her h o m e . At about 9:30 a.m, accused called her saying "Bhabi Dekhna Anju Ko Kaya Ho Gaya Hai"
(sister please come and see, something has happened to Anju). She immediately rushed to the house of the accused and found that Anju was lying on the bed and her feet were hanging down from the bed and there were no signs of life in her body. A little drop of blood was seen which was coming out of one of her ears. She further deposed that accused told her that "Bhabi Hamare TV Ko Chalate Huye Current Aa Jata Hai Shayad Anju Ko Current Lag Gaya Hai". Thereafter she and accused started rubbing her hands and feet. Accused told her that he had gone to his factory but when he reached there he found that he had forgot his purse at home, so he came back from the factory and had told her that when he had left for factory Anju was perfectly all right.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:BHAN 2024.12.07 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 5 of 34
17:04:57 +0000
14. She further deposed that accused told her that when he had return from the factory to collect his purse Anju6 was lying on the floor and he had put her on the bed. She further deposed that she asked the accused to call the doctor so he called a doctor from the neighbourhood who came and asked them to take Anju to hospital. She has further deposed that accused brought an E-rickshaw and they took Anju to hospital.
15. PW- 5 Sh. Subhash Prasad @ Doctor Bihari has deposed that on 22.09.2016, on the request of accused Narender, he visited his house to examine deceased Anju as accused told him that his wife was unconscious. On reaching the house of the accused he examined Anju (wife of the accused) who was lying on the bed and her feet were falling from the bed, a lady was also rubbing her hands and feet. This witness examined pulse of deceased Anju and thereafter, advised the accused to take her to hospital.
16. PW- 6 H.C. Mahavir Prasad was the duty officer at PS Mangol Puri at relevant point of time. On 22.09.2016, at about 7:00 p.m, on the basis of the rukka brought by Inspector Arvind Kumar, SHO PS Mangol Puri, he got recorded the FIR of the present case from the CIPA operator and copy of the FIR and rukka was given to Inspector Rajpal for further investigation of the case. After registration of the FIR, PW 6 made his endorsement regarding registration on the rukka which he proved as Ex. PW 6/A. He also proved on record the copy of the FIR as Ex. PW 6/B and certificate U/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 6/C. Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 6 of 342024.12.07 17:05:03 +0000
17. PW- 8 Brijesh has deposed that on 22.09.2016, he was working as Tailor in factory No. 72, New 7Friends Enclave, Sultan Puri, Delhi. He deposed that on 22.09.2016, at about 9:00 a.m, he reached in the said factory and at that time, contractor of factory namely Lala (accused) whom he correctly identified also reached t h e r e . He handed over the keys of the factory to him and told him that he would be returning after some time as he had left his wallet at home. He further deposed that after some time, he left the factory and came in the factory in the evening having handcuffs in his hand and was in the custody of police.
18. PW- 9 SI Harish Chand Pathak is the Nodel Officer, CPCR, PHQ. He proved on record certificate issued by him U/s 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the PCR call on 28.07.2016 at 5:14 p.m from mobile number 9643244890 at channel No. 108 and PCR call on 29.07.2016 at 7:09 p.m from mobile No. 9643244890 at Channel No. 112 and PCR call on 29-07-2016 at 12:25 p.m from mobile No. 9643244890 at Channel No. 140 as Ex. PW 9/A.
19. PW 10 H.C. Prem Singh has deposed that on 28.07.2016, he was posted at PP SGM Hospital, P.S. Mangol Puri and he was on emergency duty. At about 5:37 p.m, he received an information from DD writer, PP SGM Hospital about quarrel at L-152, Mangol Puri Delhi vide DD No. 32 PP. He proved the same as Ex. PW 10/A. He further deposed that on the receipt of said information, he reached at the spot i.e. L-152, Mangol Puri, Delhi where one lady Anju W/o Narender met her and told that she had some altercation with her husband on some domestic issue. The said call was filed Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 7 of 34 BHAN 2024.12.07 17:05:07 +0000 vide DD No. 40 PP. He proved the true attested copy of the same as Ex. PW 10/B. 8
20. PW-11 H.C. Krishan has proved DD No. 33 PP SGM as Ex.
PW 11/A which was regarding an incident of quarrel and the same was assigned to him for investigation. He further deposed that he reached the spot and inquired from the complainant about the incident and he was told that the matter was settled. At 07:50 p.m., DD No. 34 PP SGM, Mangol Puri was lodged and DD No. 33 PP SGM was filed. He proved on record attested copy of DD No. 34 PP SGM, Mangolpuri as Ex. PW 11/B.
21. PW-12 Ct. Bharat has deposed that on 13.12.2016, he deposited the exhibits of the present case in FSL Rohini vide RC No. 322/21/16. He further deposed that after depositing the same, he handed over the acknowledgment receipt and copy of the RC to MHC(M).
22. PW-13 Ct. Naveen was working as assistant draftsman. At the instance of SI Amit Nara, he took the measurements of the place of incident and prepared the scaled site Ex.PW13/A.
23. PW-14 Ms. Rajinderi w a s the owner of house No. C-899 Mangol Puri, Delhi, ground floor of which was let out by her to accused Narender @ Lala on a monthly rent of Rs. 3500/- in the month of August, 2016. She has deposed that on 22.09.2016, accused Narender was residing in her house as a tenant but neither they had any agreement for the same nor did she issue any receipt for the rent. She identified the accused.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
BHAN 2024.12.07 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 8 of 3417:05:13 +0000 24. 9 PW-15 SI Akashdeep was the In-charge Mobile Crime Team. On 22.09.2016 alongwith ASI Karambir (photographer), H.C. Arvind and other staff reached at C-899, GF, Mangol Puri where they met with SI Amit. He further deposed that he inspected the spot and ASI Karambir took the photographs of the spot from different angles. Thereafter they came to mortuary, SGM Hospital where dead body was kept by IO. Photographs of the dead body were taken by ASI Karambir. He further deposed that thereafter he prepared his crime team report which is Ex. PW 15/A.
25. PW-16 ASI Karambir is the photographer of Mobile Crime Team who had accompanied PW-15 SI Akashdeep during the inspection of the spot on 22.09.2016. He has proved 13 photographs Ex. PW 16/A-1 to 16/A-11 respectively. He also proved on record the negatives of the photographs as Ex. PW 16/B-1 to Ex. PW 16/B-13.
26. PW-17 H.C. Narender Kumar was working as DD writer at PS Mangol Puri on 22.09.2016. He has proved on record DD No. 11 A as Ex.
PW 17/A vide which information regarding admission of Anju by her husband in SGM Hospital vide MLC No. 181/03/16 was received and it was stated that injured was brought dead.
27. PW-18 ASI Mam Chand had received a call regarding quarrel at L-152, Mangol Puri on 29.07.2016 at 12:23. He filled the PCR form regarding the call and same has been proved Ex. PW 18/A. Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
BHAN 2024.12.07 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 9 of 3417:05:19 +0000
28. PW-19 Sh. Chandra Ban @ Pradeep has deposed that he 1 in the factory of shoes upper alongwith accused Narender @ Lala was working 0 at New Friends Enclave, Sultan Pur Majara. He h a s further deposed that on 22.09.2016, accused Narender @ Lala came to the factory and he handed over the keys of the factory to one worker namely Brijesh and thereafter he returned to his house by saying that he had forgot his purse and after taking the same, he would come back within 15-20 minutes but accused did not return. He further deposed that he marked the attendance of all the workers in attendance register including accused Narender @ Lala reflected at serial No.
2. He proved on record the photocopy of the attendance register as Ex. PW 19/B. He further deposed that in the evening, he came to know that accused Narender @ Lala had murdered his wife. He further deposed that on 22.09.2016, accused came to the factory and thereafter he left the factory and in the evening he came in the factory in the custody of police.
29. PW-20 Sh Amit Kumar Singh was the executive Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi, who on 22.09.2016, on receiving information from SHO, PS Mangol Puri about the present incident to the effect that a lady was brought dead in SGM Hospital and her dead body was preserved in the Mortuary by the local police, reached there. In the Mortuary of SGM Hospital he met Smt. Kanti (mother of deceased Anju) and recorded her statement. He proved on record the statement of Smt. Kanti (mother of deceased Anju) which was recorded by him on 22.092016, as Ex. PW 1/A, his signatures at points X and Y and that of complainant Kanti at point A. He deposed that the statement is in his handwriting and he made his endorsement and forwarded the same to SHO, PS Mangol Puri to take action as per law. He proved his endorsement at point Z on Ex. PW 1/A. He also filled form 2535 for Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date: STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 10 of 34 BHAN 2024.12.07 17:05:24 +0000 inquest proceedings which he proved as Ex. PW 20/A. This witness further got recorded the dead body identification 1statements of Rakesh Kumar 1 and Smt. Kanti as Ex. PW 3/A and Ex. PW 1/B respectively which bears his signatures at point X on both the statements. He further deposed that he also made request to perform the autopsy. He proved his application in this regard as Ex. PW 20/B.
30. PW-21 Sh. Harvir Shastri produced the summoned record relating to marriage certificate of accused Narender and deceased Kumari Anju. He also brought the documents submitted by the parties at the time of marriage. He proved on record the photocopy of the marriage certificate as Ex. PW 21/A and photocopies of 10 documents submitted by the parties at the time of registration of marriage as Ex. PW 21/B-1 to Ex. PW 21/B-10 which bears the signatures of accused Narender and deceased Anju.
31. PW-22 Dr. Gurdeep Singh, CMO, SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi has deposed that on 22.09.2016, patient Anju was brought to casualty in unconscious condition who was examined by Dr. Aekansh the then J.R. Patient was declared brought dead and after preliminary examination the body of the deceased was shifted to mortuary for postmortem. He proved the MLC as Ex. PW 22/A, bearing the signatures at Dr. Aekansh at point A. PW 22 identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Aekansh as he had worked under his supervision.
32. PW-23 Ct. Rajpal was posted at CPCR, PHQ, Delhi on 29.07.2016. At about 19:09 hours, he received an information from Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2024.12.07 17:05:29 +0000 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 11 of 34 mobile number 9643244890 wherein the caller informed him that there was a quarrel at L-152, Mangol Puri, Delhi. He 1filled up the said information 2 in the PCR form which he proved as Ex. PW 23/A and forwarded the said information to the concerned District at Police station.
33. PW-24 ASI Suresh Kumar was the MHC(M) at PS Mangol Puri at relevant point of time. He proved on record the relevant entries made by him in register No. 19 with regard to the depositing of exhibits of the case in the malkhana. He proved on record the copy of entries made by him in register No. 19 at serial No. 3990 and 4026 as Ex. PW 24/A and Ex. PW 24/B respectively.
He also proved on record the copy of RC No. 322/21/16 as Ex. PW 24/C vide which the exhibits of the case were sent for depositing at FSL Rohini.
34. PW-25 SI Amit Rana was the first IO of the case. He has elaborated the details of investigation conducted by him. He proved on record the seizure memo of cut portion of bed sheet which was blood stained as Ex. PW 25/A and seizure memo of one piece of Jhumka (ear-ring) as Ex. PW 25/B. He further proved on record seizure memo of two sealed pullandas with the seal of SGMH Mortuary Mangol Puri, Delhi alongwith sample seal which was collected by him after postmortem as Ex. PW 25/C, seizure memo of artificial jewellery of deceased Anju as Ex. PW 25/D, site plan of the spot as Ex. PW 25/E, arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW 25/F, personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW 25/G and disclosure statement of the accused as Ex. PW 25/H, pointing out memo of the place of occurrence as Ex. PW 25/J and seizure memo of the electric wire with which Anju was strangulated as Ex. PW 25/K. He identified the accused and the case property.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2024.12.07 17:05:35 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 12 of 34 +0000 35. 1 PW-26 Dr. Munish Wadhawan conducted the postmortem on 3 the dead body of deceased Anju on 22.09.2016. He proved on record the postmortem report as Ex. PW 26/A. He also proved on record the application moved by the IO for subsequent opinion as Ex. PW 26/B and the subsequent opinion given by him as Ex. PW 26/C. He identified the electric wire which was examined by him which is Ex. P-4.
36. PW-27 Israr Babu was the alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. After seeing the customer application form, call details record and certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act of mobile No. 9643244890 for the period from 20.07.2016 to 10.08.2016, he deposed that as per records, the said mobile number was issued in the name of Narender S/o Munni Lal. He proved on record the certified copy of customer application form alongwith identity proof as Aadhar card as Ex.
PW 27/A and Ex. PW 27/B respectively. CDR for the said period as Ex. PW 27/C. Certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of the aforesaid CDR as Ex. PW 27/D. He further deposed that all the documents were supplied to IO during investigation vide covering letter dated 14-10-2016, which he proved as Ex. PW 27/E.
37. PW-28 Sita Ram was posted at CPCR, PHQ, Delhi on 28.07.2016. At about 17:14:48 hours that day, he received an information from mobile No. 9643244890 regarding quarrel at L-152, Mangol Puri, Delhi. He filled up the said information in the PCR form which he proved as Ex. PW 28/A and forwarded the said information to concerned District Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 13 of 34 BHAN Date:
2024.12.07 17:05:41 +0000 and Police Station. He further deposed that later on, Libra-08, H.C. Prem who arrived at the spot passed the information 1that there was "2 padosiyo ki 4 kaha suni" and such information is at point X in the PCR form Ex. PW 28/A.
38. PW-29 Inspector Rajpal was the second IO of the case. He also stated about the details of investigation conducted by him in this case. He proved on record the FSL result as Ex. PW 29/A and the forwarding letter as Ex. PW 29/B. He identified the accused and the case property.
39. The prosecution evidence was followed by statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence brought against the accused was put to him. Accused denied the same and pleaded innocence stating that he was lifted by the police and detained illegally. He further explained that police obtained his signatures on some blank papers. Further that mobile no.9643244890 was being used by his wife. He never indulged in any extra marital affair but her in-laws were having suspicion over him for the same.
Police concocted a false story in connivance with his in-laws. He further explained that he had told the police that his house was found ransacked but police did not conduct any investigation in this regard. Further stated that had he committed the murder of his wife, he would not have returned back to home after marking attendance in the factory. He would not have taken help of the neighborers to remove her to hospital.
40. This Court has heard arguments from Ld. Counsel for the accused and Ld. Addl. PP for State and has also perused the record.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2024.12.07 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 14 of 34 17:05:45 +0000
41. The murder in question was not witnessed by anyone. The entire 1 important aspects and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The 5 circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused shall be dealt with separately under the different headings for the sake of convenience and proper appreciation of the evidence. Before that, it would be appropriate to have a glance at the legal position as to the cases based on circumstantial evidence.
42. The law on the circumstantial evidence has been well settled. The principles of law governing the proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court available on the issue the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstance, circumstances against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstances must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime.
43. In case titled as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) SC, the Apex Court has laid down following guiding principles for appreciating evidence in a case based upon circumstantial evidence :
i) The circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully established.
ii) The circumstances should be conclusive in nature.
iii) All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and should also be in-consistence with the innocence of the accused.
Digitally
iv)The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 15 of 34 Date:
2024.12.07 17:05:52 +0000 exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused." 1 6
44. While discussing the standard of proof required in cases based upon circumstantial evidence, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has made following observations in case titled as Sameer @ Mustakim Vs. State, 2018, Delhi High Court :
"45. when a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role. In Nibaran Chandra Roy Vs. King Emperor, it was held that the fact that an accused person was found with a gun in his hand immediately after a gun was fired and a man was killed on the spot from which the gun was fired may be strong circumstantial evidence against the accused, but it is an error of law to hold that the burden of proving innocence lies upon the accused under such circumstances. It seems, therefore, to follow that whatever force a presumption arising u/s 106 of the Evidence Act may have in civil or less serious criminal cases, in trial for murder it is extremely weak comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence."
45. So, the burden to prove the circumstances from which an inference of guilt of the accused is sought to be drawn, always lies upon the prosecution. The circumstances should be of definite tendency conclusively pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Once the prosecution discharges the aforesaid burden, the role of presumption u/s.106 Indian Evidence Act comes into play. In the trial of serious cases like murder, this presumption is extremely weak in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence.
BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 16 of 34 Date: 2024.12.07 17:06:00 +0000
46. In backdrop of the legal position as to the criminal cases based upon circumstantial evidence, the different important1 aspects of the incriminating 7 circumstances appearing against the accused are being examined as follows :
Motive -
47. As has been discussed above, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, there has to be a complete and unbreakable chain of events to prove the guilt of the accused. Where a series of circumstances are dependent on one another, they are to be read as one ingredient as a whole and not separately as it is not possible for the Court to truncate and break the chain of circumstances as the very concept of chain of circumstances would be defeated. In that event and where the circumstantial evidence consist of chain of circumstances linked with one another, the Court has to take cumulative evidence of the prosecution before acquitting and convicting the accused. Motive assumes importance in the case bases upon circumstantial evidence for it is motive which complete the chain of events.
48. In Suresh Chandra Bahri vs State Of Bihar on 13 July, 1994, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the importance of motive as a compelling force to commit a crime. The relevant observations are :
"21.At the very outset we may mention that sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with. But it has to be remembered that the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because Digitally STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 17 of 34 signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2024.12.07 17:06:05 +0000 most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain1course of action leading to the commission of the crime. In the present 8 case before us the prosecution has adduced evidence that the appellant Suresh Bahri had strong motive to eliminate his wife and two children from his way which evidence has been accepted by both the courts below. We shall, therefore, have a look at the said evidence to see whether the two courts are justified or not in taking the view that the appellant Suresh Bahri had a strong motive to hatch a conspiracy with the assistance of the other two appellants, namely, Raj Pal Sharma and Gurbachan Singh to commit the murder of his wife and the two children."
49. Based upon the aforesaid preposition of law, this Court shall now examine the motive for the murder in question because in absence of any motive why the accused would murder his wife with whom he had solemnized love marriage. Here in this case, the prosecution has claimed that accused had developed extra marital relations with a younger girl who was residing in the same locality. This relationship of the accused had become a bone of contention between accused and his wife, therefore, accused eliminated his wife.
50. To prove the aforesaid motive, the prosecution has placed reliance upon the testimony of PW-1 Kanti, PW-2 Ram Ratan and PW-3 Rakesh who are mother, father and brother of the deceased respectively. PW-1 Kanti has deposed that accused Narender @ Lala initially used to keep her daughter very happy but after sometime, he developed relation with a younger girl who was residing in the same locality. Due to this illicit relation of the accused, the accused and deceased had started quarreling frequently. Accused used to beat the deceased and did not allow her to touch his mobile phone. Due to this extra marital relation, accused and deceased had also changed their address and started residing in C Block, Mangol Puri but accused continued with his illicit relation with that girl.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 18 of 34 BHAN Date:
BHAN 2024.12.07 17:06:10 +0000 51. 1 Same statement as the one made by PW-1 has been repeated by PW-2 9 Ram Ratan, father of the deceased and PW-3 Rakesh who is brother of the deceased.
52. One argument is raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel that all the aforesaid witnesses who are in-laws of the accused had a false apprehension that accused had an extra marital affair. Same stand has been taken by the accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. During the cross-examination of PW-1 Kanti, it has come on record that deceased was married to one Yashpal. However, she had separated from Yashpal and thereafter, married the accused. During cross-
examination of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 or in statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, it was not explained that why the in-laws of the accused would suspect him having an extra marital affair without any reason. No such explanation has come from the defence side at any stage.
53. One more fact which corroborates this allegation of extra marital affair of the accused is the statement of PW-1 Kanti wherein she stated that her apprehension regarding the extra marital affair of accused was not a baseless suspicion. It was a fact which she knew. During her cross-examination, PW-1 stated that she was also aware about a quarrel which had taken place between the deceased and the girl with whom accused was having extra marital affair. She further stated that due to the extra marital affair of the accused, her deceased daughter and accused had shifted their residence from L Block, Mangol Puri to C Block, Mangol Puri. This part of the statement made by PW-1 was not challenged during her cross-examination as no question or suggestion was given disputing the aforesaid fact. Same statements have been made by PW-2 and PW-3. They were also not questioned disputing the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2024.12.07 17:06:15 +0000 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 19 of 34 shifting of house by the deceased and the accused. This shifting of the house by the 2 that house was shifted by the deceased and accused indicates towards the possibility 0 deceased to keep her husband away from the girl with whom he was having an affair.
54. It is also brought on record that accused and deceased used to quarrel frequently. These quarrels used to be so serious that the deceased would call the PCR. An argument has been made by Ld. Defence Counsel that these quarrels between the deceased and the accused were just normal wear and tear of matrimonial life and same had nothing to do with the alleged extra marital affair of the accused. The prosecution on the other hand has claimed that the extra marital affair of the accused was the reason for these quarrels between the accused and the deceased.
55. In the aforesaid context, reference of DD no.32 PP, 33 PP, 34 PP and 40 PP is relevant to be taken. DD No.32 PP dt. 28.07.2016 Ex.PW10/A would reveal that in pursuant to this information given to the police, PCR van had visited the house of the accused at about 08:30 pm. There, the PCR staff learnt that a quarrel had taken place between the accused Narender and his wife Anju. Since the matter was settled between them, the DD no.32 PP Ex.PW10/A was filed vide DD No.40 PP Ex.PW10/B.
56. Similarly, on 29.07.2016, at about 07:20 pm, a PCR call regarding a quarrel at H. No. L-152, Mangol Puri was made. This PCR call was recorded in form of DD No.33 PP dt. 29.07.2016 Ex.PW11/A. This call was attended by PCR and HC Kishan who reached the spot and found that some arguments had taken place between deceased Anju and her neighborer Geeta.
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
2024.12.07
17:06:19
+0000
STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 20 of 34
57. One more similar PCR call was made and same was recorded in form of DD no.34 PP. This DD talks about a quarrel 2which had taken place between 1 deceased Anju and one girl Geeta. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 all have stated in their respective Court statements about the extra marital affair of accused Narender with a girl who was residing in the neighborhood. During cross-examination, suggestions were made to all the aforesaid three witnesses that during the quarrel, the said girl had given chappal blow on the face of the deceased. By making aforesaid suggestions, the defence went to admit the extra marital affair of the accused Narender. For the evidentiary value of such admissions in form of suggestions, reliance can be placed on the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases titled as Balu Sudam Khalde Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC355 where Hon'ble Apex Court held that a suggestion made by the defence Counsel to a witness in the cross-examination, if found to be incriminating in nature in any manner, would definitely bind the accused and the accused cannot get away on the plea that his counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions in the nature of admission against the client. This DD No.34 PP which talks about the quarrel of deceased Anju with one girl namely Geeta, therefore, gives further force and corroboration to the statement of aforesaid witnesses regarding the extra marital affair of accused Narender and deceased Anju had quarreled with the said girl.
58. Further, this Court is of the considered opinion that the multiple PCR calls made by the deceased are suggestive of the fact that there was some serious trouble in the matrimonial life of accused and deceased. Otherwise, the deceased would not have made so many PCR calls against her own husband. Thus, the argument made by Ld. Defence Counsel that the quarrels between deceased Anju and accused Narender were normal matrimonial tantrums does not hold any water. The STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 21 of 34 Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2024.12.07 17:06:24 +0000 deceased had made repeated calls to the police because something was terribly wrong with their matrimonial relationship. 2 2
59. Thus, the prosecution has proved that accused had extra marital affair with some girl and due to the same, the relations with his wife Anju had deteriorated and these strained relations and differences between deceased Anju and her husband was the motive of the crime.
Proof of unnatural death by strangulation -
60. PW-22 Dr. Gurdeep has deposed that patient Anju was brought to casualty in unconscious state by her husband on 22.09.2016. She was examined by Dr. Aekansh vide MLC No.22/A. Dr. Gurdeep identified signatures of Dr. Aekansh on the MLC. The MLC would reveal that patient was declared brought dead. Postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW-26 Dr. Munesh Wadhawan vide report Ex.PW26/A. In the report, doctor has mentioned following injuries on the person of the deceased Anju:
1. Ligature mark 2 cm wide and completely encircling the neck situated at the level of thyroid cartilage transversely located 5 cm below chin, 4.5 cm. below right ear and 4.8 cm. below left ear. Base of the ligature mark is red & inflamed. On exploration, effusion of blood seen in underlying deep neck muscles and grater cornues of hyoid bone.
2.Reddish bruise 2 x 1 cm on right cheek.
3. Reddish bruise 5 x 4 cm on front of left lower abdomen.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
BHAN 2024.12.07
17:06:34
STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 22 of 34
+0000
61. After conducting the postmortem, PW 26 Dr. Munish Wadhawan 2 to asphyxia as a result of opined that the death of deceased Anju was due 3 antemortem strangulation. PW-26 has further deposed that subsequently, on 10- 10-2016, IO of the case had moved an application for his further opinion on the possibility of causing the injury with the ligature material produced. After examining the ligature material, he opined that the ligature mark present on the neck of the deceased was possible with the ligature material examined. He has proved his subsequent opinion as Ex.PW 26/C. The ligature material in this case is a pink, white and blue colour electric wire which is Ex. P-4. In compliance of directions issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, opportunity was granted to the defence to cross-examine PW-26 but he was not cross-examined despite given opportunity. Thus, his testimony has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. The evidence given by PW-26 thus proves that deceased had died due to the manual strangulation with an electric wire. This evidence given by PW-26 contradicts the initial claim made by the accused before PW-4 Simran that he suspected that his wife probably died due to electric shock from the TV.
False explanation by the accused -
62. Another defence side of story is that on 22.09.2016, accused Narender left for his work. On reaching the factory, he realized that he had left his purse at home so, he returned his house and found his wife lying on the floor motionless. He immediately called his neighborer Simran PW-4. In front of PW-4, accused expressed an apprehension that his wife had suffered an electric shock from the TV Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2024.12.07 17:06:41 +0000 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 23 of 34 as their TV previously had some leakage of current. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused came up with a new explanation that had 2he committed the murder of his 4 wife, he would not have returned home. He further explained that when he returned home, his wife was lying on the floor and his house was ransacked.
63. It has come on record that PW-4 Simran was the first person to visit the house of the accused after the incident. When PW-4 reached the house of the accused, accused must have noticed the ransacking of the house. In that case, he would have told the witness about the ransacking and suspicion of murder of his wife by someone else. However, he expressed his suspicion that his wife got electric shock from the TV. If any such statement regarding the ransacking of the house had been made by the accused in presence of PW-4, she must have stated the same in her court statement but no such statement has been made by her. Furthermore, had there been any ransacking of the house, PW-4 Simran must have noticed the same when she visited there and she would have deposed about the same in the Court. Record would reveal that no such statement was made by Simran PW-4. When PW-4 reached their house, accused told her about the possibility of electric shock suffered by his wife. When he could give this information to PW-4, nothing had prevented him to tell about the ransacking of the house but he did not make any such statement.
64. Also, during cross-examination of PW-4, no such suggestion was given to this witness that house of the accused and deceased was ransacked when she visited there. The cross-examination of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 shall also show that no such theory that someone else entered the house for purpose of robbery, ransacked the house and murdered the wife of the accused was suggested.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2024.12.07 17:06:47 +0000 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 24 of 34
65. PW-7 Premwati has deposed that on 22.09.2016, at about 09:30 am to 2 she saw that Anju, wife of the return the custody of female child of the accused, there 5 accused Narender was lying on the bed and there was a lady who was rubbing feet and arms of Anju. Accused Narender was standing there. Relevant it would be to note that neither this witness told anything about the ransacking of the house of the accused nor any such suggestion was given to this witness.
66. PW-5 Subhash Prasad is the local doctor who had visited the house of the accused to see his wife. This witness has also not deposed anything about the condition of the house of the accused. No such suggestion was given to this witness. This witness even was not cross-examined. Thus, his statement went unrebutted.
67. Further, PW-1 Kanti, PW-2 Ram Ratan and PW-3 Rakesh, all have deposed that accused Narender had extra marital affair and due to the same, he eliminated his wife Anju. Cross-examination of the aforesaid three witnesses would also reveal that no such suggestion or question alleging the story that house was ransacked and the murder was committed by someone else was given to the aforesaid witnesses.
68. The story which the accused has attempted to project with the help of aforesaid explanation is that when he left for the office, someone else entered the house for purpose of robbery and killed his wife. Had this been the case, there must have been signs of forced entry in the house but neither the accused has stated in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that any such signs of forced entry were found nor PW-4 Simran who was first called by the accused stated anything like this. During cross- examination of PW-25 SI Amit Rana was given a suggestion as to whether he had Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 25 of 34 2024.12.07 17:06:52 +0000 seized the lock of the house or not which he answered stating that no such lock was seized as door was central locked and keys were with2 the accused. Response given by 6 PW-25 indicates that the lock of the house was in working condition and the keys were with the accused meaning thereby that neither the lock was damaged nor anyone had made forced entry in the house.
69. Thus, this plea taken by the accused that when he went to the house, same was ransacked and he suspected that someone else had committed murder of his wife is nothing but an after thought, same is false.
70. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with effects of false explanation given by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. has made following relevant Observations in case titled as Sudru vs The State Of Chhattisgarh Crl. Appeal no. 751/2010 decided on 22.08.2019 :
" 8. The appellant has utterly failed to discharge such burden. The appellant has taken defence in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., that the deceased has died due to ailment. However, this is falsified by the medical evidence of PW-2 Dr. B.K. Tirki. In his evidence he has stated that, there was a fracture on the head of the deceased and the death of the deceased might have occurred due to strangulation. There were marks of fingers on the neck of the deceased. No doubt, that non- explanation or false explanation by appellant cannot be taken as a circumstance to complete the chain of circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant. However, the false explanation can always be taken into consideration to fortify the finding of guilt already recorded on the basis of other circumstances."
71. No doubt the case of the prosecution must stand on its own legs and non-explanation or false explanation by the accused cannot be taken as a Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2024.12.07 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 26 of 34 17:06:57 +0000 circumstance to complete the chain of circumstance, to establish the guilt of the 2 accused, however, as was held in Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of 7 Maharashtra, a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid to lend the assurance to the Court that accused committed the crime but tried to misguide the investigating agency and the Court with a false plea. Thus, these false pleas taken by the accused that his wife died due to electric shock and thereafter, taking plea that his house was ransacked can be validity taken into consideration against him.
Conduct of the accused that he did not attend cremation of his wife -
72. As per statement of PW-25 SI Amit Rana and PW-29 Insp. Raj Pal, accused Narender @ Lala was arrested on 02.10.2016, at about 09:15 am. Defence has disputed this fact and has claimed that accused was illegally detained on the date of incident itself but his arrest was shown on record on 02.10.2016. During cross-examination of PW-25, one suggestion was also given to the witness in this regard but the witness denied the suggestion. Same suggestion was given by Ld. Defence Counsel to PW-29 Insp. Raj Pal but it was denied by him also. In addition to these statements, Ld. Defence Counsel has also placed reliance upon the statement of PW-19 wherein he stated that accused had returned in the factory on the same day in police custody. Relevant it would be to note that this PW-19 was suggested by the Defence Counsel that on 22.09.2016, after returning to the office, accused remained in the factory for the entire day. So, while cross- examining PW-24 and PW-29, defence has taken the stand that accused left the factory in the morning and thereafter, he was Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2024.12.07 17:07:03 +0000 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 27 of 34 detained by the police on the same day. To the contrary, during 2 the stand that accused cross-examination of PW-19, defence took 8 remained in the factory for the entire day. When the defence itself is not firm on its stand, this Court is not inclined to reject the arrest memo Ex.PW25/F which reflects that accused was arrested on 02.10.2016. Thus, the defence has failed to probablise its stand that accused was detained on the same day.
73. Since the accused was not arrested on 22.09.2016, he should have attended the cremation of his wife for performing her last rites. PW-2 Ram Ratan has deposed that neither the accused nor anyone else from his family were present at the time when dead body of Anju was cremated. Same statement has given by PW-3 Rakesh. Their cross-examination would show that not even a single suggestion was given to PW-2 and PW-3 disputing the fact that accused was not present in the cremation of his wife Anju. It was also not disputed during the cross-examination of aforesaid two witnesses that last rites in the cremation were performed by father of the deceased namely Ram Ratan PW-2.
Thus, the fact that accused was not present in the cremation of his wife and same was performed by her father Ram Ratan has remained unrebutted.
74. The aforesaid post crime behavior of the accused that he did not attend the funeral of his deceased wife for performing Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2024.12.07 17:07:09 +0000 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 28 of 34 the last rites shall reflect a guilty conscience of the accused and is a relevant circumstance against him. 2 9 Recovery of the wire at the instance of the accused -
75. PW-25 SI Amit Rana and PW-29 Insp. Raj Pal both have deposed that initially, accused was joining the investigation and cooperating with them but subsequently, he started evading the investigation. On 02.10.2016, when he did not join the investigation, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW25/F from a place near Mangol Puri Railway Station. It is argued on behalf of the defence that accused was detained on the same day but his arrest was shown on record only on 02.10.2016. Here in this case, the record would reveal that investigating agency had not arrested the accused immediately after the murder. They collected some evidence against him and when sufficient evidence came and accused started evading the investigation, he was arrested on 02.10.2016. Under the circumstances, this court does not see anything unusual with the delayed arrest of the accused.
76. PW-25 SI Amit Rana and PW-29 Insp. Raj Pal both have deposed that they along-with accused reached at H.No.C- 899, Mangol Puri where accused pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW25/J. Thereafter, he got recovered an electric wire which he had used to strangulate his deceased wife Anju. The said wire was sealed by the IO with seal of 'AN' and thereafter, Insp. Raj Pal seized the same.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2024.12.07 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 29 of 34 17:07:15 +0000
77. 3 PW-25 SI Amit Rana During the cross-examination, 0 and PW 29 Insp. Raj Pal both were subjected to questions disputing the recovery of the electric wire at instance of the accused. They were also suggested that accused was detained in the PS for 10 days. Both the witnesses denied these suggestions. Even otherwise, the police could not have detained the accused for 10 days just to extract his confession. Had this been the case, the relatives of the accused could have lodged complaint regarding the alleged illegal detention of the accused but no such complaint was ever made. In considered opinion of this Court, both these witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination and nothing has come which can dent their testimony. Thus, the recovery of wire stands proved. The wire was subsequently produced before Dr. Munish Wadhawan PW-26 for the opinion. After examining the ligature material, Dr. Munish Wadhawan opined via his report Ex.PW26/C that the ligature mark present on the neck of the deceased was possible to be caused with the wire produced. Thus, the recovery of the wire at instance of the accused is also a relevant circumstance.
Accused was last seen with the deceased and he failed to discharge his burden u/s 106 of Indian Evidence Act-
78. It is the case of the defence itself that on 22.09.2016, accused left for his work but thereafter, he returned on the pretext of collecting his purse from his house. When he reached his house, Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2024.12.07 17:07:21 +0000 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 30 of 34 he found that his wife was lying on the floor unconscious. He 3 called PW-4 Simran from the neighborhood and expressed his 1 suspicion before her that his wife might had suffered an electric shock. This explanation given by the accused to PW-4 was apparently a false explanation and a cover-up attempt by him because the photographs of the deceased Ex.PW16/A-1 to Ex.PW16/A-11 would show that there is a clear dark red colour ligature mark seen on the neck of the deceased. It is surprising that this conspicuous ligature mark eluded the attention of the accused and he went to give an explanation of electric shock to PW-4. He did not say anything about involvement of any third person or ransacking of the house before PW-4, PW-5 or PW-7 who had visited the house of the accused after his wife was found unconscious. These witnesses have not deposed anything about the ransacking in their court statements also. Accused took this defence for the first time when he was examined u/s 313 Cr.PC.
79. So, the accused was the last person who had seen the deceased alive. She was murdered in the house of the accused. After she was found dead, accused started making false explanations but none of these false explanations have been supported by any surrounding circumstances. The medical evidence and the statement of witnesses have infact falsified the explanations of the accused.
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
2024.12.07
17:07:26
STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 31 of 34
+0000
80. In case titled as Uma vs The State Rep. By The 3 Deputy, 2024, Hon'ble Apex Court of India has held that in cases 2 where murder has been committed in the privacy of house, the standard of proof expected is lesser than the other cases based upon the circumstantial evidence. Secondly, the accused is under duty to explain as to the circumstances that led to death of the deceased. The relevant observations are :
"24.In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, [2006] Supp. (7) S.C.R. 156, this Court has pointed out that there are two important consequences that play out when an offence is said to have taken place in the privacy of a house, where the accused is said to have been present. Firstly, the standard of proof expected to prove such a case based on circumstantial evidence is lesser than other cases of circumstantial evidence. Secondly, the appellant would be under a duty to explain as to the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased. In that sense, there is a limited shifting of the onus of proof. If he remains quiet or offers a false explanation, then such a response would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances. In terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Appellants have not discharged their burden that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not homicidal and not inflicted by them."
81. The facts of the present case are identical to the afore-
referred case. Here in this case, the deceased was wife of the accused. She was found dead in the house where there were no sign of forced entry. Accused was the last person seen with her. Under the circumstances, it was duty of the accused to discharge his burden u/s106 of Indian Evidence Act. However, instead of Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 32 of 34 Date:
BHAN 2024.12.07 17:07:31 +0000 explaining the reasons of the injuries, he went to make false explanations. Thus, it can be said with3 conviction that accused 3 failed to discharge his burden u/s 106 of Indian Evidence Act.
CONCLUSION
82. The conclusion of the aforesaid discussion can be summed up by stating that an extra marital affair of the accused was a motive for him to kill his wife. The murder was committed in the privacy of his house and accused was the last person with whom deceased was seen alive. Since the murder was committed in the privacy of house without any forced entry, the prosecution was required to prove its case with a comparatively lesser standard of proof. It was the accused upon whom the burden was shifted. It was the accused who was supposed to explain the circumstances under which his wife died. No doubt he gave some explanations but same were subsequently proved wrong. Despite a visible ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, he tried to explain to PW-4 that his wife had suffered an electric shock. The conduct of the accused and the other circumstances including the explanations furnished by him are sufficient to exclude every possibility that someone else other than the accused committed the murder in question.
83. So, the chain of circumstances, in considered opinion of this Court is complete to show that within all human probability, the crime must have been committed by the accused Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2024.12.07 17:07:37 STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 33 of 34 +0000 and no one else. Accordingly, accused Narender @ Lala is convicted for offence u/s 302 IPC. 3 4
84. Copy of the judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN 2024.12.07
17:07:44
COURT ON 06.12.2024
+0000
(BABRU BHAN)
ASJ-03 , N/W
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. NARENDER @ LALA Page 34 of 34