Delhi District Court
State vs . on 24 October, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 02, NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
IN RE : Sessions Case No. : 719/06
FIR No. : 394/06
P.S. : Sultan Puri
U/s : 302/201 IPC
Date of registration : 21082006
Reserved for Judgment on: 09102013
Judgment Announced on : 24102013
State
Vs.
Rakesh Solanki @ Rahul
S/o Sh. Ramdhan Singh
R/o H. No. 428, Pooth Kalan
Village, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated the present case was registered on the basis of the statement of accused Rakesh Solanki who came to the police station Sultan Puri on 1532006, and gave his statement which was recorded vide DD No. 18 A in which he confessed about killing his wife.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, accused Rajesh Solanki, got familiar with deceased Alka in Budh Vihar Market, Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 1 of 40 2 2 / 2½ years before the date of incident. The accused and Alka (since deceased) kept meeting with each other. They wanted to marry but the parents of Alka were not ready for the same. So on 312006, accused and Alka (since deceased) married in Arya Samaj Temple. According to the prosecution, Alka (deceased) used to work in Idea Call Centre at Jhandewalan. One day accused came to know that she was not going at his work so he secretly conducted inquiry about Alka (deceased) and came to know that deceased Alka had illicit relations with her Fufa Yashpal and some other persons. Accused tried to make Alka (since deceased) understand but all in vain.
3. According to the case of the prosecution Alka (since deceased) betrayed accused, so on 1032006, at about 8 p.m, he picked up Alka from Budh Vihar Bus Stand in his Maruti car and then took juice from a nearby shop and mixed 3 slipping pills in the juice and made Alka (since deceased) drink it. After some time when Alka (since deceased) slept, accused strangulated her with the CD player wire. Thereafter at about 1011 p.m in the night, accused drove his car to the vacant plot of his uncle Baljeet at Pooth village and on reaching there, he dug a pit and buried the dead body of Alka (since deceased) in it. Thereafter, accused went to his house and then lodged a missing report of Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 2 of 40 3 Alka (since deceased).
4. F.I.R. bearing No. 394/06, was registered at P.S. Sultan Puri and investigation went underway. During the course of investigation accused was arrested and recoveries were effected.
5. After completion of investigation final report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate who after completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial.
6. On 2811207, a charge U/s 302/201 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses.
8. PW 1 Ct. Gajanan, is the DD writer. He recorded the statement of accused Rakesh in DD No. 32 B dated 1232006 regarding missing of his wife (deceased Alka). He proved on record the copy of DD entry No. 32 B as Ex. PW 1/A.
9. PW 2 Azad Singh is the Duty Officer who recorded the statement of accused in DD No. 18 A on 1532006. PW 2 also registered the FIR of this case. He proved on record the copy of the FIR as Ex. PW 2/A. He also made his endorsement on the Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 3 of 40 4 rukka which he proved as Ex. PW 2/B. PW 2 also proved on record the copy of DD No. 18 A as Ex. PW 2/X1. PW 2 also prepared the true copy of the said DD and he proved the same as Ex. PW 2/X1.
10. PW 3 H.C. Harish Chander deposed that on 1652006, he collected parcels from MHC(M), PS Sultan Puri vide three road certificates No. 97/21/06, 98/21/06 & 99/21/06 as per details of the articles mentioned in the road certificate. He further deposed that he deposited the exhibits at CFSL Office, Calcutta on 19052006. He proved on record the copy of the said road certificates as Ex. PW 3/A & B. He again deposed that the case property pertaining to road certificate i.e 98/21/06 and 99/21/06 were deposited by him in the CFSL office, however the case property pertaining to RC No. 97/21/06 could not be deposited as the sample seal was not sent with the case property pertaining to the said road certificate No. 97. He deposited the said case property pertaining to RC No. 97 in the malkhana. He handed over the copy of RC No. 98 & 99 to MHC(M) regarding receipt of deposit of the case property.
11. PW 4 Munesh Devi deposed that deceased Alka was her niece. She was the daughter of her brother Ravinder. She Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 4 of 40 5 deposed that her niece Alka had joined some call centre at Jhandewalan. She further deposed that she was not aware where Alka married. However, she came to know that she married one Rakesh. She further deposed that Alka stopped coming to their house after marriage. She visited only once or twice after her marriage. She came to know later that Alka expired but she does not know as to how she met with her death. Mainly this witness deposed about the marriage between accused and Alka (since deceased).
12. PW 5 Ravinder Singh deposed that deceased Alka was his elder daughter. He further deposed that after completing her 10 + 2, she started residing with her sister at Paharganj, Delhi. Thereafter she married with accused Rakesh Solanki and it was a love marriage. PW 5 identified the accused in the Court.
13. PW 6 Balbir Singh is the father of PW 5 Ravinder Singh. He deposed that he came to know through his son Ravinder that Alka had married with accused Rakesh Solanki. It was love marriage. He further deposed that though they have not attended the marriage but thereafter he gave blessings to accused and his grand daughter / Alka being the grand father of Alka. Thereafter she started residing with accused. He further deposed that she Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 5 of 40 6 was sad at that time when she visited his village.
14. PW 7 Sahab Singh deposed that he was working as compounder at Jeevan Jyoti Animal Hospital, Kanjhawala Road, Pooth Kalan, Delhi. He further deposed that one key of the main gate of the hospital remained with their staff and other key remained with the landlord i.e the family of Anup Singh. He further deposed that he does not remember the date, month and year but it was make Maruti 800, the number of which he does not remember. Some police officers took away the said car. He further deposed that he knew accused Rakesh Solanki. He further deposed that Ex. PW 7/A bears his signature at point A.
15. This witness was declared hostile and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and in his cross examination he admitted it to be as correct that the number of Maruti Car was DL2CB5654. Apart from this nothing material could be extracted from the cross examination of this witness.
16. PW 8 Sunil Kumar Solanki is a material witness and I will discuss his testimony in the later part of the judgment.
17. PW 9 Dinesh Chand Ahuja is the President of Arya Samaj Mander Committee, DBlock, Janakpuri. He deposed that on 03012006, marriage between Rakesh Solanki and Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 6 of 40 7 deceased Alka had been solemnized in Arya Samaj Mandir, Janakpuri D Block in his presence as per Hindu Rites. He proved on record the photocopy of the certificate of marriage between Rakesh Solanki and Alka Singh as Ex. PW 9/J in which he had signed as a President at point C.
18. PW 10 Manoj Kumar is the Videographer. He is a material witness and I will discuss his testimony in the later part of the judgment.
th
19. PW 11 Jyotsna deposed that from October 2005 to 20 March, 2006, she was working in Call Centre namely instant solutions call centre & Services situated at 2/22 Jhandewalan Ext. , New Delhi. She further deposed that Alka since deceased was also working with her team at that time in the above mentioned call centre. She further deposed that on 932006, Alka had visited their call centre in the evening and she remained with her about 1520 minutes there. She told her that due to her marriage she could not resume her duty during the above mentioned period. Thereafter she left the office on that day. She further deposed that on the next day on 1032006, Alka had come to their office and joined duty and she remained on duty up to 6 / 6:30 p.m. Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 7 of 40 8
20. PW 12 Jagat Khatri deposed that on 26052006, he used to sit at M/s Sky Motors owned by one Charan Maan who was closed relative of accused Rakesh Solanki. He further deposed that on 1842005, he had purchased Maruti Car bearing No. DL 2 CB 5654 white colour from one Rakesh Vij owner of M/s Sumit Motors for a sum of Rs. 29500/. He further deposed that on 14052005, he had sold the above mentioned car to one Sunil Solanki son of Ram Dhan R/o Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,00/ through Sky Motors. He further deposed that the original registration of the said car was in the name of one Ramesh Chopra and he handed over the original RC to Sunil Solanki at the time of handing over the possession of the car to him.
21. PW 13 Shitij Patni deposed that he was working at Idea nd Call Centre, Instant Solutions Call Centre Services 2 E/22, 2 Floor, Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi as team leader from 622006 to 2042006. He further deposed that one girl namely Alka was working in the said call centre at that time in his team as Executive. On 1032006, Alka had resumed her duty in the above mentioned office at 9:30 a.m and remained there up to 6:30 p.m. Next day she had not joined the duty in the said office. Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 8 of 40 9
22. PW 14 SI Manohar Lal is the drafts man. He prepared the scaled site plan and proved on record the same as Ex. PW 14/A.
23. PW 15 Sh. B.S. Thakur, Deputy Director Mission Conversant, Govt. of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat was posted as SDM Model Town on 1532006. He is a material witness and I will discuss his testimony in the later part of the judgment.
24. PW 16 is ASI Devinder Joshi. He deposed that on 1232006, DD No. 32 B true copy of which is Ex. PW 16/A regarding missing of one Alka w/o Rakesh was marked to him for necessary action action. He further deposed that thereafter he reached at house No. 428 Phootkalan, New Delhi and there he found accused Rakesh Solanki. He made inquiry from him. PW 16 further deposed that during inquiry accused Rakesh Solanki told him that he had married with Alka about two months ago in Arya Samaj Mandir. He also told him that his wife Alka had left him on 1032006, at about 8 /9 a.m without informing anyone. PW 16 further deposed that he also made several queries from the accused and thereafter he came back to police station Sultan Puri and informed the control room about her missing and also made inquiry from surrounding police stations. Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 9 of 40 10
25. PW 16 further deposed that on 1532006, Inspector Meer Singh the then Addl. SHO P.S. Sultan Puri called him at police station in his office and told him that Rakesh Solanki had confessed before him that he had committed the murder of his wife Alka. PW 16 further deposed that accused Rakesh Solanki was present in the office of SHO at that time and accused had also confessed before him. PW 16 further deposed that thereafter the present case was registered on the basis of rukka prepared by ASI Meer Singh. Accused Rakesh Solanki was arrested by IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW 16/B.
26. Thereafter PW 16 remained associated with the IO during the investigation of the case. He narrated about the sequence of investigation done by the IO in his presence. In his presence the personal search of the accused was taken, disclosure statement of the accused was recorded and recovery was also got effected by the accused. PW 16 proved on record the personal search memo of the accused as Ex. PW 16/C and disclosure statement of the accused as Ex. PW 16/D. PW 16 further proved on record seizure memo of kassi as Ex. PW 16/F; seizure memo of RC of car No. DL2CB 5654, one carbon copy of DD No. 32 B, one marriage certificate of accused Rakesh with Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 10 of 40 11 Alka, three photograph of marriage with Alka deceased as Ex. PW 16/G. PW 16 also proved on record the RC of the said car as EX. PW 16/H; carbon copy of the said DD as Ex. PW 16/J; photographs as Ex. PW 16/K, Ex. PW 16/L and Ex. PW 16/M; seizure memo of the key of the said car as Ex. PW 16/N and seizure memo of the lead (wire) as Ex. PW 16/O. PW 16 identified the accused and the case property.
27. PW 17 SI Nar Singh deposed that on 15032006, he was on patrolling duty and was present in the plot of Baljeet Singh Village Pooth Kalan. He further deposed that SHO alongwith SDM Kanjhawala was also present there. Accused Rakesh Solanki was also present and at his instance the soil was got dug by the IO and dead body of one female was recovered. Dead body was having cocacola colour saree and cream colour peticot. The tung of deceased had come out.
28. PW 17 further deposed that as per directions of the IO he took the dead body to SGMH in private tempo and got the dead body preserved in the mortuary. On the next day IO came to mortuary and on his request the postmortem was conducted. PW 17 further deposed that after the postmortem the autopsy surgeon handed over to him four sealed parcels and one sample Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 11 of 40 12 seal with seal of hospital which he handed over to the IO and the same was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW 17/A.
29. PW 18, Rakesh deposed that in the month of January 2005, he had purchased one Maruti car Model 1991 and had sold the same to Jagat Khatri after about one month of purchasing the car for Rs. 28000/ and also handed over the delivery of the car to Jagat Khatri on the same day. He had handed over to the IO the photocopy of the delivery receipt of the said car. He proved on record the delivery receipt of the same as Ex. PW 18/A.
30. PW 19 Ashwani Singh deposed that he alongwith Gaurav Verma and Sachin Khanijo were running a partnership firm under the name of Instant Solutions Call Center Services at Jhandewalan Ext. Delhi since the year 2004. He further deposed that one Alka was employed in their firm during the period of November to December 2005 and thereafter she had left the job. She had again joined the job only for one day in the month of March 2006. He further deposed that Jyotsana Malik and Shitiz Patni were also employed in their partnership firm. He further deposed that he had given the job details of Alka, Jyotsana Malik and Shitiz Patni to the IO which he proved as Ex. Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 12 of 40 13 PW 19/A. He further deposed that Alka had joined their partnership for one day i.e on 10032006.
31. PW 20 H.C. Satbir deposed that on 1632006, he alongwiht Inspector Meer Singh and accused Rakesh Solanki had gone to Kanjhawala Road near godown of coca cola Main road where accused pointed out the site where he had parked his Maruti car No. DL2CB 5654 on 10032006, and had given sleeping pills in juice to his wife and strangulated her. PW 20 proved on record the pointing out memo in this regard as Ex. PW 20/A.
32. PW 21 ASI Sajjan Kumar is the photographer who alongwith the crime team reached at the scene of crime on 1532006, and took 11 photographs of the scene of crime from different angles. He proved on record the photographs as Ex. PW 21/A 1 to Ex. PW 21/A 11. He also proved on record the corresponding strip as Ex. PW 21/B.
33. PW 22 H.C. Pradeep Kumar joined the investigation with the IO on 1532006 and went to the plot of Baljeet Singh at village Pooth Kalan with the IO. PW 22 further deposed that accused was in the custody of the IO and he pointed out that he had buried his wife Alka after killing her in the vacant plot of Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 13 of 40 14 Baljeet Singh on 1032006. He further deposed that after taking spade from the neighbourers, spot which was pointed out by the accused was dug and after digging about 23 ft a dead body of woman was found whose head was in the north direction and foot were in the south direction. The dead body was having saree of coca cola colour and blouse of matmela colour and gulabi colour peticot. He further deposed that Inspector Meer Singh called the crime team, photographer and videographer at the spot. Photographer took the photographs of the spot at the time of digging and videographer had done the videography.
34. PW 23 Constable Sumer Singh deposed that on 15032006, duty officer handed over to him copy of FIR in an envelope which he had supplied to concerned Ld. MM and senior officers of police at their residence.
35. PW 24 H.C. Satpal Singh is the MHC(M). He proved on record the relevant entries made by him in register No. 19 as Ex. PW 24/A, Ex. PW 24/B and Ex. PW 24/C. He also proved on record the copy of road certificate No. 120/21 as Ex. PW 24/D and copy of acknowledgment as Ex. PW 24/E.
36. PW 25 Bhupinder Singh brought the summoned record of vehicle No. DL 2 CB 5654 (LMV Car 800). He proved on Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 14 of 40 15 record the particulars of the said car as Ex. PW 25/A.
37. PW 26 Inspector Ravi Singh is the incharge Mobile Crime Team. On 1532006, he inspected the scene of crime and prepared his report. He proved on record his crime team report as Ex. PW 26/A.
38. PW 27 Dr. Ashish Jain conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Alka. He proved on record the postmortem report as Ex. PW 27/A. He also gave the subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence i.e wire and proved on record the same as Ex. PW 27/B.
39. PW 28 Ct. Joginder deposed that on 1532006, he was on patrolling and while on patrolling reached at the plot of Baljeet Singh where IO was found present. Accused Rakesh was also found present at the plot of Baljeet Singh were SDM alongwith his staff was also present. He further deposed that IO of the case requested some public persons to join the investigation but none agreed due to their personal problems. He further deposed that the room of Baljeet Singh was found locked. Accused Rakesh disclosed that he had buried the body of his wife in the room which was closed. When the key of the lock was not found available, on the directions of the SDM, the lock of the door of the Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 15 of 40 16 room was broken and at the instance of accused Rakesh on the back side of plot behind the room a particular place which was pointed out by the accused was dug and a dead body was recovered which was having coca cola colour saree on it and the entire recovery proceedings of the dead body was video graphed. The accused identified the dead body as that of his wife Alka.
40. PW 29 Inspector Meer Singh is the IO of the case. He unfolded the sequence of investigation done by him. He proved on record his endorsement on DD No. 18 A as Ex. PW 29/A; body inspection memo of accused as Ex. PW 29/B; site plan as Ex. PW 29/B; videography as Ex. PW 29/C; photographs CD with negatives as Ex. PW 29/D; request for shifting the dead body to Mortuary Sanjay Gandhi Hospital through Ct. Nar Singh as Ex. PW 29/E; inquest proceedings as Ex. PW 29/F and request for the same as Ex. PW 29/G; seizure memo of viscera as Ex. PW 29/H; request for obtaining subsequent opinion as Ex. PW 29/J; ownership documents of Maruti car DL 2 CB 5654 as Ex. PW 29/K; certificate obtained from Rakesh Vij regarding the sale of the said car as Ex. PW 29/L; employment certificate of deceased Alka as Ex. PW 29/M and FSL results as Ex. PW Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 16 of 40 17 29/N, Ex. PW 29/O and Ex. PW 29/P.
41. PW 30 Som Dev is the pandit who on 312006, performed the marriage of accused Rakesh Solanki with Alka according to Arya Samaj rites and ceremonies. He deposed that after the marriage, marriage certificate was also issued and the signatures from both sides were obtained. He further deposed that the marriage was performed with the consent of both the parties and the marriage certificate issued by their Mandir is Ex. PW 8/A.
42. After the closing of the prosecution evidence statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and all the incriminating evidence was put to him. Accused denied the same and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No evidence in defence was led by the accused.
43. I have heard Ld. Addl.PP for the state and Ld counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records of the case.
44. It is submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that on the basis of the evidence recorded and the material available on record accused be convicted. It is also submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that this case is based on circumstantial Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 17 of 40 18 evidence and the prosecution has been able to prove the chain of circumstances which unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the accused married with deceased Alka on 312006 in Arya Samaj Mandir. It is further urged by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement made by the accused on 1532006 wherein he stated about the illicit relations of his wife with her uncle and some other persons as the reason for the murder of deceased Alka and the accused also got discovered the dead body of his wife Alka from a vacant plot. It is further urged by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by the SDM and the dead body was also recovered in the presence of SDM. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the conduct of the accused is relevant U/s 8 and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted by him that the disclosure statement made by the accused can be relied upon as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to the extent it leads to discovery of facts.
45. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld defence counsel that the wife of the accused was missing since Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 18 of 40 19 1032006, and the accused lodged a missing report vide DD No. 32 B. It is further submitted by the Ld defence counsel that according to PW 8 the dead body was recovered on 12/1332006 from the plot of Baljeet Solanki. It is further urged by the Ld defence counsel that PW 10 has also deposed that his services were hired by SHO of PS Sultan Puri two days prior to 1532006 i.e on 1332006 which clearly shows that the dead body was not discovered on 1532006 as alleged by the prosecution. Ld defence counsel has relied upon : Rai Singh Vs. The state 1996 JCC 364 and Munna Lal Vs. State II (1997) CCR 597 (DB).
46. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and the law has been well settled by the catena of judgments of superior Courts. The principles of law governing the proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. The above said principles deducible from the 5 principals of law laid down by the Hon' Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.
47. Now as per the case of the prosecution the accused went to PS Sultan Puri on 1532006, and confessed about murdering of his wife. DD No. 18 A was recorded and on the Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 19 of 40 20 basis of the said DD FIR bearing No. 394/06, was registered U/s 302/201 IPC. Prior to the statement made by the accused he has lodged a missing report vide DD No. 32 B which is Ex. PW 1/A. These are two very important documents of this case. The points which now arises for consideration are as follows :
48. Date of Recovery of Dead Body : It was vehemently argued by the Ld defence counsel that the dead body was recovered on 12 / 1332006 from the plot of uncle of PW 8 Sunil Kumar who is the brother of the accused. So the dead body cannot be again recovered on 1532006. According to the prosecution the accused himself lodged the FIR in the police station on 1532006. In pursuance of his disclosure the dead body was recovered on 1532006 from the plot of one Baljeet, in the presence of the SDM and the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused was photographed and videographed.
49. Now let us see whether the version of the defnece with regard to the date of recovery of the dead body is believable or the version of the prosecution regarding the date of recovery of the dead body is truthful.
50. PW 8 Sunil Kumar Solanki is the brother of the Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 20 of 40 21 accused, he has accepted the marriage between the deceased and the accused and proved the marriage certificate which has been signed by him as Ex. PW 8/A. He has also admitted regarding the purchase of the Maruti Car bearing No. DL 2CB 5654 which according to the prosecution was with the accused at the time of the incident.
51. This witness was cross examined and in his cross examination he stated that he had informed the police at number 100 on 12/1332006 regarding the recovery of the dead body from the plot of his uncle (Chacha) Baljeet Solanki during the cleanliness of the said plot.
52. PW 10 Manoj Kumar is the videographer who has deposed that on 1532006, on the request of the IO he had visited the plot of Baljeet Singh and on the direction of the SDM who was present there he made the video and also took the photographs of the proceedings done by the police and SDM at the spot. Thereafter he handed over the CD and the photographs to the IO.
53. This witness was cross examined and in the cross examination he stated that his services were hired by the SHO two days prior to 1532006. SHO had told him on 13320006 Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 21 of 40 22 that he had to come to village Pooth Kalan on 1532006. He stated that he had made the video and also took the photographs and he also identified them in the Court. He denied the suggestion that the CD was manipulated after covering the dead body with mud or that the CD was fabricated at the instance of the IO. Except these two witnesses no one is talking about the recovery of the dead body on 12/ 1332006.
54. In order to clarify the things the court exercised its power U/s 311 Cr.P.C and called the records of DD entries of PS Sultan Puri dated 1232006 and 1332006. The said DDs entries in register A and D are Ex. CW 1/A collectively.
55. The perusal of the said DDs shows that there is no call from Sunil Kumar at number 100 on 12/ 1332006 regarding the recovery of any dead body. If one was to believe the versions of PW 8 and PW 10 regarding the recovery of dead body on 12 / 1332006 from the plot of Baljeet who is the chacha of accused and PW 8 then it is not understood why they did not take the possession of the body and in case the police was not handing over the dead body to them why they did not raise any hue and cry. They did not even make any higher authority aware about the recovery of the dead body of Alka and the conduct of the Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 22 of 40 23 police in not handing them the dead body.
56. PW 8 who is the brother of the accused must have told the accused regarding the recovery of the dead body of Alka but they both chose to remain silent for the reasons best known to them. Rather accused goes to police station on 1532006 and lodges an FIR regarding the murder of his wife. Photographer PW 10 is also not speaking the truth regarding coming of police to him two days prior to 1532006 because the DD entries which are Ex. CW 1/A speaks otherwise. However, he has taken the photographs and made the video on 1532006 at the instance of the IO and the SDM. According to PW 8, Baljeet from whose plot the dead body was recovered is the uncle of accused and Sunil Kumar who are brothers. Accused has not lead any defence evidence for the reasons best known to him. The accused had a very good opportunity to create doubt in the case of the prosecution by examining his chacha Baljeet and his labourers who were cleaning the plot and discovered the dead body but that has not been done by the accused.
57. RECOCERY OF THE DEAD BODY : As far as the factum of marriage between the accused and deceased Alka is concerned the same has not been disputed and it is the admitted Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 23 of 40 24 fact of both the parties. Alka since deceased went missing on 1032006, and the accused lodged a missing report vide DD No. 32 B. Thereafter according to the prosecution on 1532006 the accused came to the police station and confessed to the crime. DD No. 18 A was recorded by H.C. Azad Singh and on the basis of the said DD FIR in the present case was registered.
58. The confessional statement of the accused is no doubt hit by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act but Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 and is a proviso to Section 26. It makes admissible so much of the statement of the accused which leads to the discovery of fact deposed to by the accused and connected with the crime irrespective of the question whether it is confessional or not. The essential ingredient is that the information given by the accused which leads to discovery of the fact which is direct outcome of such information. Secondly, only such portion of information given as distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused and thirdly, the discovery of the fact which relates to the commission of some offence.
59. At the instance of the accused the dead body was discovered from the plot belonging to one Baljeet. The dead Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 24 of 40 25 body was buried in the ground and the accused pointed out towards the spot where the dead body was buried and he also told the north, south, east and west position of the body parts of the deceased. PW 10 though has not supported the case of the prosecution regarding the date of recovery of the dead body but he has admitted that he took the photographs of the dead body and also videographed the recovery of the dead body.
60. PW 15 is the most material witness of recovery. He is B.S. Thakur, S.D.M. In his presence the dead body was recovered on 1532006. He deposed that on 1532006, he received a phone call from the SHO Sultan Puri at about 1:00 p.m who told him that one person named Rakesh Solanki had come to the police station and stated that he had killed his wife and buried the dead body in some plot. He went to the police station where he found accused and the police waiting for him. He further deposed that accused led them to Village Pooth Kalan and on a narrow lane he showed them a small room which was locked from outside and stated that he had buried the dead body inside the plot. As the keys could not be located the lock was broken and they all entered the said room. He asked the accused as to where he had buried the dead body. The accused Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 25 of 40 26 specifically pointed out the place and informed that the head of the body was in the south direction and the legs were on the north direction. He further deposed that the entire seen was videographed and photographed and he also called the crime team.
61. He further deposed that on specifically pointing out by the accused the earth was removed by the policemen and after digging about 3 or 3 ½ feet the dead body of deceased Alka was found in the same direction and in the same position as intimated by the accused prior to recovery. He further deposed that alongwith the body the purse and the sandles of the deceased were also found. He proved on record the recovery memo of the dead body as Ex. PW 15/A. The seizure memo of the broken lock is Ex. PW 15/B and seizure memo of the remaining exhibits is Ex. PW 15/C. Recovery memo of leather purse is Ex. PW 15/D. I card of the deceased is Ex. PW 15/E, pointing out memo is Ex. PW 15/F and seizure memo of chappal of the deceased is Ex. PW 15/G. He collectively, proved the clothes of the deceased as Ex. P, chappal as Ex. P2, hand bag as Ex. P3 and identity card as Ex. P4.
62. This witness was cross examined by the Ld defence Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 26 of 40 27 counsel and in his cross examination he admitted that after receiving the information he had to fill inquest form 35: (25) but he went on to state that since it was a case of murder as stated by the accused to him and he was to be tried U/s 302 IPC so he did not proceed in this case U/s 176 Cr.P.C.
63. It was argued by the Ld defence counsel that Ex. PW 15/A to Ex. PW 15/G have not been written by the SDM so no reliance can be placed on these documents. I do not agree with this contention of the Ld defence counsel because the witness has stated that though these documents are not in his hand writing but they were written in his presence and no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the accused by non writing of these documents by PW 15 in his own hand writing. Otherwise, there is nothing in the cross examination of this witness to discredit his testimony.
64. The testimony of PW 15 has been corroborated by PW 16 ASI Devender Joshi. PW 17 SI Nar Singh has also corroborated the testimony of PW 15 and PW 16 regarding the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused from the plot of Baljeet Singh village Pooth Kalan. In the cross examination of this witness there is nothing to discredit him. Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 27 of 40 28
65. PW 22 H.C. Pradeep Kumar has also corroborated other three witnesses i.e. PW 15, PW 16 and PW 17 with regard to the recovery of the dead body form the plot of Baljeet Singh. He was also cross examined and he denied the suggestion that the dead body was recovered prior to 1532006.
66. PW 26 Inspector Ravi Singh is the incharge mobile crime team. He has also reached the plot of Baljeet Singh in village Poooth Kalan from where the dead body was recovered. He found Addl. SHO Vir Singh, SDM Model Town and other police personnels present there and some persons were digging in the plot. The dead body was recovered in his presence and on the request of the IO and the SDM he inspected the scene of crime and lifted the exhibits. He prepared his report which is Ex. PW 26/A.
67. He was also cross examined but he denied that the dead body was not dug in his presence. Rest of the part of his testimony has remained unrebutted and unchallenged.
68. PW 28 is Ct. Joginder. He has deposed that the accused took them to village Pooth Khurd at the plot of Baljeet Singh. He further deposed that on the direction of the SDM lock was broken at the instance of the accused and a particular place Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 28 of 40 29 in the room was dug and the dead body was taken out. He has also deposed that the entire proceedings were photographed and videographed. He identified the clothes of the dead body. He has also corroborated the testimony of the other witnesses who were present at the spot.
69. He was also cross examined and in the cross examination he denied that the information regarding the recovery of the dead body on 1332006 was given to PW 8 brother of the deceased. He also denied that PW 10 Manoj Kumar was called by the IO on 13032006 at the police station. He denied that the accused was in the custody of police prior to 1532006. Apart from these suggestions there is nothing in his cross examination to disbelieve him. It has already been discussed herein above in the judgment that the contention of the Ld defence counsel that the dead body was recovered 12/13032006 is not believable.
70. PW 29 Inspector Meer Singh is the IO of the case. He narrated the sequence of investigation done by him and corroborated the testimony of the other recovery witnesses. Apart from corroborating the other recovery witnesses of the dead body, he has also deposed that the accused got recovered one Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 29 of 40 30 key ring of the Maruti Car No. DL 2 CD 5654 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 16/N which was got recovered by the accused from the plot of one Anup Solanki and the said car was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 7/A.
71. This witness was also cross examined and he denied that PW 8 had informed him in the intervening night of 12 / 1332006 regarding the recovery of the dead body. He denied that after this information he instructed PW 10 on 1332006 to reach the police station on 1532006.
72. This witness has also corroborated all the other witnesses discussed hereinabove who were present at the spot and the recovery of the dead body was effected in their presence. There is nothing in his cross examination to make him untruthful.
73. So from the discussions hereinabove, it is crystal clear that the place where the dead body was buried was within the special knowledge of the accused and at his instance the place was dug and the dead body was discovered in the same manner as disclosed by the accused.
74. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 30 of 40 31 accused had married deceased Alka and it was a love marriage which has been proved by PW 4, PW 5, PW 6, PW 8, PW 9 and PW 30.
75. PW 13 Shitij Patni deposed that he was working at Idea nd Call Centre, Instant Solutions Call Centre Services 2 E/22, 2 Floor, Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi as team leader from 622006 to 2042006. He further deposed that on 1032006, Alka had resumed her duty in the above mentioned office at 9:30 a.m and remained there up to 6:30 p.m. Next day she had not joined the duty in the said office.
76. PW 11 Jyotsna who is also an employee in the call centre which was joined by Alka has also deposed that Alka had joined the service on 1032006 and remained in the office till 6:30 p.m. She corroborated PW 13 with regard to the presence of Alka in the office on 1032006 till about 6:30 p.m. The accused himself has lodged the missing report vide DD No. 32 B. So it is clear from the testimony of PW 13, PW 11 and also from the DD lodged by the accused that Alka went missing after 1032006.
77. Thereafter on 1532006, accused goes to the police station and make a statement confessing the crime. His Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 31 of 40 32 statement was recorded vide DD No. 18 A and on the basis of this DD FIR was registered. Now it is to be seen how far the statement made by the accused regarding the crime is admissible against him.
78. Wherein a case the accused himself lodges the first information report the fact of his giving the information to the police is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct U/s 8 of the Evidence Act to the extent its non confessional in nature. In the instant case the accused has himself gone to the police station and made a confessional statement, proof of which is prohibited by section 25 of the Evidence Act. It is settled that no part of confessional statement can be proved or received in evidence except to the extent it is permitted by section 27 of the Evidence Act. Only that part of the FIR can be utilized against the accused which are non confessional in nature and the other facts which are in the nature of confession made to the police officer cannot be made against him.
79. The circumstances which are admissible and can be used against the accused are: his marriage with Alka since deceased on 312006 and their residing together with each other after the marriage; accused coming to know about the illicit Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 32 of 40 33 relations of Alka (since deceased) with her phupha and other persons; betrayal of trust by deceased Alka and accused being disturbed on account of deceased Alka going to the call centre. The rest of the contents of DD No. 18 A Ex. PW 2/X 1 are confessional in nature and cannot be used against the accused in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
80. The motive for a crime is in the mind of the criminal and it is very difficult to decipher the same. In the present case the motive appears to be the suspicion by the accused on the character of Alka since deceased. In pursuance of the confessional statement Ex. PW 2/X 1, the accused got discovered the dead body of Alka since deceased which was in his exclusive knowledge and the discovery has already been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
81. According to the prosecution the accused had picked up deceased Alka from the bus stand at about 8 p.m in Maruti Car No. DL 2 CB 5654. The prosecution has examined PW 12 Jagat Khatri and he has deposed that he has sold the above said Maruti car on 1452005 to Sunil Solanki who is PW 8. PW 8 is the brother of the accused who has also admitted to the purchase of the car.
Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 33 of 40 34
82. PW 7 is the witness with regard to the recovery of the above said Maruti Car at the instance of the accused but he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile with regard to the recovery of the Maruti Car from the plot adjacent to Jeevan Jyoti Animal Hospital, Kanjhawala, Road, Pooth Kalan, Delhi. PW 8 who is the brother of the accused has not denied that the Maruti Car above mentioned does not belong to him, which was got recovered by the accused.
83. PW 16 ASI Devender Joshi has stated in his examination in chief that the accused has got recovered the RC of the car and he also got recovered keys of the Maruti Car from the computer table of his house. This witness has further deposed that the accused got recovered the Maruti Car and also one wire of CD player from inside the car which was parked near Jeevan Jyoti Animal Hospital. The car was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 7/A and the lead wire was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 16/O. This witness was cross examined but nothing could be extracted from his cross examination and there is no real and substantial challenge to the recovery of the Maruti Car and the wire at the instance of the accused.
Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 34 of 40 35
84. The testimony of this witness has also been corroborated in all the material particulars by PW 29 who is the IO of the case. This witness was cross examined but the testimony of this witness with regard to the recovery of the Maruti Car and the lead wire has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. So the prosecution has been able to prove the recovery of the car and the lead wire successfully.
85. PW 27 is Dr. Ashish Jain who has conducted the postmortem report. The IO has produced before the doctor the lead wire for opinion. The doctor PW 27 identified the lead wire as Ex. PX 5 and also stated that after examining the weapon of offence and PM report, the injury mentioned in PM report could have been possible with the weapon i.e wire or similar such material.
86. It is urged by the Ld defence counsel that as per the case of the prosecution the accused had given slipping pills to the deceased before strangulating her. It is further urged by him that viscera report Ex. PW 29/N is negative. It is submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP that even if the viscera report does not show the presence of any common poison and is negative, it does not absolve the accused of the charge of murder of his wife and Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 35 of 40 36 otherwise also the prosecution has been able to prove its case.
87. I have perused the viscera report Ex. PW 29/N which is no doubt negative but even if the report is negative, I am afraid, this is not a ground for the acquittal of the accused or doubt the prosecution's case because there is enough material otherwise on record against the accused. So this contention has no force in it.
88. The accused got recovered one kassi which was used in digging the pit in which the dead body of Alka was buried. The seizure memo of kassi is Ex. PW 16/F. PW 16 ASI Devender Joshi and PW 29 Inspector Meer Singh (IO) has deposed about the recovery of kassi. They have been cross examined but their testimony has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as no questions have been asked. The IO has lifted the mud from the place form where the dead body was found and it was sent to FSL with the Kassi. As per the FSL report Ex. PW 29/P, Ex. '4' contained the same soil particles which were lifted from the place of burying the dead body. This is also one of the linking evidence in the chain of circumstances of the events.
89. The prosecution has successfully proved the conduct of the accused which is relevant U/s 8 and 21 of the Evidence Act. Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 36 of 40 37 The prosecution has also been able to successfully prove the discovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused and the recovery of the ligature material i.e lead wire, Maruti Car and the RC of the Car. I have also perused the statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. There are only bare denials to the questions put to the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. The Ld defence counsel half heartedly tired to put fourth the point that the dead body was recovered on 12/1332006 and not on 1532006 from the plot of Baljeet but that contention has already been rejected by me. Nothing of this sort has been stated by the accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C and it appears that he left this defence midway. Otherwise, he could have produced his uncle Baljeet in his defence evidence and also stated so in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
90. The accused after killing his wife buried her dead body in a pit in the plot of his uncle Baljeet and tried to cause the disappearance of evidence and tried to screen himself from legal punishment. The dead body of deceased Alka was got recovered at the instance of the accused.
91. Therefore, in view of the discussions mentioned hereinabove, I am of the opinion, that the prosecution has Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 37 of 40 38 successfully proved that it was the accused and none else who has committed the murder of his wife Alka and buried her dead body in the ground knowing or having reason to believe that the murder of Alka has been committed and caused the evidence of murder to disappear by burying the dead body of Alka with intention to screen himself from legal punishment. The accused is, therefore, held guilty and convicted U/s 302/201 IPC. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open Court on 24102013.) (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 38 of 40 39 IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 02, NORTH DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS : DELHI IN RE : Sessions Case No. : 719/06 FIR No. : 394/06 P.S. : Sultan Puri U/s : 302/201 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Solanki @ Rahul S/o Sh. Ramdhan Singh R/o H. No. 428, Pooth Kalan Village, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Ld. counsel for the convict on the point of sentence.
2. It is urged by the Ld. counsel for the convict that the convict is a young man and there are chances of reformation and this is not a rarest of the rare case, thus minimum sentence be awarded to him.
3. On the other hand Ld. Addl. PP submits that the convict doesn't deserve any leniency and maximum i.e. death punishment be awarded to him as he has murdered a young girl who was his wife and Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 39 of 40 40 buried her dead body in the pit.
4. Convict Rakesh Solanki has been convicted by me vide separate judgment dated 24102013 U/s 302/201 IPC.
5. It is not a rarest of the rare case inviting imposition of capital punishment. I, therefore, sentence the convict Rakesh Solanki to undergo life imprisonment U/s 302 IPC and pay a fine of Rs. 10000/. He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months in case of default of payment of fine.
6. I further sentence the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ U/s 201 IPC. He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month in case of default of payment of fine. Ordered accordingly. Both the sentences to run concurrently.
7. The benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to convict. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to convict free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open Court on 25112013) (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI Sessions Case No: 719/06 Page 40 of 40