Delhi District Court
State vs Chand Mohd on 30 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST:
KARKARDOOMA: DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 80/2016
CNR No. DLNE01-002036-2016
FIR No. 25/2016
P.S. Seelampur
U/s : 302 of IPC
STATE
Versus
Chand Mohammad
s/o Mechher Siekh
r/o Village Baroitna,
PS Kaliganj, District Nadiya,
West Bengal
Date of Institution : 23-05-2016
Date of Argument : 23-07-2024
Date of Judgment : 30-07-2024
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of this case are that on 13.01.2016 at 11:40 PM, an information was received through wireless operator, that at Krishna Medical store, Buland Masjid heavy fighting was going on with a lady and the lady was seriously injured. The information was reduced into writing vide DD no. 15A (PW5), which was marked to SI Devender Pratap (hereinafter referred to as First IO/Investigating officer). Thereafter, first IO along with Ct. Vikram visited the spot where they found that PCR van Baker 6 was already present. They met one person namely Sharafat Sheik S/o Seikh Kasimuddin who stated that he was the owner of the house no. A-14, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park. He had let out FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 1 of 49 one room on the first floor of the house to accused Chand Mohd about 2 months ago. In the said room accused Chand Mohd. was residing with his two wives namely Firoza and Deepa. Firoza had a daughter aged about 8 years who was also residing there. On the 2nd and 3rd floor of the house, he was running a factory of stitching. At about 11:30 PM, he was informed by two ladies namely Sabana and Roshni, who were already present there, that wife of Chand Mohd. was lying dead in her room. He immediately went there and found that the lady was lying dead on the floor over some clothes. Accused Chand Mohd. had absconded along with his second wife and daughter. He immediately informed the police. Thereafter, IO had opened the door of the room where the incident had taken place and found that one lady was lying dead, who was having a bulge over her left eye and bluish injury mark on her neck and the upper half of the body was in naked condition. Crime team was called and spot was photographed. On the basis of inspection conducted at the spot, present FIR came to be registered for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC. Further investigation of the case was marked to IO Insp. MC Pandey. Copy of FIR was sent to Ld. Area MM and Senior police official through Special Messenger. Necessary exhibits was seized. Dead body was sent to mortuary of GTB hospital and after PM, the dead body was handed over to the relatives. Efforts were made to trace the accused but the accused was found to have absconded. The police team had gone to Old Delhi Railway Station in search of accused Chand Mohd. along with landlord of the tenanted house namely Sharafat Sheikh. At Old Delhi Railway Station, Sharafat had identified second wife of accused namely Deepa and daughter of accused FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 2 of 49 namely Muskan. They both were brought at PS and detailed inquiries were made from them.
Thereafter, first IO got recorded statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C of eye witness who was the daughter of accused, in the concerned court. In her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW18/A-2, the daughter of accused alleged that her father / accused Chand Mohd. had beaten her mother with an iron chain and he had tied the neck of her mother with a towel. IO also got recorded statement U/s 164 Ex. PW15/A of one Deepa, who was the second wife of accused Chand. She had also confirmed the facts revealed by daughter of accused. On 19.01.2016, on the basis of secret information, accused Chand Mohd was arrested from his village Salar, Distt. Murshidabad, West Bengal. The Transit Remand of the accused was obtained from concerned Ld. MM in Murshidabad (WB) on 20-01-2016. The accused was brought to Delhi and on 22-01-2016, the accused was taken to the place of incident from where one iron chain of about 2 feet having round kundas on both sides and one angocha of check design of red and green linings were recovered at the instance of accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/A. Postmortem report Ex. PW14/A obtained wherein cause of death was opined as, "Hemorrhagic shock as a result of ante-mortem injury to abdomen produced by blunt force impact". PCR form was obtained. Scaled Site plan of the place of incident was got prepared. Subsequent opinion Ex. PW14/C to ascertain as to whether the recovered weapon of offence i.e. iron chain and angocha can be used to cause death of the deceased or not was obtained, which was in affirmative as far as use of iron chain is concerned. However, with regard to use of angocha, no opinion was expressed in the subsequent opinion FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 3 of 49 report. After completion of necessary formalities, chargesheet in the present case filed in the court of concerned 'Ilaqua' MM. COMMITTAL
02. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 Cr. PC, present case was committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 09-05-2016 of ld. MM/(NE)/KKD. Thereafter, the then Ld. District and Sessions Judge, KKD Courts allocated this case to the ld. Predecessor of this court.
CHARGE
03. On the basis of facts emerging from the chargesheet and after hearing the arguments, Ld. Predecessor of this court framed charge against the accused vide order dated 30-09-2016 for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution got examined as many as 28 witnesses.
(4) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE (i) PW1 Smt. Sabina Bibi deposed that she was residing with
her family comprising her husband and two children as a tenant in a room on the 4th Floor of house of Gupta in Shastri Park, Delhi, since 10 months. She deposed that she was living on alms. She knew Firoza and met her on the way and had taken a sum of Rs. 200/- from Firoza on Sunday as his child was serious. Firoza had shown her house to him. PW1 further deposed that it was winter time and the day was Wednesday, when she had gone to house of Firoza to pay her amount of Rs. 200/-. It was about 10.00 a.m. - 10.30 a.m. She further deposed that she had seen from outside her room from the door that Firoza was lying on the floor and her mouth was open. The door of the room was open. Firoza had injury just below her left eye and she appeared to be FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 4 of 49 dead. She further deposed that she came out swiftly and met Roshni at the shop of gutka on the ramp (slope) at a slight distance from house. She further deposed that she had informed Roshni who was present there with her mother about it. Roshni informed owner of the house. House owner made a call at 100. Son of owner of the house told PW1 about the said PCR call as he called PW1 to his house when police arrived. Roshni was also present there at that time. PW1 and Roshni were taken to PS Seelampur on the same day and police recorded her statement.
To a court question as to whether she had taken an amount of Rs. 200/- from Firoza or Chand Mohd, she answered Firoza. To another court question when she had seen Firoza lying dead on the bedsheet on the floor of her room, whether any person of her family member was present there, she answered no. To another court question as to what is the distance between her house and house of deceased Firoza, she answered it takes about five minutes.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, she deposed that owner of the house of Firoza made call to the police. She affirmed that he (owner) did not make call in her presence. She did not know whether police recorded statement of any other person in her presence.
(ii) PW2 Smt. Roshni deposed that she was residing at Akil Ka Makaan, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park, Delhi, as a tenant since six years. She further deposed that she was working as a maid in five houses. She was sitting in her gutka-bidi-cigarette shop. Her mother was running that shop and she also used to sit in the said shop. She further deposed that Sabina (PW1) had gone to return Rs.200/- to Firoza and PW1 came to her shop and told her that FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 5 of 49 Firoza was lying dead in her room. She gave this information to owner of house of Firoza and he made call at 100. They went together to the house of Firoza. Sabina Bibi (PW1) was with PW2 when she (PW2) informed the owner of house of Firoza that Firoza was lying dead in her room and that PW1 was also present with PW2 when owner made call at 100. It was about 11.00 a.m. She further deposed that she himself, Sabina (PW1) and husband of Sabina were taken to police station.
In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, she affirmed that the distance between house of Firoza and her landlord was about 2-3 houses. She could not tell the distance between her shop and house of Firoza in meters/feet as she was illiterate. It takes about one minute in reaching to house of Firoza from her shop. She could not admit or deny that the distance was about 2 kilometers. She volunteered that on that day, they had gone to her house swiftly. She affirmed that police did not prepare any document in her presence at that time. She did not sign any document, if prepared by police.
(iii) PW3 HC Johar Singh was the official from Police Control Room, who has proved copy of PCR Form as Ex. PW3/A. He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite given opportunity.
(iv) PW4 ASI Harish Chander Pathak was Technical Supervisor in CPCR, PHQ, New Delhi. He claimed that he had supplied information in Form 1 of CPCR/ PHQ, Delhi, regarding receipt of call at PCR on 13.01.2016 at 11:31:41 hrs. from mobile no. 9213894991 and dispatch of the said call at 11:33:33 hrs. from the server installed in Delhi Police Control Room by FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 6 of 49 technically competent officers. PW4 has proved the certificate u/s. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW4/A, with regard to the proper functioning of the server and the computer device from which the relevant information was derived.
He was not cross-examined by ld. defence counsel despite given opportunity.
(v) PW5 HC Vidhya Dhar was posted as Duty Officer at PS Seelampur at the relevant time. He has proved one DD No. 15A whereby an information was received through Wireless Operator that Krishna Medical Store, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park, lady ke sath heavy jhagra, lady serious injured hai as Ex.PW5/A; endorsement made by him on the rukka prepared by IO SI Devender Prasad as Ex.PW5/C; copy of FIR as Ex.PW5/D, copy of DD No. 17A with regard to the registration of present FIR as Ex.PW5/E; certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to proper function of computer wherein FIR was recorded as Ex.PW1/F. He was not cross-examined by ld. defence counsel despite given opportunity.
(vi) PW6 Ct. Charan Pal was the Investigating Police Official, who was assigned the task of supplying the copy of FIR to Ld. Illlaqa MM, ACP and DCP concerned on 13.01.2016. He deposed correctly about the role performed by him.
He was not cross-examined by ld. defence counsel despite given opportunity.
(vii) PW7 SI E.S. Yadav was the In-Charge of Crime Team, who had inspected the spot on 13.01.2016 at about 12.15 pm. He has proved the inspection report prepared by him as Ex.PW7/A. FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 7 of 49 During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he has no knowledge about the proceedings undertaken by the police officials in respect of the dead body lying in the said room before he reached there. In his presence, statement of any public witness was not recorded. He did not find any other material except the dead body relating to this case. They conducted search of the room for recovery of any chunni or rassi. Dead body had injuries on her lips and left side of her face. Small amount of dried blood was on the face of the dead body but the blood had not spilled on the floor of the room. He did not notice whether there was any bottle of liquor in the room.
(viii) PW8 HC Zile Singh was the photographer of Crime Team, who had inspected the scene of crime. He has proved the photographs clicked by him from all angles as Ex.PW8/A-1 to Ex.PW8/A-17.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that dead body was completely covered upto neck.
(ix) PW9 Ct. Vipin was the police official, who had deposited the exhibits at FSL and obtained the acknowledgment therefrom. He claimed that the parcel remained in intact condition in his custody.
He was not cross-examined by ld. defence counsel despite given opportunity.
(x) PW10 Sheikh Sharafat deposed that he was landlord of A- 14, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park, Delhi. The afore-said address was earlier known as B-12, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park, Delhi. He provided labour to Tent House in marriages and also used to work in marriages, if required. He deposed that he had let out one FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 8 of 49 room at 1st floor of his house bearing H.No. A-14, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park, Delhi at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to Chand Mohd, about 2½ - 3 months before the date of incident. He correctly identified the accused Chand Mohd. before the Court. He further deposed that accused Chand Mohd. was already a tenant in a house of Sharif in a gali at a short distance from his house and Sharif was reconstructing his house and he asked him (PW10) to accommodate accused Chand Mohd. Therefore, he let out one room in his house to him. Accused Chand Mohd. was residing with his two wives and one female child aged about 8 years in the room let out by him to Chand Mohd. Son of PW10 was doing the work of stitching / tailoring (silai) on 2nd and 3rd floor of H.No. A-14, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park, Delhi. He further deposed that on 13.01.2016 at 11.30 a.m. Sabina Bibi and Roshni came to his house and told him that wife of Chand Mohd. was murdered in his house. On receipt of the said information, he alongwith Sabina Bibi (PW1) and Roshni (PW2) reached in the room of the Chand Mohd. and saw that his wife was lying dead on a bed sheet on the floor of the room. He further deposed that he had seen it while standing on the entrance of the room of accused Chand Mohd. There was no one present in the room at that time. He further deposed that accused Chand Mohd. with his wife and female child had absconded (faraar ho gaya tha). The woman who was lying dead in the said room was wife of accused Chand Mohd. He further deposed that thereafter, he made call at 100 through mobile number of some person who had assembled in the street. He further deposed that he informed police that a murder had taken place in the room of his house. After 10-15 minutes, police came there and inspected the place of FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 9 of 49 incident and made enquiry from PW10. They photographed the dead body and the place of incident and recorded statement of PW10 there.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW10 denied having executed any written agreement or rent agreement between him and accused Chand Mohd. regarding tenancy. He also denied having ever issued any rent receipt to him. He further denied having informed the local police about the tenancy or getting the tenancy verified from the local police. He could not tell the addresses of Sabina Bibi and Roshni and even he did not know them. He further deposed that said ladies knew Chand Mohd, as he had seen them visiting him 2-3 times. PW10 admitted that his house was situated at a distance of 5 houses from the house in which he let out one room to accused Chand Mohd. in the same street. PW10 denied that police had recorded statement of his son or any labour employed in his factory. Besides accused Chand Mohd., PW10 had no other tenant in the said house.
(xi) PW11 ASI Siya Nand deposed that on 13.01.2016, he was on duty on baker 6. Base of his PCR Van was Red Light, Shastri Park. His duty hours were from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. At about 11.38 a.m., he received an information on his wireless set that "Krishana Medical Store, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park ke pas heavy jhagda, lady seriously injured". Within 5 minutes, PW11 alongwith his staff in PCR Van reached at A-14, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park, Delhi. There was a crowd. He further deposed that he met caller Sharafat Sheikh (PW10) who stated that he was the landlord and made PCR call. Caller stated to him that accused FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 10 of 49 Chand Mohd. was residing on the 1 st floor of his H.No. A-14, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park as a tenant @ Rs. 2,500/- p.m. As per caller Chand Mohd. was residing alongwith his two wives namely Deepa and Firoza and a female child about 8 years. Caller (PW10) took PW11 to a room on the 1st floor of H.No. A- 14, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park. In the said room, one lady was lying dead. He further deposed that he checked that the body of the deceased had become cold and she was not breathing and there was no pulse. He informed the status to the Police Control Room. SHO, IO SI Devender and ACP, Seelampur alongwith police officials reached there. Crime team had also come. Thereafter, he returned to his base. He further deposed that he had brought original Wireless Log and Diary, wherein PW11 had recorded the status of the place of incident. He proved copy of the relevant page of Wireless Log and Diary as Ex. PW11/A. The witness was cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xii) PW12 Mohd. Rameej was the police official from PS Salaar, District Mursheedabad, West Bengal. He had witnessed the arrest proceedings of accused Chand Mohd. conducted by the IO in the present case. He has proved the arrest memo as Ex.PW12/a and personal search memo as Ex.PW12/B. He had correctly identified the accused in the Court.
The witness was cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xiii) PW13 Ct. Raj Kumar deposed that on 13.01.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., he was present in his beat no. 10 at Buland Masjid, Shastri Park, Delhi. At about 12.00 noon, Ct. Vikram who was FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 11 of 49 with him at that beat informed him that a murder had taken place at A-14, 1st Floor, Shastri Park. When PW13 reached there, PCR Van and landlord Sharafat Sheikh, two ladies namely Sabina Bibi and Roshni were present there. Landlord Sharafat Sheikh told SI Devender that Chand Mohd. was residing as a tenant in his house with his wives Firoza and Deepa. Insp. M.C. Pandey, SI Devender and other police officials were also present when PW13 reached there. Firoza was lying dead on the floor of the room at 1st floor of H.No. A-14, 1st floor, Shastri Park. Insp. M.C. Pandey and SI Devender made enquiry and it revealed that Deepa, wife of Chand Mohd. and Muskan, daughter of Chand Mohd. were missing from there. PW13 further affirmed that SI Devender handed him over a tehrir written by PW13 at about 02.10 p.m. PW13 took said tehrir to police station Seelampur and handed over to Duty Officer for registration of case. After registration of FIR, Duty Officer handed over a copy of the case FIR and original tehrir to PW13. PW13 had handed over to Insp. M.C. Pandey at the place of incident. In the evening his statement was recorded.
The witness was cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xiv) PW14 Dr. Priyal Jain deposed that on 16.01.2016 at 11.05 a.m., he conducted postmortem on the body of Firoza, wife of Chand Mohd. aged about 30 years, female. PW14 affirmed General Observations reported by him as: -
"It was a dead body of an adult female wrapped in white sheet wearing green and cream embroidered kurta, green salwar. Eyes closed. Mouth closed, all other natural orifices NAD. Rigor mortis passed off. Postmortem staining present over back and fixed, greenish FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 12 of 49 discolouration present over abdomen and chest, peeling of skin present at places."
PW14 also affirmed External ante-mortem injuries reported by him as:-
"(i) Reddish abrasion of size 2.0 x 1.0 c.m. surrounded by reddish contusion of size 4.0 x 3.0 c.m. present over lateral angle of left eye.
(ii) Reddish contusion of size 5.0 x 4.0 c.m. present over left side of chin 1.0 c.m. from midline.
(iii) Lacerated wound of size 2.0 x 0.2 c.m. x muscle deep present over inner aspect of upper lip in midline.
(iv) Reddish contusion of size 3.0 x 1.0 c.m. present over left side of lower lip inner aspect 0.5 c.m. from midline.
(v) Reddish abrasion of size 3.0 x 0.5 c.m. present over left side of neck 3.0 c.m. from midline 6.0 c.m. below ramus.
(vi) Reddish abrasion of size 3.0 x 0.3 c.m. present over right side of neck 0.5 c.m. from midline over sternal notch.
(vii) Reddish contusion of size 2.0 x 1.5 c.m. present over right side of neck 4.0 c.m. from midline 2.5 c.m. below ramus.
(viii) Reddish abrasion of size 1.5 x 0.6 c.m. present over right side of chin 2.5 c.m. from midline 1.5 c.m. above ramus.
(ix) Reddish contusion of size 2.5 x 1.5 c.m. present over right side of chin 3.0 c.m. from midline.
(x) Reddish abrasion of size 0.2 x 0.1 c.m. two in number present over right angle of mandible.
(xi) Reddish contusion of size 1.5 x 1.0 c.m. present over front of right ear.
(xii) Reddish contusion of size 10.0 x 7.0 c.m. present over left side of chest 1.0 c.m. from midline 15.0 c.m. below ramus.
(xiii) Reddish contusion of size 11.0 x 8.0 c.m. present over right side of chest 3.0 c.m. from midline 13.0 c.m. below ramus.
(xiv) Reddish contusion of size 2.5 x 1.0 c.m. present over lateral side of right forearm 1.0 c.m. above wrist.FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 13 of 49
(xv) Reddish contusion of size 10.0 x 6.0 c.m. present over right side of head 5.0 c.m. from midline 12.0 c.m. above occipital protuberance.
(xvi) Reddish contusion of size 7.0 x 5.0 c.m. present over back of left side of head 12.0 c.m. from midline at the level of occipital protuberance."
PW14 further affirmed internal examination reported by him as: -
"(i) Scalp - Extravasation of blood present over right parietal, left occipital region.
(ii) Skull - No abnormality detected (NAD)
(iii) Brain- Weight was 1201 gm, pale, softened and flabby.
(iv) Neck - No abnormality detected (NAD)
(v) Ribcage- No abnormality detected (NAD)
(vi) Lungs: Right 349 grams and left 302. Both lungs were pale, softened and flabby.
(vii) Heart: 202 grams. Softened and flabby.
(viii) Peritoneal cavity filled with about 1.5 of blood and blood clots, extravasation of blood present in abdominal wall muscles.
(ix) Stomach contains semi-digested food. Walls No abnormality detected (NAD).
(x) Intestines - filled with fluid, fecal matter and putrefying gases, mesentric vessels rupture with extravasation in surroundings area.
(xi) Liver: 1023 grams, pale, greenish discolouration present all over the surface, softened and flabby.
(xii) Spleen - 141 grams, pale, softened and flabby.
(xiii) Kidneys: Right 123 grams, left 122 grams, both pale.
(xiv) Pelvis & vertebra - No abnormality detected (NAD).
(xv) Urinary Bladder: Empty, Walls No abnormality detected (NAD).
(xvi) Uterus - Empty. Walls No abnormality detected (NAD).
PW14 further affirmed that he preserved and gave sealed envelope containing neck strapping of the deceased, sealed envelope containing blood on gauze of the deceased, sealed FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 14 of 49 pulanda containing clothes of the deceased and sample seal and handed over to IO. PW14 opined time since death about three days. PW14 affirmed case of death that "Hemorrhagic shock as a result of ante-mortem injury to abdomen produced by blunt force impact". PM Report bearing no. 64/16 is prepared by PW14 and he proved the same as Ex.PW14/A. PW14 also proved inquest papers (8 pages) as Ex.PW14/B. In respect of Subsequent Opinion, PW14 affirmed that on 05.04.2016, an application of SHO, PS Seelampur was received for providing subsequent opinion alongwith an parcel sealed with the seal impression 'MCP' pertaining to this case. On opening the parcel, one iron chain with two kundas each on one end with brownish stains over it, was found alongwith one red and green checked cloth (angochha). After going through postmortem report and examining the chain and angochha, PW14 was of the opinion that all external ante-mortem injuries from injury no. 1 to 16 mentioned in PM report of deceased Firoza were possible by iron chain and not possible by angochha. Internal injury to the abdomen as mentioned in PM Report was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW14 proved his subsequent opinion as Ex.PW14/C, bearing his signature at point A. PW14 also proved sketch of iron chain and angochha as Ex.PW14/D, bearing his signature at point A. After examination, articles were sealed with the seal of 'JP' and handed over to police official.
PW14 identified his signature at point A on two cloth parcels having particulars of this case sealed with the seal impression 'JP'. After breaking the seals of first parcel, it was found containing one iron chain and red-green checked cloth (angochha). PW14 identified his signature on it. PW14 identified FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 15 of 49 iron chain as Ex.Art.1 with two kundas at each end and angochha Ex.Art.2, as the same regarding which he had given opinion. After breaking the seals of second parcel, it was found containing one lady's shirt (kurta) and green salwar. PW14 identified his signature on it. PW14 further identified kurta as Ex.Art.3 and salwar as Ex.Art.4 as seized by him.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he denied that the injuries, as mentioned in postmortem report, were possible by a mere fall on any hard surface. PW14 admitted that a person might sustain internal injury by fall on hard surface but this principle was not applicable in this case. PW14 further affirmed that the death of the deceased was not a natural death.
(xv) PW15 Ms. Harleen Singh was the then Ld. MM, who had recorded the statement under section 164 Cr.PC of Ms. Deepa. She had proved the statement of Ms. Deepa as Ex.PW15/A and certificate about the correctness of the proceedings as Ex.PW15/B. The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.
(xvi) PW16 Baby 'M' D/o Chand Mohd.(accused) was the eye- witness got examined by the prosecution. The witness was examined in general in order to ascertain her competency as she was minor. After being satisfied from the answers given by the witness pertaining to her background, her testimony was recorded without administering oath. She was unable to tell the address of Delhi, where she used to reside earlier. PW16 deposed that at Delhi, she lived with her mother Firoza, father Chand Mohd. and another wife of father namely Deepa. She deposed FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 16 of 49 that her father used to quarrel daily with her mother Firoza as he used to come drunk and used to demand money from her mother which she used to refuse. He also used to beat her mother Firoza. PW16 further stated that it was summer time and on one day at about 1:00 am in the night, her father started beating her mother Firoza and continued beating her till 2:00 am. Firstly he had given slaps and later on he strangulated her with a towel and also gave leg blows on her chest. He also used one iron chain to beat her mother Firoza. When her mother demanded water and when PW16 tried to give the same, her father gave her kick blow on her chest. PW16 further testified that in the morning, Salma Aunty came to her house to take her mother for work but her mother was already dead. When Salma aunty asked to call the police, her father pushed her and she ran away. Duppata of Salma aunty was left in the hand of her father. Thereafter her father put the clothes of himself, that of PW16 and Deepa in a bag and asked Deepa to take PW16 to Railway Station and he left with the bag. PW16 had seen that Deepa had changed clothes of her mother Firoza in the night. In the morning, PW16 saw that right eye of her mother Firoza was swollen and there were marks on the neck. PW16 also saw blood on the mouth and nose of her mother Firoza. PW16 correctly identified her father Chand Mohd.(accused herein) through video camera. PW16 also identify the said iron chain and towels as Ex. Art.1 and Ex. Art.2, respectively. PW16 further deposed that accused Chand Mohd. had murdered his mother Firoza.
During her cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW16 denied having remembered the time when Salma came to his house, but it was early morning. PW16 denied having raised FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 17 of 49 any alarm when her father was beating her mother Firoza or that any neighbour came to rescue. PW16 further deposed that her mother tried, but she could not raise voice as accused/her father had closed her mouth with a duppata. PW16 further deposed that she tried to raise voice when she saw that accused was beating her mother Firoza, but Deepa i.e. her Badi Maa did not allow PW16 to raise voice and put her hand on the mouth of PW16, even when PW16 told her that she would not tell anyone else or the police, still Deepa did not remove her hand.
(xvii) PW17 Smt. Deepa was another eye-witness of the incident. She deposed that that Firoza (since deceased) was the first wife of accused Chand Mohd. Accused took PW17 from her village, West Bengal. Thereafter, PW17 started living with accused at Shastri Park, Delhi. At that time, Firoza and her daughter Muskan were also living with them. They all lived together for about 10 years. Firoza was having one more daughter who was residing in West Bengal. Accused was living on rent at Shastri Park in which they all were residing. PW17 further deposed that she herself, accused and Firoza consumed liquor on the day of incident. He(accused) had come home already drunk.
During her testimony dated 24.07.2017, PW17 submitted that after taking liquor, accused demanded more money from Firoza to drink more liquor, but Firoza refused to give him any money. Firoza stated that she also wanted to drink more liquor. Thereafter, accused went outside to consume liquor. He came back and again went outside to drink liquor and again came back and fell down on stairs. Thereafter, he came to the room. After that he told PW17 and Firoza that he was having some injuries FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 18 of 49 on his body. Upon this, PW17 and Firoza gave him hot water heat (sikai) and asked him if he wanted to go to doctor, but accused told that he would go to doctor in the morning. In the morning, when PW17 went to give tea to Firoza, she found her dead. When they were taking liquor, it was around 1.00/1.30 am. PW17 herself, accused Chand Mohammad, deceased Firoza and Muskan were in the house. PW17 was living with accused at the time of incident as brother and sister. It was winters. PW17 proved her statement as Ex.PW15/A. PW17 correctly identified accused before the court.
However, she had denied the contents of her statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. which is Ex. PW15/A. She had also denied suggestions made by Ld. Addl. PP for State on the basis of her statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex. PW17/A. However, she had affirmed that she had given hot water massage to Firoza and she had applied oil massage on her head. She stated that she had done so because Firoza had fallen from staircase. She also affirmed that the accused had left the house with a bag of clothes and she had gone to Railway Station with Muskan. She also affirmed that dead body of Firoza was lying in the house when she left from there with Muskan.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, she affirmed that Firoza lost her balance while walking and fell and received injury on her face. She also stated that she had not seen Firoza getting married with accused.
(xviii) PW18 Sh. Dinesh Kumar was the then Ld. MM, who had recorded the statement under section 164 Cr.PC of PW 16 Baby 'M'. He has proved the relevant proceedings as FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 19 of 49 Ex.PW18/A1; statement of Baby 'M' as Ex.PW18/A2; certificate of correctness as Ex.PW18/B; application of IO for recording statement of Baby 'M' as Ex.PW18/C and application for supplying the copy of statement as Ex.PW18/D. During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he submitted that he did not know Bengali Language. He denied that the witness did not understand Hindi Language or that Ex.PW18/A2 is not the correct record of her statement.
(xix) PW19/SI Rizwan, who was the investigating police official. He had joined the IO Inspector M.C. Pandey in the investigation of the present case during the police custody of accused on 22.01.2016. He further deposed on the same lines on which PW27 IO Inspector M.C. Pandey has deposed.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xx) PW20/ASI Dinesh Chand was the MHC(M) posted at PS Seelampur at the relevant time. He has proved the entries made by him in register no. 19 and 21 with regard to deposit and dispatch of exhibits. Relevant entries proved by him are Ex.PW20/A (colly).
PW20 was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxi) PW21/Asadujjaman Sekh deposed that the deceased Firoza was his sister-in-law (saali). He deposed that he received information about death of Firoza from police officials on 13.01.2016. He came to Delhi on 16.01.2016 with his brother-in- law (saala) namely Abdul Aleem Sekh and went to GTB Hospital where they saw dead body of Firoza. Photocopy of his voter ID FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 20 of 49 card as Ex.PW21/A (OSR). He identified the dead body of Firoza vide his statement as Ex.PW21/B. He was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxii) PW22/Abdul Alim Sekh deposed that Firoza (since deceased) was his elder sister. She married with the accused Chand Mohd in accordance with Muslim rites and ceremonies on 14.04.2013. After marriage, accused used to beat his sister in the presence of PW22 in West Bengal. After marriage, his sister alognwith accused shifted to Delhi. He further deposed that one month prior to her death, Firoza had come to the house of PW22 at Village Sargachhi, Murshidabad. She told him (PW22) that accused used to beat her. She was having injuries on her face and she told that the injuries were caused by the accused. He further deposed that her sister told him that she used to work in different houses as maid servant. On one day, he received phone call from police officials of Delhi. The police officials told him that Firoza had died. Thereafter, he alongwith his Jija Asadujjaman Sekh came to Delhi one day after receiving the information. After coming to Delhi, they went to a police station and thereafter to hospital. He deposed that he did not remember the names of police station or the hospital. He saw dead body of Firoza in the hospital and he correctly identified the same vide his statement Ex.PW22/A. Dead body of Firoza was handed over to them after postmortem. Carbon copy of the receipt of dead body is Ex.PW22/B. Witness correctly the dead body in the photographs vide Ex.PW8/A7 to Ex.PW8/A12. Witness correctly identified the accused Chand Mohd. in the Court.
FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 21 of 49PW22 was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxiii) PW23/Inspector Mahesh Kumar was posted as Inspector Draftsman at Crime Branch of Police Headquarter. He has proved the scaled site plan prepared by him on the request of IO on 11.02.2016 as Ex.PW23/A. PW23 was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxiv) PW24/HC Vikram was the police official, who had accompanied the 1st IO SI Devender Prasad at the spot on the date of incident i.e. 13-01-2016 and also accompanied IO at mortuary GTB hospital on 16-01-2016. He deposed on the same lines on which PW26 SI Devender Prasad has deposed.
PW24 was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxv) PW25/ASI Nathu Ram, was the police official who had accompanied the IO Inspector Mahesh Chand Pandey to West Bengal in search of accused Chand Mohd on 19.01.2016. He deposed on the same lines on which PW27 Inspector Mohan Chand Pandey has deposed with regard to the proceedings conducted till the arrest of accused Chand Mohd.
PW25 was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxvi) PW26/SI Devender was the first IO of the present case. He deposed that on 13.01.2016, he was on emergency duty since 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 15A, he alongwith Ct. Vikram had reached at H. No. A-14, near FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 22 of 49 Krishna medical Store, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park, Delhi where one Sharafat Sheikh met them. He told himself to be the owner of House No. A-14. He also told that he had rented first floor of the said house to one Chand Mohd. @ Rs. 2500/- per month. He told that Chand Mohd. was residing in the rented accommodation with his two wives namely Deep and Firoza as well as daughter Muskan. Sharafat Sheih also told that Firoza was lying dead on the ground. Thereafter, he (PW26) alongwith Sharafat Sheikh went to the first floor and saw that Firoza was lying on the ground in dead condition. There were beating marks on her eyes, chin and neck. He further deposed that he saw that upper clothes worn by Firoza were lying dragged on the upper portion of the body. He called the crime team at the spot. I/C Crime Team inspected the scene of crime and crime team photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime. He further deposed that he sent the dead body of deceased Firoza to Mortuary of GTB Hospital through Ct. Vikram for preservation for 72 hours for arrival of family members of Firoza. He prepared rukka on DD No. 15A for registration of the case under section 302 IPC and gave the same to Ct. Raj Kumar who had also come at the spot from his beat. After registration of the case, second IO Inspector M.C. Pandey came at the spot as further investigation was marked to him. Thereafter, IO Inspector M.C. Pandey had seized one suit of black and white colour, one mat and one blanket on which Firoza was lying dead were also taken into possession. IO had prepared separate pullandas of suit, mat and blanket. The pullandas were sealed by the IO with his seal. After that IO had recorded statement of I/C, Crime Team and photographer and Sharafar Seikh and statement of two ladies including one Roshni FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 23 of 49 was also recorded. After that, they came back to the PS and the case property was deposited in the malkhana. Statement of PW26 was also recorded by IO. He proved the rukka as Ex.PW26/A; seizure memo of suit as Ex.PW26/B and seizure memo of mat and blanket as Ex.PW26/C. PW26 further deposed that on 16.01.2016, brother of Firoza namely Alin Sheikh and her brother-in-law (Jija Asaburz) had come to PW26 at the PS. He deposed that he produced them before the SHO PS Seelampur. At that time, SHO directed PW26 to get the postmortem conducted on the body of Firoza. Accordingly, he took both these persons to the mortuary of GTB Hospital where he prepared inquest papers. He further deposed that at that time, Asaburz and Alim Sheikh had identified the dead body of Firoza in the mortuary. He further deposed that he had recorded their statements regarding identifying the dead body of by them. Same are already Ex.PW21/B and Ex.PW21/A respectively. Form No. 25.35 (I) (B) was also filled by him which is Ex.PW26/D. Request for postmortem was made by him vide already Ex.PW14/B. He further deposed that after postmortem, the dead body was handed over o Abdul Alim Sheikh vide memo already Ex.PW22/B. He further deposed that Ct. Vikram had also present with him at the time of postmortem. After postmortem, doctor had handed over the exhibits to Ct. Vikram which were taken into possession by PW26 vide seizure memo already Ex.PW24/A. After postmortem, he had also recorded statement of Abdul Alim Sheikh and Asaburz under section 161 Cr.PC. Statement of Ct. Vikram was also recorded by PW26 under section 161 Cr.PC in the PS. FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 24 of 49 PW26 further deposed that on 16.01.2016, he had taken Muskan D/o Firoza with him in the Court where he had moved application before the Court for recording statement of Muskan under section 164 Cr.PC. On the same day, Ld. MM had recorded statement of Muskan under section 164 Cr.PC. The application is Ex.PW18/C. He further deposed that on 25.01.2016, he had taken Deepa who was second wife of accused Chand Mohd. with him in the Court where he had moved application before Ld. MM Sunil Gupta for recording statement of Deepa under section 164 Cr.PC which was marked to Ms. Harleen Singh, Ld. MM. On the same day, Ld. Link MM had recorded the statement of Deepa under section 164 Cr.PC. The application is Ex.PW15/C. Witness correctly identified the mat and blanket which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/C. The plastic mat is Ex. Art.5 and blanket is Ex. Art.6.
(xxvii) PW27/Inspector M.C. Pandey was the second investigating officer(IO) of the present case. He deposed that on 13.01.2016, an information was received which was recorded vide DD No. 15A and marked to SI Devender Prasad, who left the PS to go to the spot. Thereafter, PW27 alongwith other staff also reached the spot where he saw that a lady was lying dead in the room of the 1st floor. He further deposed that when he reached the spot, other police officials were also present there. One Sharafat Khan who was the owner of the house was also present there. Again said, the name of the house owner is Sharafat Sheikh. He deposed that inquiries were made by SI Devender Prasad from Sharafat Sheikh who disclosed that one Chand Mohd. was residing for last about 2 months in a room on the 1 st Floor as a tenant alongwith his two wives, namely Firoza and FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 25 of 49 Deepa and daughter of Firoza, namely, Muskan. Crime team had also arrived at the spot. Crime team inspected the scene of crime and crime team photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime. There were injury marks on the left eye, lips, neck and chest/breast etc. on the basis of observation of scene of crime and injuries. He further deposed that SI Devender prepared rukka on DD No. 15A and got registered the present case. After registration of the case, the further investigation of the present case was marked to PW27. He further deposed that he had received the copy of FIR and original rukka. He had lifted exhibits from the spot i.e. one mat of red colour and one blanket. He had kept the same in a white transparent polythene and it was sealed with the seal of MCP and taken into possession by him vide seizure memo already Ex.PW26/C. One black and white colour suit in torn condition was also lifted which was having blood stains and it's cloth pullanda was prepared after sealing the sal with the seal of MCP. It was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW26/B. He further deposed that at that time, he had also prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of Sharafat Sheikh and the same is Ex. PW27/A. He had recorded statement of I/C PCR van baker-VI under section 161 Cr.PC. He further deposed that at that time, he had also recorded statement of I/C Crime Team and photographer of the crime team under section 161 Cr.PC. In-charge crime team had submitted his report to him vide Ex. PW7/A. Dead body of deceased Firoza was removed to the mortuary of GTB hospital. At the spot, hehad also made inquiries and recorded statement of rafat Sheikh u/s. 161 CrPC. He came to know about involvement of accused Chand Mohd. After that efforts were FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 26 of 49 made to find out the accused at Old Delhi Railway Station. Efforts were made out to find out Muskan and Deepa alongwith Sharafat Sheikh. Muskan and Deepa met them at Old Delhi Railway Station. They had gone at Old Delhi Railway Station in search of accused Chand Mohd as on inquiry they had come to know that he was resident of West Bengal and he was likely to go there. At Old Delhi Railway Station, Sharafat had identified Deepa and Muskan. He made inquiries from them and brought them at PS Seelampur. At the PS, he made detailed inquiries from Deepa and Muskan and recorded their statements u/s. 161 CrPC. He came to know from inquiries from them that one cousin of Chand Mohd was residing somewhere in Gurgaon. He also came to know from them the mobile phone number of Chand Mohd. He did not remember the said mobile number but it was put in surveillance. From surveillance, location of the said mobile number was found to be at Gurgaon. After that he alongwith SI Devender, SI Rizwan, HC Nathu Ram and other police officers reached Gurgaon in the night of 13/14.01.2016. There they made search for the accused but he could not be found. They also came to know from surveillance that one call was made from the mobile number of accused to another mobile. They made call to the said number which was found to be of one Taxi driver whose name PW27 did not remember now. They called the said taxi driver to their location in Gurgaon, who came and upon inquiries, he told that he had taken a caller to Delhi Railway Station from a particular location. The said taxi driver took them to the said location which was Jhuggi in a Jhuggi Cluster at Sec. 45, Gurgaon.
At the said place, they met one Icha Haq who was found to be FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 27 of 49 cousin of Chand Mohd who revealed that Chand Mohd had come to him alone in the night and that Chand Mohd had left for his village Boroitna in Nadia District, West Bengal in a taxi to go to Railway Station. They took Icha Haq along and came back to police station. PW27 further claimed that he briefed his seniors and they directed him to leave for Kolkatta. PW27 alongwith SI Rizwan, HC Nathu Ram and Icha Haq left for Kolkatta in the night of 14/15.01.2016, again said, in the night of 15/16-01- 2016.
On further deposition, PW27 corrected the date of leaving Delhi for West Bengal as intervening night of 14/15.01.2016 instead of 15/16.01.2016 as incorrectly stated by him previously. PW27 further deposed that they firstly reached Kolkatta at about 5:00 am. From there they reached Vardhman in a taxi. They reached Vardhman because they had received information from Icha Haq that accused would reach Vardhman by Kalka Mail. At Vardhman Railway Station, they were informed that the said train was late due to fog. They informed Railway police (GRP) as well and they all did recce of the railway station and noted all the exit points. they also told description of accused Chand Mohd. to them. They all took position at all the exit points.At about 11:30 am, Kalka Mail train arrived at Vardhman Station. They searched for accused Chand Mohd. there but he was not found. However, they received information from Delhi that location of accused was of on the way to his village Boroitna. They (officials of Delhi police alongwith Icha Haq) hired a taxi and went towards the said village Boroitna. The PS concerned of this village was PS Kali Ganj and they reached there. They told them about the case and sought their help. Local police was provided to them FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 28 of 49 and alongwith them they reached village Boroitna. In the village, they reached at the house of accused where his father Micher Sheikh met them. Father of accused was quite ill and unable to tell anything. From neighbours, they came to know that mother of accused had left for Murshidabad in the morning to go to her daughter. Icha Haq told them that the said place was Salar in Murshidabad. Accordingly they left for Salar. Concerned PS was also named as Salar and they reached there. They briefed police officials as well and sought their help. Local police officials was provided to them. Icha Haq took them to house of sister of accused where she met them who told them that she was not in contact with accused Chand Mohd. They instructed her to inform them as and when he(accused) would come. They came back to PS Salar. Thereafter they went to a Dak Bunglow and stayed there.
PW27 further testified that Icha Haq told that there was another sister of accused who was residing in Bastutala in the area of PS Kali Ganj. Therefore, they went back to PS Kali Ganj in the morning. they alongwith the local police officials went to the house of said another sister. Accused was not found there. As accused switched off his mobile phone, no information was being received from their Delhi office about location of the accused. As last location was of Salar, they again went to Salar. Secret informers of the local police were also briefed and asked to provide any information about the accused. On 19.01.2016 at about 5:00 pm, one secret informer met them and told that accused would come to house of his sister at Salar on that day. They again reached PS Salar and briefed the local police. They alongwith the local police officials and local informer, they FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 29 of 49 reached Daha Pada Chowk, Salar, where they asked 4-5 passersby to join the proceedings but they left giving their excuses. At about 8:00 pm, secret informer pointed out towards one person and told that he was Chand Mohd. Icha Haq also confirmed the same. They apprehended the said person and interrogated him. After interrogation, he was arrested by PW27 in this case vide arrest memo already Ex.PW12/A bearing his signature at point C. Accused Chand Mohd. Was correctly identified by PW27.PW27 further claimed that personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo already Ex.PW12/B which bears his signature at point C. He claimed that he had also recorded disclosure statement of accused Chand Mohd. which was already Ex.PW25/A bearing his signature at point B. After arrest, accused was brought to PS Salar where he was put in the lock up. He had recorded statements of the accompanying police staff.
PW27 further claimed that on the next day i.e. 20.01.2016, accused was produced before the concerned Ld. MM of the area in Murshidabad. From where 5 days Transit Remand of the accused was taken. After taking accused with them, they came back to Delhi and reached at PS Seelampur on 22.01.2016. From the PS, accused led them to his tenanted room at H. No. A-14, 1 floor, Shastri Park, Delhi where accused took out one iron chain of about 2 feet size having round kundas of both the sides and one Angocha of check design of red and green linings from Dth the TV trolley kept in the said room. While producing the said gamcha, accused told that the said gamcha/angocha was used by him in strangulating his wife Firoza. About the iron chain, accused told that it was used in beating his wife Firoza. PW27 FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 30 of 49 had prepared one pullanda after keeping the said gamcha and iron chain in a white cloth and after sealing the same with seal of MCP, same were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW19/A which bears his signature at point B. After that they came at the PS where case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused was put in the lock up after conducting his medical examination. He had recorded statement of SI Rizwan who accompanied him at the time of effecting recovery at the instance of the accused. On the next day, accused was produced before the concerned court from where he was sent to JC.
On 11.02.2016, PW27 had taken draftsman Insp. Mahesh with him to the spot where he had taken measurement and took rough notes of the place of occurrence at his pointing out which was handed over later on. After they had left Delhi for West Bengal, SI Devender got conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Firoza and collected exhibits from the hospital and deposited the same in the malkhana. SI Devender had also got recorded statements of Muskan and Deepa u/s. 164 CrPC.
PW27 had also prepared site plan of place of recovery of iron chain and gamcha at the instance of the accused (already Ex.PW19/B) which bears his signature at point B. Thereafter he was transferred from the PS in the month of March 2016, he handed over the case file to the MHC(R) and further investigation of the present case was handed over to Insp. Pramod. PW27 had correctly identified the case property i.e. one iron chain and one gamcha as Ex. Art. 1 and Ex. Article 2 respectively; one plastic mat (chatai) of red and blue colour as FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 31 of 49 Ex. Article 5 and one blanket of green/ light green colour as Ex. Article 6 which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW26/C. The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxviii) PW 28 Ms. Nurbanu (also known as Salma) deposed that she knew Firoza as she worked with her however, she did not remember date, month but it was prior to six year (perhaps it was month of March and winter season), she had gone at the house of Firoza in the morning at about 7:00 am for calling her to go at work. She deposed that she saw from window that accused Chand Mohd. (present in the Court that dayand correctly identified by the witness) was collecting/packing his clothes in bag and she pushed the door and accused asked her 'who were you?', she replied, she was Salma. Accused Chand opened the door, deceased Firoza was lying/sleeping on the floor, she was covered with quilt, she asked Chand, why she was sleeping till now? Chand replied that she was unwell, accused Chand asked her for tea, she sat near the body and uncovered Firoza and saw that clothes were not on the body of Firoza she further asked Chand why she was unclothes to which accused replied that some fighting had taken place between him and Firoza as both were drunk. She furher told Chand that if Firoza dies, who will look after their children, thereafter, accused sent Baby Muskan to bring a cup of tea and accused sent his second wife Deepa who was present in the said room, outside the house. PW28 further deposed that when she reached to the room, Deepa was also packing clothes in the bag. Thereafter, accused told that Firoza FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 32 of 49 had died and accused locked her inside the room and he locked the room from outside so that he could not contact outsider to disclose the incident. Thereafter, she started shouting for opening the door and accused replied that if you come out, you would shout and tell anybody to which she replied that she would not disclose to anyone. She further deposed that she requested accused to go for washroom and to open the door. Thereafter, accused opened the door and she started fleeing away and meanwhile accused caught hold her dupatta. She deposed that she left her dupatta and fled away from there. She deposed that she had seen Firoza and there were injuries on mouth and lower side of cheek and oil was poured in the head, accused Chand used to beat Firoza badly despite that Firoza used to earn and gave money to accused. She further deposed that prior to one day of the incident, when Firoza came at work, there were cut injuries on hand, legs, ears and nose of Firoza. Firoza told that these injuries were caused by accused Chand.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, PW28 affirmed that when he went to the house of Firoza, at that time, accused Chand, Deepa and Muskan were present there and there was no quarrel between them. She did not tell about the incident to anyone. She volunteered that she was under fear. She affirmed that the body seeing in the photographs was having clothes. She volunteered that someone had put the clothes later on. She affirmed that name of wife of Chand as Sharajahan Bano. She volunteered that she was residing in village and she knew her also. She affirmed that accused Chand has two children from Sharajahan Bano. She volunteered that they were also residing in village. She saw accused Chand beating Firoza FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 33 of 49 many times but she could not tell the exact date, month or year. She volunteered that he used to beat her daily and injury marks were visible on her body. She came to know that Firoza had died when he removed the quilt from her body and asked from the accused as to why she was not talking and checked that she was not breathing. Her documentary name Nurbanu was known to people at Delhi as well as at his native place in West Bengal and they also knew her in the name of Salma.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating facts were put to the accused, which were denied by him. Accused stated that he did not commit any murder. After drinking liquor, Firoza fell down from the stairs, due to which she sustained injuries. He picked her up and gave massage and fomentation, offered food to her. He asked her if she had any problem to which she replied that she is fine and will take medicine after waking up on the next morning. He opted to lead defence evidence and examined two witnesses.
6. DEFENCE EVIDENCE
(i) DW1 Smt. Rahima Biwi deposed that he she is neighbour of deceased Firoza and she was deposing at the request of accused Chand Mohd. who is her neighbour. Deceased Firoza was on visiting terms with the accused and Firoza also used to take liquor with the accused. On the day of incident, deceased Firoza also took liquor with the accused. Firoza, after consuming liquor, fell down on the stairs and sustained injuries on her head. She along with accused helped Firoza and thereafter, she gave her fomentation and gave her medicines. Thereafter, Firoza felt FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 34 of 49 better and she came back to her house at about 7-8 pm. Next day, at about 9 am, when she called Firoza for going to work, but she did not respond. She saw that Firoza was dead.
During her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, she stated that she had no document regarding the tenancy. She did not remember as to on which floor Firoza used to live. Again said, Firoza used to live on the second floor of the building. The said building was of three storeys. The colour of the gate was of light badge colour and it was of wood. The colour of the wall of the house of Firoza was of light badge colour. The said house was of one room only.She did not remember as to what the deceased was wearing on the date of incident. She did not remember colour of clothes she was wearing. The stairs were made up of bricks and cement of dark brown colour. Firoza did not fall in her presence. Somebody told her that Firoza had fallen from the stairs. She saw the head injuries of Firoza and she sustained injury on the back of her head. She did not notice any injury on any other body parts of her. She did not know as to which medicine was brought by Chand Mohd. She volunteered that he brought two medicines. The said medicines were administered to her and she felt relieved. they did not take her to the doctor as her injuries were not severe. There was no oozing of blood from her injury. The said medicines were in capsule form and were of green colour. She denied that she never saw the injury of the deceased nor the deceased had ever received injury on her head due to any fall as alleged nor she gave her any fomentation or medicines.
(ii) DW2 Sh. Kausar Agha deposed that accused Chand Mohd. is his previous worker. On the day when incident occurred, FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 35 of 49 accused did not report at his workplace. Thereafter, when he visited the room of accused situated at Buland Masjid, Shastri Park to call him for work, the accused was not present there. Crowd had gathered there and she was informed that one lady who used to reside with the accused had passed away. She was also informed that accused along with two ladies had consumed liquor on the previous night.
During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, he did not remember the date and month of the said year. It was summer time. He did not remember which day of the week it was. He visited the house of Chand Mohd., after 3 days of incident where he came to know that from the public that the wife of accused had died due to fall from stairs. He could not tell the name of those public persons who told him the aforesaid fact. He could not tell as to of which material the main door of the house of Chand Mohd. was made of. He denied that he never visited the house of accused. He denied that he never heard from the public that the wife of deceased had died due to fall from stairs. He denied that he was deposing falsely in this regard. FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. This court has heard the arguments from Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Defence counsel and have perused the record.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC. Special emphasis was laid on the testimony of minor daughter of accused who was examined as PW-16 Baby 'M'. It is submitted that PW16 had deposed in detail the entire sequence of events which led to the murder of her mother Firoza. Her testimony is FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 36 of 49 consistent with her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW18/A2 which was got recorded by the IO during investigation of the present case. She has categorically deposed that she did not remember the date, month or year but it was summer time but one day at about 01:00 am in the night, her father started beating her mother Firoza and continued beating her till 02:00 AM. Firstly, he had given slaps and later on he strangulated her with a towel and also gave leg blows on her chest. He also used one iron chain to beat her mother Firoza. When her mother demanded water and when she tried to give the same, her father gave her kick blow on her chest. Other public witnesses namely PW1, PW2, PW10 and PW28 have also corroborated the version of PW-16 to the extent that the dead body of the deceased Firoza was found lying dead on the tenanted house of the accused Chand on the date of incident. Postmortem report corroborates injuries revealed by PW-16 on the body of deceased. Salma who was also known as Nurbano (PW28) corroborate the testimony of PW-16 with regard to subsequent conduct of accused Chand Mohd. in fleeing from the spot. PW-28 Nurbano also proved an extra judicial confession of accused Chand Mohd. as accused Chand had revealed to her that some fighting had taken place between him and Firoza as both were drunk. She further deposed that the accused had sent his daughter to bring cup of tea. After some time accused told her that Firoza had died. PW28 deposed that accused locked her in the room so that she could not contact any outsider. PW-17 also partially support the case of the prosecution. She had proved the factum of fleeing of accused. She had proved the fact that on the date of incident the deceased was lying injured and that is why she gave hot water massage to FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 37 of 49 the deceased.
On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Defense counsel on behalf of accused that accused is falsely implicated in the present case. There are many contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of Prosecution witnesses. The attention of the court was drawn towards testimony of only eyewitness got examined by the prosecution i.e. PW16. It is submitted that PW16 had revealed incorrect time of incident as she had stated that incident had taken place in summers, whereas the incident has taken place in Winters. PW16 Deepa had stated before the court that she does not understand Hindi. Her testimony in the court was recorded with the assistance of Translator. In these circumstances, it is doubted as to how her statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by Ld. MM and therefore, it is urged that no reliance be placed on the statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. of PW Deepa. It is further submitted that as per DD no. 15A (Ex. PW5/A), the call was made of quarrel with lady and not of murder and therefore, the accused was not present at the house when murder of the deceased was committed. There is contradictions in the testimony of Prosecution witnesses regarding condition of dead body in which it was noticed. PW8 had claimed that dead body was completely covered whereas other public witnesses have claimed that it was partly covered. Not a single public witness, who all claimed to be tenant residing in the same house when the incident had taken place, stated that there was any noise or cries at the spot. PW10, who was landlord of the house, falsifies the claim of the other tenant that they were residing in the house as tenant as PW10 had categorically deposed that apart from Chand Mohd. no other tenant was there FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 38 of 49 in his house i.e. H. No. A-14, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park, Delhi. Ld. Defence counsel has placed reliance upon the following authorities in support of his submissions:
(1) Jagpati Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh with Ram Krishna Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1993, Crl. LJ 1058; (2) Harish Kumar Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1993 Crl.L.J. 411;
(3) State of Karnataka Vs. Salim Khan and others, 2004 Crl.L.J. 335;
(4) Narayan Vs. State of MP, Crl. Appeal no. 1146/87 decided on 06-08-1991; and (5) Ramesh Laxman Gavli Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors.
With State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh, 1999, Crl. L. J. 4603.
FINDINGS OF THIS COURT
8. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some provisions of law and citations of Superior courts, which are found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.
300. Murder--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or -
Secondly--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
Thirdly--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-- Fourthly--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that is must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 39 of 49 incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
302. Punishment for murder-Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
09. It is noted that present case is primarily based on the testimony of eyewitness namely PW16 Baby 'M', who is the daughter of accused in the present case. She has correctly identified the accused in his deposition dated 18-07-2017. She has further explained in detail about the manner in which he deceased was assaulted and the body part on which the deceased has received the injury on being beaten by the accused. She has categorically deposed that it was summer time and one day at about 1:00 am in the night, her father started beating her mother Firoza and continued beating her till 2:00 am. Firstly, he had given slaps and later on he strangulated her with a towel and also gave leg blows on her chest. He also used one iron chain to beat her mother Firoza. When her mother demanded water and when PW16 tried to give the same, her father gave her kick blow on her chest. She had also deposed about the injuries sustained by the deceased. PW16 had testified that she saw that right eye of her mother Firoza was swollen and there were marks on the neck. She also saw blood on the mouth and nose of her mother Firoza. PW16 has also correctly identified the weapon of offence which were recovered by the IO at the instance of accused i.e. one iron chain and one towel/ gamcha. Her testimony is consistent with her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW18/A2 recorded by Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Ld. MM on 16-01-2016 on the application of IO. PW1 Smt. Sabina Biwi, PW2 Roshni, PW10 Sheikh Sarafat, PW28 Ms. Noor Bano @ Salma corroborates the version of PW16 with regard to the condition in which the dead body was FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 40 of 49 found lying by the investigating team and the bodily injuries sustained by the deceased. PM report Ex. PW14/A also corroborates the version of PW16.
As per PM report Ex. PW14/A, the deceased Firoza had sustained following external injuries:
"(i) Reddish abrasion of size 2.0 x 1.0 c.m. surrounded by reddish contusion of size 4.0 x 3.0 c.m. present over lateral angle of left eye.
(ii) Reddish contusion of size 5.0 x 4.0 c.m. present over left side of chin 1.0 c.m. from midline.
(iii) Lacerated wound of size 2.0 x 0.2 c.m. x muscle deep present over inner aspect of upper lip in midline.
(iv) Reddish contusion of size 3.0 x 1.0 c.m. present over left side of lower lip inner aspect 0.5 c.m. from midline.
(v) Reddish abrasion of size 3.0 x 0.5 c.m. present over left side of neck 3.0 c.m. from midline 6.0 c.m. below ramus.
(vi) Reddish abrasion of size 3.0 x 0.3 c.m. present over right side of neck 0.5 c.m. from midline over sternal notch.
(vii) Reddish contusion of size 2.0 x 1.5 c.m. present over right side of neck 4.0 c.m. from midline 2.5 c.m. below ramus.
(viii) Reddish abrasion of size 1.5 x 0.6 c.m. present over right side of chin 2.5 c.m. from midline 1.5 c.m. above ramus.
(ix) Reddish contusion of size 2.5 x 1.5 c.m. present over right side of chin 3.0 c.m. from midline.
(x) Reddish abrasion of size 0.2 x 0.1 c.m. two in number present over right angle of mandible.
(xi) Reddish contusion of size 1.5 x 1.0 c.m. present over front of right ear.
(xii) Reddish contusion of size 10.0 x 7.0 c.m. present over left side of chest 1.0 c.m. from midline 15.0 c.m.
below ramus.
FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 41 of 49(xiii) Reddish contusion of size 11.0 x 8.0 c.m. present over right side of chest 3.0 c.m. from midline 13.0 c.m. below ramus.
(xiv) Reddish contusion of size 2.5 x 1.0 c.m. present over lateral side of right forearm 1.0 c.m. above wrist.
(xv) Reddish contusion of size 10.0 x 6.0 c.m. present over right side of head 5.0 c.m. from midline 12.0 c.m. above occipital protuberance.
(xvi) Reddish contusion of size 7.0 x 5.0 c.m. present over back of left side of head 12.0 c.m. from midline at the level of occipital protuberance."
10. It is contended that there is contradiction in the testimony of PW16 Baby 'M' with regard to the timing of incident deposed by her. Attention of the court was drawn towards the expression, 'I do not remember the date, month or year but it was summer time', in the deposition of PW16. It is argued that the incident was of winters i.e. in the month of January 2016 whereas PW16 had deposed that the incident had taken place in summer season. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that PW16 was cross- examined at length by the Ld. Defence counsel. Her attention was never drawn towards the time of incident. No suggestion in this regard was put by the Ld. Defence counsel. Despite lengthy cross-examination, PW16 remained firm in her stand that her mother was murdered by her father Chand Mohd.
11. It is settled position in law that testimony of an eyewitness is to be preferred to that of a medical/ forensic witness. Reference may be made to State of U.P. v. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC 542, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court told the position of law thus:
"In any event, unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy."FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 42 of 49
12. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer here the case of State of H.P. v. Lekhraj and another reported in JT 1999 (9) SC 43, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:-
"In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like.........
.......The traditional dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial." Further, in the case of Surender Singh v. State of Haryana reported in JT 2006 (1) SC 645, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under :- "It is well-established principle of law that every discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated as a fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity."
As far as minor inconsistencies are concerned in the statement of the witnesses it is held in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 767 that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In the case of Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1167, the Supreme Court has held that when the discrepancies were comparatively of minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. Also in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 752 it has been held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.
(133) Even otherwise, when an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non discrepant. But Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 43 of 49 in the narration of incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. (134) The Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to why discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. In the judgment of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1), the Supreme Court pointed out the following reasons as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses:
(a) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(b) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(c) The powers of observation differ from person to person.
What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(d) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(e) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(f) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(g) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, of fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism activated on the moment.
13. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sonu Arora Vs. State on 21 July, 2010 in Crl. A. No. FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 44 of 49 241/1997 that:-
"If the discrepancies found in the testimony of a witness are normal and attributable to loss of memory with the passage of time or they are on matters which are peripheral or trivial, not forming the core of the case, his testimony cannot be rejected on account of such minor variations or infirmities. But, where the contradiction relates to the main incident forming core part of his testimony, that could depending upon the nature of the contradiction and other facts and circumstances of the case, seriously affect the credibility and truthfulness of the witness since he is not expected to give contradictory version with respect to the important material parts of the incident which he claims to have witnessed."
14. Further, it is well settled that testimony of hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto. In the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of M.P, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1853, Hon'ble Apex Court examined the evidentiary value of a hostile witness and held that the evidence of a witness, declared hostile, is not wholly effaced from record and that part of evidence, which is otherwise acceptable can be acted upon. Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon its previous decisions in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (1976) 2 SCR 921, Rabinder Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orrisa (1976) 4 SCC and Sayed Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCR 95 held that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
In the present case, even though PW17 Smt. Deepa, who was the first wife of accused Chand Mohd., has not supported the case of the prosecution, yet she has proved the subsequent conduct of accused fleeing from the spot when she admitted the FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 45 of 49 fact that accused had left the house with a bag of clothes in her cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State. Nor testimony of PW17 created any dent in the testimony of PW16. No material contradiction/ discrepancy has been pointed out by the Ld. Defence counsel in the version of PW16 Baby 'M' which would have the effect of discarding her testimonies in toto. In view of the law as stated above, the contention regarding contradictions and discrepancies in the version of PW16 fails to inspire the confidence of this court.
15. Further, accused Chand Mohd. was supposed to put forward some explanation not only during cross examination of the witnesses, who have proved the role of accused in committing the murder of deceased Firoza, but also during his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. However, he just replied to all incriminating facts emerging from the evidence as "it is incorrect" or "I do not know". Nowhere he has explained as to what he was doing at the relevant time i.e. on the night of 12-01- 2016. Nor he has explained as to why he had fled to his native place at West Bengal immediately after the death of his wife Firoza, who was admittedly residing with him. The accused was supposed to tender a satisfactory explanation to the fact which was within his personal knowledge. No doubt, accused was not supposed to examine any witness to prove this fact, but he was definitely supposed to put forward some explanation u/s 313 Cr.P.C., which is not done by him.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in case titled Jagroop Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 768 that if accused failed to tender any plausible explanation to incriminating evidence, it would serve the purpose of fulfilling the missing link FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 46 of 49 of the circumstances. The relevant observation is as under:
"36. Another aspect is to be taken note of. Though the incriminating circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused had been put to the accused, yet he could not give any explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except choosing the mode of denial."
17. In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC 471 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 263], it has been held that, "when the attention of the accused is drawn to such circumstances that inculpated him in the crime and he fails to offer appropriate explanation or gives a false answer, the same can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. We may hasten to add that we have referred to the said decision only to highlight that the accused has not given any explanation whatsoever as regards the circumstances put to him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
18. Testimonies of the defence witnesses got examined by the accused Chand Mohd. are of no help to him. DW1 Rahimi Biwi, who is neighbour of accused had stated in her cross-examination that somebody told her that Firoza had fallen from stairs. Thus, testimony of DW1 is 'hearsay'. Further DW2, who was employer of accused, did not state anything exculpatory qua the accused in his deposition dated 25-04-2023. Rather, DW2 in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State had stated that after three days of incident, he came to know that wife of accused had fallen from stairs.
19. In view of the facts, it stands proved that accused Chand Mohd. was in the company of the deceased, and he has failed to tender any explanation and shall be presumed that he was involved in the incident in which deceased was killed. Thus, there is no possibility that accused had left the company of deceased Firoza.
20. Cross-examination of autopsy surgeon PW14 Dr. Priyal FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 47 of 49 Jain also refutes the contention of Ld. Defence counsel that the deceased had fallen from stairs. PW14 in his cross-examination dated 16-01-2017, had categorically denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence counsel that the injuries, as mentioned in PM report, were possible by a near fall on any hard surface.
21. Intention of the accused in committing the murder of deceased Firoza is manifest from PM report Ex. PW14/A wherein as many as 16 external injuries have been reported on different parts of dead body of deceased. It is apparent from PM report that the deceased had been killed brutally by the accused. From subsequent opinion of autopsy surgeon Ex. PW14/C, it was established that iron chain, which was recovered at the instance of accused and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/A was used by the accused in inflicting injuries upon deceased Firoza which finally resulted in her death.
22. The citations relied upon by Ld. Defence counsel are not found to be applicable in view of peculiar facts of the present case.
DECISION OF THE COURT
23. In the opinion of this court, the testimony of prosecution witnesses comes out to be clear, convincing, trustworthy and inspires confidence of this court. Nothing material came out in their respective cross-examination. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of prosecution witnesses. All the ingredients of section 302 IPC are satisfied. The prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 12-01-2016 at about 9 pm at first floor of H. No. A-14, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park, New Delhi he committed murder of his wife Firoza FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 48 of 49 by beating with iron chain. Accordingly, accused Chand Mohd. is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence and grant of compensation on the next date of hearing.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
On 30-07-2024 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ
ARORA
ARORA Date: 2024.07.30 17:07:59 +0530
(PANKAJ ARORA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
KARKARDOOMA/ 30-07-2024.
FIR No. 25/2016 State Vs. Chand Mohammad Page 49 of 49