Delhi District Court
State vs Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas on 10 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT - 01) :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
CNR NO. DLSE01-00257-2014
SC No. : 1287/2016
FIR No. : 364/2014
PS : Govind Puri
U/s : 302/34 IPC & 174A IPC
State Versus 1. Laxmi @ Lakhi
Sh. Haran Mandal
Address as per charge-sheet :-
A-692, Transit Camp, Govind Puri,
New Delhi
2. Sanjeev Vishwas @ Sandeep Mandal
Sh. Suraj Vishwas
Address as per charge-sheet :-
A-585, Transit Camp, Govind Puri,
New Delhi
3. Wadhir Bala @ Adhir Bala
Sh. Phatik Bala
Address as per charge-sheet :-
A-545, Transit Camp, Govind Puri,
New Delhi
4. Govinda
Sh. Budhir Mazumdar
Address as per charge-sheet :-
A-692, Transit Camp, Govind Puri,
SC No. 1287/2016
FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 1 of 74
New Delhi
5. Savita
Sh. Govinda
Address as per charge-sheet :-
A-692, Transit Camp, Govind Puri,
New Delhi
Date of Institution : 16.07.2014
Date of Judgment reserved for orders: Not reserved
Date of Judgment : 10.02.2026
Final verdict : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
Introduction:
DD No. 44A was recorded at 00:50 AM, on 04.04.2014 at AIIMS Trauma Center about the death of Ardhana. A statement was given by Ms. Suchitra Parmanik, daughter of deceased that there was an altercation with respect to taking water with accused Laxmi, Adhir Bala, Sandeep Mandal, Govinda and Savita. The accused Laxmi, Adhir Bala and Sandeep Mandal pushed her mother Ardhana, Savita sat on her and Govinda hit Ardhana with a piece of brick on her head with intention to cause death. Ardhana was declared brought dead at the Trauma Center. On the basis of the statement of Suchitra, FIR was registered and matter was investigated.SC No. 1287/2016
FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 2 of 74 Brief facts:
1. During the investigation, the accused Govinda and Savita absconded and were declared proclaimed offender vide order 01.08.2014. The remaining three accused were arrested on 04.04.2014 and were subsequently admitted to bail vide order dated 13.08.2014.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed naming Laxmi @ Lakhi, Sanjeev Vishwas @ Sandeep Mandal, Wadhir Bala @ Adhir Bala, Govinda (PO) and Savita (PO) as accused for offences punishable U/s 302/149/34 IPC. Cognizance was taken by Ld Predecessor. Subsequently, the accused Govinda and Savita were arrested on 15.05.2016 and were remanded to JC. They continued to be judicial custody till date.
3. The copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC. Matter was then fixed for consideration on point of charge.
4. Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame Charges for offences U/s 302/34 IPC against the accused persons vide order dated 03.05.2018.
Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
5. Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame Additional Charge for offences u/s 174A IPC was framed against the accused Govinda and Savita. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 3 of 74 was listed for prosecution evidence.
Prosecution evidence:
6. Prosecution examined 25 witnesses. After this, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was listed for examination of accused persons Under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
7. In her statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the accused Laxmi @ Lakhi denied all the allegations. The accused had stated that she was cooking food at her house. PW1 knew all of them prior to the incident. Police had taken them in the night of the alleged incident only. They had not given any disclosure statement. Accused used to reside in the same building but the allegations are false.
8. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the accused Sanjeev Vishwas @ Sandeep Mandal has denied all the allegations. PW1 knew all of them prior to the incident. Police had taken them in the night of the alleged incident only. They had not given any disclosure statement. The accused had stated that he did not use to reside in the said building and used to reside a little away from the alleged spot. He has not seen the quarrel. He has heard that the mother of the complainant fell from the stairs.
9. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the accused Wadhir Bala @ Adhir Bala has denied all the allegations. PW1 SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 4 of 74 knew all of them prior to the incident. Police had taken them in the night of the alleged incident only. They had not given any disclosure statement. He used to reside one lane away. However, the allegations are false.
10. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the accused Govinda has denied all the allegations. Accused came from his work place and some persons were present outside their room and he asked what is a matter. They told him that the matter of Suchitra had fallen. After some time, the police came. PW1 knew all of them prior to the incident. They had not given any disclosure statement. Later on, the police broke the lock of his room and he was present on the side. His T-shirt was not seized. There was no quarrel regarding the water. The police had called him asking him to surrender but he told them that accused had not committed the alleged offence. Accused went to his native place on the next day. Police never came to execute any process at their native place at Nadia, West Bengal.
He admitted that they were arrested in 2016 and brought to Delhi. He used to leave his house at 7 AM as he was doing work of contractor.
11. In her statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the accused Savita has denied all the allegations. Accused stated that she was SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 5 of 74 not even present there. They did not run away. PW1 knew all of them prior to the incident. Police took money from them and told them to run away. Police never came to execute any process at their native place at Nadia, West Bengal.
She admitted that they were arrested in 2016 and brought to Delhi. She was not present at the spot. Govind used to leave for his work around 8 AM and return in the night.
12. Accused persons examined two witnesses in their defence.
Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
13. Final arguments have been heard. Record has been carefully perused.
14. Ld. Additional PP for the State has argued that in the present case PW1 and PW3 are wife and husband and eyewitnesses in the present case. He has argued that both the witnesses have corroborated each other and substantiated the allegations against all the accused persons. He argued that accused Laxmi, Sanjeev and Wadhir pushed the victim, Savita sat on victim's chest while Govinda hit the victim with a piece of brick on her head. He argued that two pieces of brick, pieces of bangles have been recovered from the spot. Victim was declared brought dead at the hospital. He argued that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond the pales of reasonable doubts and the accused be convicted of all the offences with which they are SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 6 of 74 charged.
15. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that there are several contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It is jointly argued that none of the injuries mentioned in the MLC of the victim is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the victim. It is argued that none of the accused had any motive to cause the death of the victim. It is argued that all the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case and may be acquitted.
Relevant Provisions of law:
Section 302 IPC :-
"Punishment for murder --Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine".
Section 34 IPC provides :-
"When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
Section 174A IPC - Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974 -
"whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 7 of 74 where a declaration has been made under sub- section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine".
16. Having considered the relevant law and the settled principal with respect to the offences with which the accused persons have been charged with, I shall proceed with examining the evidence led by both the sides.
Evidence on record:
17. Though 23 witnesses have been examined by prosecution. However, the main witnesses of the case are as follows:-
18. PW - 1 Smt. Suchitra Pramanik has deposed as follows:-
"I used to live at A-692, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, New Delhi with my husband and children at second floor and there were total three floors where different tenants used to stay.
On 03.04.2014, at about 9 PM, my mother Aaradhna Pramanik came to visit us as my daughter was operated on her finger.
We all the tenants used to fill water turn wise. On that night, it was my turn to fill the water and I went to tell accused Savita, W/o accused Govinda that it was our turn to fill water but Savita had already turn her motor and was filling water. When I objected their filling water out of turn, accused Savita and Govinda who are present in the Court today and correctly identified by the witness started abusing and quarrelling with me. I called my husband and told him that accused SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 8 of 74 Savita and Govinda quarrelling with me. My husband Sanjay came there and the accused persons had started quarrelling with my husband also. Meanwhile, accused Laxmi, Wadhir Bala and Sadeep Mandal also came there and started assaulting me and my husband. Meanwhile, my mother came out of room and asked about the reason of quarrelling and she told them why you fight for water. You should fill water turn wise on particular night. Thereafter, accused Laxmi, Wadhir Bala and Sandeep Mandal pushed my mother badly who fell down on floor. Savita sat down on the chest of my mother and started beating with fist and blows. Meanwhile, Govinda picked up brick and hit on the forehead of my mother. I had tried to save my mother but she did not move and became unconscious. I informed the police at 100 number. Accused Govinda and Savita flee away from spot after committing the offence. Accused Laxmi, Wadhir Bala and Sandeep were present there. After some time, police reached at spot and my mother was taken to Truama Centre, AIIMS and I also accompanied her, where doctor declared her brought dead.
Police recorded my statement in respect of the occurrence and I narrated all the facts to the police. My statement in this regard is Ex.PW1/A bears my signature at point A. My statement was recorded at around 12:00 midnight. All the five accused persons are present in the Court today. (Witness correctly identified the accused persons).
On the next day, SHO Sunil came to my house and made inquiry about the accused persons. I pointed the accused Wadhir Wala, Laxmi and Sanjeev and SHO arrested them. The arrest memo of the accused Wadhir Wala is Ex.PW1/B. The arrest memo of the accused Laxmi is Ex.PW1/C and arrest memo of accused Sanjeev is Ex.PW1/D. All bears my signature at SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 9 of 74 point A. Their personal search memo were also prenared vide memo Ex.PW1/E of accused Wadhir wala, Ex.PW1/F of accused Sanjeev and Ex.PW1/G of accused Laxmi, all bears my signature at point A. IO interrogated the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statement vide Ex.PW1/H1 of Wadhir Wala, Ex.PW1/H2 of accused Sanjeev and Ex.PW1/H3 of accused Laxmi, all bears my signatures at point A. The IO also recovered from the spot two pieces of bricks which were used by accused Govinda in hitting of my mother. The seizure memo of the said brick pieces is Ex.PW1/J bearing my signature at point A. The IO also recovered from the spot the pieces of bangles and one rubber hair band belonging to my sister Geeta which were dropped at the spot while she was picking up my mother. The seizure memo of the same is Ex.PW1/K. IO also seized the shirt of my husband Sanjay Pramanik which was having blood stained and got torn during the incident. The seizure memo of said shirt is Ex.PW1/L bearing my signature at point A. IO also recovered one red colour T Shirt of accused Govinda through the seizure memo Ex.PW1/M bearing my signature at point A. I had shown the place of occurrence to the SHO. IO recorded my statement in this regard.
I can identify the case property i.e., the articles namely blood stained shirt of my husband Sanjay Pramanik, red T-shirt of accused Govinda, pieces of brick and pieces of broken bangle and rubber hair band of my sister Geeta, recovered by the IO from the spot.
I can identify the case property if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced case property i.e., one sealed parcel bearing case and FSL details and mark as Parcel No. 1 and seal is of MK FSL DELHI. On opening the same it found SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 10 of 74 containing two half bricks which are shown to the witness. The witness has correctly identified the same now Ex.PW1/P1 (colly). The pulanda also found containing a torn cloth piece bearing case particulars and seal impressions.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced case property i.e., one sealed parcel bearing case and FSL details and mark as Parcel No. 2 and seal is of MK FSL DELHI. On opening the same it found containing pieces of bangles and a rubber band which are shown to the witness. The witness has correctly identified the same now Ex.PW1/P2 (colly). The pulanda also found containing a torn cloth piece bearing case particulars and seal impressions.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced case property i.e., one sealed parcel bearing case and FSL details and mark as Parcel No. 3 and seal is of MK FSL DELHI. On opening the same it found containing one red colour T-shirt with cuts on it, which is shown to the witness. The witness has correctly identified the same as of accused Govinda now Ex.PW1/P3. The pulanda also found containing a torn cloth piece bearing case particulars and seal impressions.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced case property i.e., one sealed parcel bearing case and FSL details and mark as Parcel No. 4 and seal is of MK FSL DELHI. On opening the same it found containing one shirt with cuts on it, which is shown to the witness. The witness has correctly identified the same as of her husband namely, Sanjay now Ex.PW1/P4. The pulanda also found containing a torn cloth piece bearing case particulars and seal impressions.
XXXXXX by Sh. T. M. Subhani, Sh. Rishabh Choraria and Ms. Preeti Chhabra, Ld. Counsels for the accused Govinda and Savita.
I reside at second floor. Accused Govinda SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 11 of 74 and Savita were residing at first floor. At second floor, one sister of Govinda and two other neighbours also resided. At first floor, two other families also resided. At the ground floor, there was a grocery store and Laxmi also used to reside at ground floor, probably some other person also resided at ground floor. Vol. I resided at the said location only for about 15 days or a month or so. Said grocery store was a government ration depot and used to close by 05.00 pm. I do not remember the opening time of said grocery store. There is habitated colony and there are houses adjacent to the aforesaid building. It is correct that area is habitated. It is correct that colony remains crowded and not deserted. It is correct that dispute started in regard to filling of water. I did not go to the house of accused Govinda or Savita at first floor. Vol. I had gone only on the stairs and said that it was my turn to fill the water. Accused Wadhir Bala and Sandeep Mandal did not use to reside in the same building. They used to reside in the same area. They used to reside at a small distance from the building. I do not know whether all accused are related to each other or not. No neighbours had arrived when I talk to the accused Savita and Govinda regarding water. The neighbours were present when we were assaulted by accused persons. The PCR officials took my mother to the hospital. I had not gone with her in the PCR, probably my father or my sister had accompanied my mother. When I had talk with Savita and Govinda, my sister and father were not present. Vol. They came later on. They came after the assault. When I had talks with Savita and Govinda regarding the filling of water, myself was present at my house and my husband was present at the ground floor and no other family member was present at that time. My mother resides at B-18, Govind Puri Transit Camp, New Delhi. Said SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 12 of 74 house is about 5-6 minutes walk from my house. My mother arrived at the spot around 09.00 pm. My daughter had been operated on her finger and my mother used to come daily to meet her and on that day also, she had come to meet my daughter. There was no fixed time when the water supply was there but it was supplied between 07.00 pm to about 10.00 pm. I do not know whether water supply was there from 07.00 pm to 08.00 pm also. My husband is doing business of supplying water in bisleri bottles. He used to do said business from the building in front of the building where the incident occurred. He used to work alone. At that time, he was working under somebody. He was running said business in the name of my brother. My brother used to reside with my mother. My brother used to work elsewhere but he had opened the water business for my husband. My other elder brother used to reside on the top of the premises with his family, from where my husband was running his business. My said elder brother is Nithai Pramanik.
There is a proper cemented staircase from the ground floor to our house on said floor. I do not remember the number of steps in said staircase. My mother could not reach my house at second floor as she was assaulted before that by the accused persons. My mother did not quarrel with accused persons and merely told them that all persons shall cordially fill their water. I was seeing my mother from the veranda of second floor and I told my mother that she should not talk to the accused persons and shall come straightaway to the second floor. However, she could not come to second floor. Accused Laxmi, Wadhir Bala, Sanjeev, Savita and Govinda stopped her from coming to second floor. My husband had left at that time for supplying the water. Vol. I immediately called him. When my SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 13 of 74 mother arrived no active quarrel was going on between me and accused persons. I could not fill water. Vol. The accused persons were filling their water. My altercation with accused persons lasted about only 2-3 minutes. The road in front of our house is quite wide but one car cannot pass through it, however, one rickshaw can pass through it. There was some empty space in front of our building where some rickshaws and other vehicles used to be parked. At that time, the road in front of our house was unpaved. The area was heavily populated but there was some space in front of our building. I had gone to the hospital later on. I returned from the hospital at around 02.30/3.00 am. The policeman met me in the hospital. I do not remember the time when the policeman met me in the hospital. My statement was recorded in the police chowki. Senior police officers had come to the spot but I did not see the officers myself. My husband had told me that police officers visited the spot. He informed me on phone. I do not know where he was present at that time. I do not remember the time when he called me regarding the same. I had said telephonic conversation with my husband after I returned from the hospital. Vol. My husband was at the hospital when he called me. One policeman had come to my house. He had come in the night hours. I was not called by the police downstairs. Policemen had come and had visited the rooms of the accused persons Savita and Govinda. I do not know for how much time police remained there. I do not remember which persons were present when the police had come to the spot and did their proceedings. My family members returned from the hospital at about 05.00/06.00 am. Policemen had come after their return also. The policemen had inspected the spot where my mother was injured. The policemen had also taken the SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 14 of 74 photographs. The police had lifted the brick from the spot and also chudi, one rubber-band and had also taken one red T-Shirt of accused Govinda. The SHO was present when my statement was recorded. I do not know the name of police officials who lifted the aforesaid items. The SHO was present when the aforesaid items were lifted. Vol. I do not know which police officer is which. Probably some documents were prepared by the police when my family members had returned from the hospital. I had signed many documents during police proceedings. I am illiterate. I can only write my name. I have negligible knowledge regarding hindi language. My husband is also not much literate and can only write his name. My father is illiterate. My sister knows bengali and she is also not much literate. I do not know the date or time when my statement was recorded by the police. Vol. My husband knows about it. Vol. I was hopeless at that time after death of my mother. It is wrong to suggest that I do not told the facts to the police as mentioned in my complaint Ex.PW1/A. My sister, my father, my husband and my elder brother was present when my statement was recorded. The police recorded the statements of my sister, my husband and one other person whose name I do not remember. My statement was recorded and thereafter the police proceedings are conducted at the spot. Again said, the police proceedings were conducted at the spot before my statement was recorded. The police made inquiry in the neighbourhood also but I do not know whether statement of any neighbour was recorded. My statement has been written before I signed it. The seizure memo Ex.PW1/K was written in the chowki. The seizure memo Ex.PW1/J was written in chowki. One shirt of my husband was given to the police since it was torn during quarrel with Govinda. Same was handed SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 15 of 74 over by my husband so I do not know at which place it was handed over. I was visiting the police station since the police had not arrested Govinda and Savita. They were arrested much later after a long time. I had identified them when they were arrested and I had signed some documents. I do not know the date of their arrest. The said documents were prepared in the police station. I do not know whoever signed on said documents. The accused Laxmi, Wadhir Wala and Sanjeev were arrested soon after the incident. Police did not record statement of any neighbour in my presence. I do not know which police officials lifted bricks etc. from the spot.
XXXXXX by Sh. Aditya Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Laxmi, Sanjeev Vishwas and Wadhir Bala.
My mother was aged about 45 years. She was having height of around 5 feet 2 inch approximately. She was of medium built and weight. Myself and my husband was present at the time of quarrel with accused Govinda and Savita. I cannot tell the number of persons residing in the building. Around 3-4 rooms were there on each floor and one family used to reside in each room. When I had altercation with accused Savita and Govinda, I was on the staircase and they were on first floor. At that time, the public persons did not gather. I do not remember the time when I called my husband. My husband arrived soon when I called him. I had not called the police by phone.
There was no time or situation for me to make call to police. Vol. I had to see my mother or my kids or what else. I cannot tell the number of neighbours who collected when my mother was assaulted. Vol. The neighbours had gathered at the time of assault of my mother and not when myself and my husband was assaulted. I did not know all SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 16 of 74 the neighbours who had gathered since I was residing there for about 15 days or so. I knew some persons/neighbours which included sister of Govinda, her son and one elderly couple. The accused persons quarreled with my mother in the empty space in front of the building. No neighbour or other person came to rescue my mother. It is wrong to suggest that there was no neighbour or other person present at that time. I do not know who called the police. I do not know the time at which police arrived at the spot. I was present when the police arrived and took my mother to hospital. The police immediately took away my mother. No statement was recorded by the police at that time. I had not received any injury in the incident. My husband had received injury on his face when accused Govinda punched him. My husband was not taken by the police to the hospital. The police recorded my statement only once. I had signed my statement. The police had prepared a site plan in my presence. I do not know the date or time when same was prepared but it was prepared by police. I had signed all the documents. I do not remember the place where site plan was prepared. My husband has received injury on his face on being punched by accused Govinda. I have not mentioned said fact in my statement to police. My husband may have told said fact to the police. It is correct that the quarrel with accused Govinda and Savita had ended. I do not remember the date on which my statement was recorded by the police. I and my family was sitting with the body of my mother when she was brought back from the hospital. I did not talk to the police at that time. It is wrong to suggest that my mother had gone to my house to meet my daughter and while she was returning she slipped off the stairs and received injuries and died thereof. It is wrong to suggest that I had SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 17 of 74 implicated the accused persons regarding death of my mother due to my altercation about water with them. It is wrong to suggest that all the documents were prepared by the police in the police station only. I cannot comment on the suggestion that neither me nor my father nor other family members told the SHO or crime team that accused persons had assaulted my mother by use of brick. It is wrong to suggest that police officials had shown some brick to me in the police station and same was planted in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that my mother was not assaulted with brick by any accused or that she received injuries herself due to slipping off the stairs. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
XXXXXXXXX by Sh. Aditya Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Laxmi, Sanjeev Vishwas and Wadhir Bala.
The house of Wadhir Bala was in the same colony but in the different gali. The house of Sanjeev Vishwas is nearby and is visible from the ground floor of the building where I was residing. My house was located in A Block. The house of Wadhir Bala and Sanjeev Vishwas was also in A Block. I have not seen the house of Wadhir Bala. (vol. My husband has seen it). One can walk from the house where I was residing to the house of Wadhir Bala in one or two minutes. I am saying so without seeing the house of Wadhir Bala since the galis in the locality are not so long.
Q. Can you tell how many buildings were located between your house and the house of Sanjeev Vishwas?
Ans: His house was visible from the building where I was residing. No building was between them.
I cannot comment on the suggestion that it will take five minutes to reach the spot from the house of Wadhir Bala as he is residing two galis SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 18 of 74 apart from the spot.
The water motor was installed on the ground floor. (vol. The switch was on the first floor). There was only one switch of motor. Once the motor was switched on, the water supply was available at all the floors. It is correct that I could fill the water at my floor once it was switched on. The tap on my floor was outside my room and if I had to fill the water inside my house, I had to use a pipe from the tap into my room. All the habitants of the building used to fill water using said water motor. Some times Wadhir Bala and Sanjeev used to fill water at the house of Laxmi. I had not stated said facts to the police in my statements since it was never asked from me.
It is correct that Wadhir Bala and Sanjeev did not reside in my building but It is wrong to suggest that since they did not reside in the building, they never filled water from the water motor in the building. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely regarding said fact. My husband used to supply Bisleri water. I do not know whether my husband used to supply water to Wadhir Bala also. It is wrong to suggest that I am having knowledge regarding the same, but I am deliberately concealing said facts from the court. It is wrong to suggest that there was dispute between my husband and Wadhir Bala regarding supply of spurious water and for said reason, I had falsely implicated him in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I had implicated Wadhir Bala due to enmity with us. It is wrong to suggest that accused Wadhir Bala had not pushed my mother. It is wrong to suggest that Wadhir Bala was not even present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. It is wrong to suggest that the spot where the incident occurred, therein debris, broken bricks, broken bottles etc used to lie and my mother slipped off therein and received SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 19 of 74 injuries on her head. It is wrong to suggest that accused Laxmi, Wadhir Bala and Sanjeev Biswas had not caused any injury to my mother and that I have falsely implicated them. It is wrong to suggest that I had deposed falsely that Laxmi, Wadhir Bala and Sajeev Vishwas had caused injuries to my mother since, I had not received any injury in the alleged incident. It is wrong to suggest that since deceased is my mother therefore, I am deposing falsely against said accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
My family comprises of two brothers namely Nitai Pramanik and Nimai Pramanik and one sister Geeta. My father name is Sadhin Pramanik. My father, mother and younger brother Nimai used to reside at B-18, Transit Camp, Govindpuri. My sister Geeta used to reside nearby our building. I do not know her house number. The building where her house was located was visible from our building. My family members have arrived after the fight. Police had recorded statement of my family members including my father, elder sister and my brother Nimai in police station but I do not remember the date or the police officer who recorded the said statements.
I had seen the brick piece in the hand of accused Govinda for the first time. I was shown the case property in the police station which included the brick-bat seized by the police from the spot. The police did not weigh the piece of brick in my presence. The police did not prepared any sketch of piece of brick. It was a normal piece of brick. I do not know whether anything was printed on the piece of brick. I do not know what did police do with the piece of brick after showing it to me. (vol. They kept it with them). Anything else was not done with the piece of brick in my presence. I do not remember time when the piece SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 20 of 74 of brick was shown to me but it was next day from the date of incident. The police may have prepared the site plan of the place from which the piece of brick was lifted. It was not prepared in my presence. The piece of brick was lying near the head of my mother. There were many on-lookers when the police lifted the piece of brick from the spot. I do not know whether police recorded statement of said on-lookers. The police men were wearing gloves when they lifted the piece of brick. It is correct that the spot from where the piece of brick was lifted, nearby the same there was debris and there were other pieces of bricks / bricks also. It is wrong to suggest that nobody hit my mother with any piece of brick or that no such piece of brick was seized in my presence.
I had told the police that Savita sat on the chest of my mother. I had not stated that she started beating her with fists. It is correct that accused Laxmi, Wadhir Bala and Sanjeev did not know my mother prior to the incident. I have not seen them talking to my mother prior to the incident. It is wrong to suggest that since none of said accused knew my mother, they did not had any quarrel with her or that I am deposing falsely regarding their alleged role in the incident. It is wrong to suggest that since accused Wadhir Bala and Sanjeev Vishwas are known of accused Govinda, therefore, I am implicating them in the present case. It is correct that on the date of incident, I did not have any quarrel with Laxmi regarding the water. It is wrong to suggest that police did not prepared any seizure memo, site plan or arrest memo in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
19. PW - 2 ACP Mahesh Kumar (Draftsman) has prepared scaled site SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 21 of 74 plan Ex.PW2/A of the place of incident.
20. PW - 3 Sh. Sanjay Parmanik deposed as follows:-
"On 03.04.2014, I was residing at Shri Lal Chowk, H. No. A-692, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, Delhi along with my two children and my wife at 2nd Floor. On that day, it was our turn to fill water from the common water connection in the house as there were three floors in the house and they used to collect water by their turns by turning on the water motor. When we went for filling water the accused Govinda who was resident of 1 st floor also came for filling water on the ground floor. Accused Govinda was forcefully trying to fill the water and he also started quarrel along with me and my wife Suchitra Parmanik. In the meantime, wife of accused Govinda namely Savita had also come there and started to quarrel with my wife saying that they will first fill the water. Accused Laxmi, Wadhir and Sanjeev also came there and started quarrel with me and my wife. Accused Laxmi was the resident of the ground floor and Sanjeev was resident of 2 nd floor and Wadhir was resident of adjacent building. In the meantime, my mother-in-law namely Aradhana Parmanik also came there and asked why they are quarreling with us, thereafter, accused Govinda had pushed my mother-in-law Aradhana on the floor. Accused Savita wife of accused Govinda had sat over on the chest of my mother-in-law and Savita had taken a piece of brick and hit on the head of my mother-in-law and accused Laxmi had started kicking my mother-in- law. Accused Govinda, Sanjeev and Wadhir also joined them and caused injuries to my mother-in- law and she had become unconscious. Someone had called the police at 100 number. Police arrived SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 22 of 74 at the spot after about half an hour and they have shifted my mother-in-law at AIIMS Trauma Center on the PCR van. I was also present with my mother-in-law while she was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center. On reaching AIIMS Trauma Center, doctor had declared that my mother-in-law brought dead. Thereafter, I returned to my house along with the police official in the PCR van. Thereafter, police had arrested accused Laxmi, Sanjeev and Wadhir. Personal search of the accused Wadhir, Sanjeev and Laxmi was also conducted and police obtained my signatures on the memos which already Ex.PW1/E, F and G and all bears my signatures at Point B. Police also recorded the disclosure statements of accused Wadhir, Sanjeev and Laxmi which are already Ex.PW1/H1, H2 and H3 and all bears my signatures at Point B. Police also seized one red T- shirt of accused Govinda from the spot vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/M bears my signatures at Point B. Police also seized the said piece of brick, pieces of bangles and hair rubber vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/J and Ex.PW1/K both bears my signatures at Point B. Police also seized my shirt vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/L bears my signatures at Point B. All the accused namely Govinda, Savita, Sanjeev, Wadhir and Laxmi had killed my mother-in-law.
I can identify the accused persons, if shown to me.
At this stage, witness has correctly identified the accused Govinda, Savita, Sanjeev, Laxmi and Wadhir.
I can identify the case property, if shown to me.
The case property is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/P1 collectively (two half bricks), Ex.PW1/P2 collectively (pieces of bangles and rubber band), Ex.PW1/P3 (T-shirt of accused SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 23 of 74 Govinda) and Ex.PW1/P4 (shirt of the witness).
At this stage, witness has again said that accused Savita sat over the chest of his mother-in- law and accused Govinda hit the brick on the head of his mother-in-law.
XXXX by Sh. Aditya Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused Laxmi, Sanjeev Vishwas and Wadhir Bala.
I am illiterate. However, I can write my name in English and Bengali. I am doing the work of water supply since last 23 years. (vol. I am doing said work for 23 years but I am doing said work on my own for the last 10 years). I was doing work of water supply at the time of incident. At time of incident my mother-in-law used to reside in B-18, Transit camp, Govind Puri, Delhi. My mother-in-law was aged around 50 years. I cannot tell her weight but it may be around 60 kg. I do not have idea about her height. At the time of incident, accused Laxmi used to live at ground floor of my building, accused Wadhir used to live in the next building to the building adjacent to our building, accused Sanjeev used to live in the building which was 2-3 buildings away from our building. There were 3 floors in our building. Each floor had 4 rooms. Again said, there may be some extra rooms on the ground floor as some small rooms were also constructed on the ground floor. I do not know the total numbers of persons living in our building but in each room 2-6 persons including kids were residing. The incident occurred nearby the water motor on the ground floor. I and my wife were present on the ground floor near the water motor when the quarrel started. The quarrel was started by accused Govinda. I was present during the quarrel. My mother-in-law arrived at our house after 9 PM. She was not present when the quarrel started. When the quarrel started about 50 persons of the SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 24 of 74 building were watching the quarrel. Govinda and Laxmi were insisting to fill water. I had told the said fact to the police.
At this stage, witness is confronted with his 161 CrPC statement marked PW2/D1 where specifically it is not mentioned that Govinda and Laxmi insisted on filling water.
Initially, the quarrel started with accused Govinda and Laxmi. Thereafter, Govinda's wife Savita came and Wadhir and Sanjeev also came. There was no physical assault at that time. Again said, there was dhakka mukki only. This happened around 9-9:30 PM. At that time, myself, my wife and said accused were present at the spot but people were watching from our building and nearby building.
My mother-in-law arrived after 10 minutes of said quarrel. Our quarrel/ altercation was going on when she arrived. My mother-in-law could not go to our room. When my mother-in-law arrived the quarrel was happening at ground floor only. Wadhir Bala was residing 2-3 building away from our building. The switch of the water motor was near the motor at ground floor. When the motor was switched on water could be accessed on all the floor. The motor was for the use of the inhabitants of the building only. We were having a water tap for the whole floor at one point near the bathroom. I did not use to supply water to accused Wadhir Bala from my water supply business. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely regarding the said fact. (vol. He used to take water from my brother namely Vishavjeet Parmanik). It is wrong to suggest that I supplied water to Wadhir Bala for 3 months but the water quality supplied by me was not good and therefore, Wadhir Bala stopped taking water from me and we had a dispute regarding the same. XXXX by Sh. Aditya Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 25 of 74 accused Laxmi, Sanjeev Vishwas and Wadhir Bala.
I have told to the police that accused Laxmi had kicked my mother-in-law. At this stage, witness is confronted with statement Mark PW3/D1 where it is not so mentioned. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in the Court and for said reason I have not stated so to the police. I have told the police that accused Govinda, Sanjeev and Wadhir Bala have also caused injuries to my mother-in-law.
The quarrel happened in the front of the building where the motor was installed. It was a space for parking, etc. I have not told the police that the place of quarrel was in front of the building and such space was used for parking, etc. also. It is wrong to suggest that at said spot there used to be debris like broken bottles, pieces of brick, etc. I have seen the brick in the hands of accused Govinda. It was not a complete brick and was a part of brick which was less than half of brick. I do not know from where accused picked up the piece of brick but I saw it in his hands. It is wrong to suggest that there were pieces of bricks lying at the spot and my mother-in-law slipped and fell down on such pieces of bricks. When mother-in-law was pushed, she fell down near the place where motor was installed. It was a cemented floor. I do not remember the time when I had shown the brick piece to the police. Police did not weigh the brick piece in my presence. The police made markings on the spot where my mother-in-law had fallen. The brick piece was taken away by the police. The police lifted the brick piece from the spot where it was found lying. I do not know whether police prepared any site plan of the place from where the brick was lifted. There was blood stain on the brick but I do SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 26 of 74 not remember anything was embossed / engraved on the brick. The person who lifted the brick was wearing the gloves. The police had cloth and panni etc., with them when they lifted the brick. Police did not record my statement at the time when brick was lifted. I do not remember the number of times my statement was recorded by the police. My statement was recorded in the police station as well as at the spot. I do not remember the dates on which my statement was recorded at the police station or at the spot. The police did not conduct any proceedings qua the brick or the seized clothes or the seized bangle pieces, in the police station, in my presence. On the date of incident it was turn of our floor to fill the water. It is correct that accused Govinda and Savita were quarreling with us to fill the water. There was no enmity / prior fight between us and accused Laxmi. I do not know whether my mother-in-law had prior acquaintance with accused Laxmi, Wadhir Bala and Sanjeev Vishwas. I do not know whether my mother-in- law had earlier met accused Wadhir Bala, Laxmi or Sanjeev Vishwas. It is wrong to suggest that accused Wadhir Bala was not even present at the time of alleged incident. It is wrong to suggest that neither of the accused Laxmi, Wadhir Bala or Sanjeev pushed my mother-in-law. Accused Govinda had pushed my mother-in-law. Accused Govinda had hit my mother-in-law with a brick. It is wrong to suggest that my mother-in-law received injury only because of being hit by brick by Govinda and due to push given by Govinda. It is wrong to suggest that neither of the accused Laxmi, Wadhir Bala and Sanjeev were not involved in the alleged quarrel and I am falsely deposing against them.
At the time of incident, from our side, myself and my wife Suchitra Parmanik were SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 27 of 74 present. No one else from my family came at the time of quarrel. (vol. My family members came later on when my mother-in-law was taken to hospital). My sister-in-law Geeta, my father-in- law Sadhan Parmanik came later on. Even my brother-in-law Nitai also came after them. None of them were present at the time of quarrel. I do not know whether police recorded statement of any of them. It is wrong to suggest that on the date of incident only Govinda and Savita quarreled with us. The quarrel regarding water started with accused Govinda but Laxmi joined in. Accused Laxmi even removed the pipe from the water tap. I have not told said fact to the police. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely regarding said particular fact and therefore, I have not stated so to the police. It was not the turn of accused Laxmi to fill water on the date of incident. Accused Laxmi was not filling water on the date of incident. (vol. She joined from the side of accused Govinda). It is wrong to suggest that accused Sanjeev and Wadhir Bala did not participate in the alleged quarrel as they do not even stay in the building where the quarrel had happened and they had no concern with the issue of filling the water by turns. It is wrong to suggest that they have been falsely implicated just because they know the co-accused Govinda. It is wrong to suggest that I had a prior dispute with accused Wadhir Bala regarding supply of RO water by me to Wadhir Bala and for said reason I had implicated him the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. XXXXX by Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Ld. Counsel for accused Govinda and Savita.
In the year 2014 I was doing my own water supply business. There was no fixed working hours. The turn to fill the water was fixed by the landlord. The landlord did not used to SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 28 of 74 reside in the same building. I used to fill water at the third storey where we resided. There were separate taps on the separate floor but the motor switch was at the ground floor. When accused Govinda started filling water, I was present at my shop near the building. My wife was at my house at our floor at that time. The other tenant in the building called out to us informing that Govinda is filling water. His name was Chandan. He called out to us while being near the motor at the ground floor. I have not told said facts to the police in my statement. Vol. They did not ask me about it. When I heard Chandan I reached at the ground floor near the motor. My wife also reached there. Thereafter we had altercation with Govinda. Q. Did you see Govinda filling water? A. There was a valve at the motor by whose operation the supply was sent to a particular floor and was stopped at the other floor and Govinda had directed the supply to his floor from the motor.
I had told said facts to the police.
Confronted with 161 CrPC statement Mark PW3/D1 where said specific fact is not mentioned. Vol. I have mentioned said fact to the police.
When I reached there my wife, Chandan, Govinda, Savita and Laxmi were present there. We had been living in the said premises since about 2-3 months prior to the incident. Myself, my wife and our two kids used to reside in the premises. Four families used to reside on our floor.
Q. Why did your mother in law came to the spot on the said date?
A. She used to come daily to visit my daughter since one month ago my daughter had undergone an operation regarding an injury on her finger.
I am having documents regarding said operation. I did not handed over the same to the SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 29 of 74 police. Vol. As they did not ask for it.
She used to come on daily basis to our residence even earlier as she used to go to her workplace by crossing by our house. I do not know that since my mother in law used to come so frequently to our residence she was knowing the inhabitants of the building.
I had told the police that Govinda had pushed my mother in law. Confronted with 161 CrPC statement Mark PW3/D1 where said specific fact is not mentioned. Vol. At that time police did not ask about it.
I did not mention to the police that Savita struck my mother in law with a brick. Vol. She was hit by Govinda with a brick.
Q. Were you also attacked by any accused during the incident?
A. There was only scuffle (hatta-pie) done by accused Govinda and Sanjeev Vishwas and I was hit on my mouth but I do not know with what object or by fist or hand I was so hit. I had told the police that I had received hurt on my mouth in the incident. Confronted with 161 CrPC statement Mark PW3/D1 where said specific fact is not mentioned. Vol. I had mentioned said fact to the police that I was hit on my mouth. Police did not take me to any doctor for my medical examination.
The 50 odd people who gathered during the incident were standing on the road, around the spot of incident. I had normal relations with my neighbours in the building. I had cordial relations with Govinda and Savita. My wife has two brothers. At the time of incident, one of her brother was residing near our building and the other brother was living a little far away but in the same area.
They did not used to come to our house frequently. I do not know if they had any quarrel SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 30 of 74 with any person in our building. I do not know whether any of our neighbour had filed any police complaint against the brothers of my wife. Her brother Nithai Parmanik who was living in our proximity, was living above the shop from where I was carrying on my water supply business. He was residing there with his family. His parents were not residing with him.
No construction was going on in our building regarding which any construction material was placed in the building.
The whole incident happened in short duration i.e. about 10 minutes.
My mother in law was unconscious after the attack on her. I have mentioned to the police that she became unconscious. Confronted with 161 CrPC statement Mark PW3/D1 where said specific fact is not mentioned.
After my mother in law was admitted in AIIMS I returned to the spot with the police in police vehicle.
Q. After you came from AIIMS did the police make any documentation at the scene of offence? A. I do not know whether police prepared any documents but the police was making markings around the scene of crime.
My wife was present at our house at that time. She did not go to hospital.
It is wrong to suggest that since I had inimical relations with accused Govinda and Savita, therefore, I have framed them in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that my mother in law slipped on the stairs and received injuries due to such fall. Vol. She was not able to climb up the stairs and the incident happened. It is wrong to suggest that no such incident happened. It is correct that I am illiterate so I do not know what documents were got signed by the police from me. I cannot say that my mother in law died due to SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 31 of 74 being hit by the brick. However, she was indeed hit by a brick. It is wrong to suggest that myself and my wife used to quarrel with all the inhabitants of the building and used to lodge false complaints against them. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely before the court."
21. PW - 4 HC Amit Singh was the photographer in the crime team, South-East District, Delhi who took the 7 photographs Ex.PW4/P1 (colly) and the negatives Ex.PW4/P2 (colly).
22. PW - 5 SI K. P. Shah was the In-charge of the crime team who inspected the spot of incident and prepared his report Ex.PW5/P1.
23. PW - 6 Ms. Geeta deposed as follows:-
"On 03.04.2014 at about 09:00 PM, I went to house of my sister Ms. Suchitra at A-692, Transit Camp, Govindpuri, New Delhi after returning from my work. My sister was residing at the third floor. My mother Aradhana had went to see the daughter of my sister at her house as she had an operation of her finger. My sister was having some hot talks/ quarrel with the neighbors who were residing at the ground floor i.e., Savita, her husband & Laxmi and the other neighbors of the area i.e., Wadhirwala and one more person whose name I do not remember. The quarrel was regarding fetching of water as it was the turn of my sister to get water. Savita & others had switched on the motor and my sister had objected to the same but the accused persons had refused to switch off the motor. My mother tried to pacify the situation but the Wadhirbala, laxmi, Savita etc started using abusive language against my mother. Then Savita pushed my mother and SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 32 of 74 she fell down. Thereupon, Savita sat on the chest of my mother. Husband of Savita hit my mother with the brick on her head. I had returned to my house and by the time everything had happened. Court Question : Did you see the incident yourself ?
Ans. No I was told about the incident by my sister Suchitra.
When I returned to my house which is opposite the building where the incident occurred and the I noticed crowd near the building. When I entered into the crowd, I saw that my father was holding my mother. I asked what had happened and my father had told me that my mother is no more. I looked for accused but they had escaped. Then again, I returned to my father. The PCR had been informed. The police took my mother in their vehicle and I & my father went along my mother to Trauma Centre. At trauma Centre, my mother was taken inside and myself & father waited outside and the doctors told us they shall intimate us. However, doctors informed us that my mother had already passed away.
On next day, we were called in Trauma Centre regarding post mortem proceedings. I identified the dead body of my mother. The dead body identification memos are Ex.PW6/P1 bearing my signatures at point A and Ex.PW6/P2 bearing my signatures at point A. I can identify the accused Savita & her husband. At this stage, witness has correctly identified accused Savita & accused Govinda (as the husband) present in the Court today. I can also identify other accused. At this stage, witness has identified the accused Laxmi by name and has pointed out towards the accused Wadhir Bala and accused Sanjeev but has stated that she do not know their names.SC No. 1287/2016
FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 33 of 74 XXXXXXXXXXX by Ms. Codanda Ankeeta Appanna Ld. Counsel for accused Govinda & Savita.
At that time, I was working at PG in Gali no. 6, Govindpuri. I used to go in the morning at 06:00 AM and returned at 10:30/11:00 AM and then I used to go again at 06/6:30 PM and returned around 09:30/10:00 PM. (Vol. On that day also, it was the same timings of my work). I used to visit the building where the incident occurred but no so regularly. I did not all the habitants of the building. (Vol. I used to know the habitants by faces and not names). I knew that Laxmi used to reside at ground floor and as far as I remember, Savita & her husband used to reside on the first floor. Govinda was doing furniture work but I do not know about the work of Savita. When I reached at the spot, there was only my father & mother surrounded by crowd. It is correct that I had not gone inside the building on 03.04.2014. (Vol. My father was outside the building with my mother at the ground floor and my mother had already passed away). I am literate. I am educated upto 8th class and I have studied in Bengali medium. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
XXXXXXXXXXXX by Sh. Dushyant Sharma Proxy counsel for accused Wadhir Bala, Laxmi & Sanjeev Vishwas.
Nil. Opportunity given. "
24. PW - 7 Sh. Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, Medical Record Technician, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi has identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Fahad Ansari on the MLC No. 420525 dated 03.04.2014 of patient Aradhna female, w/o Sh. Sadhak Pramanit SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 34 of 74 aged about 48 years as Ex.PW7/P2. His authority letter regarding the same is Ex.PW7/P1.
25. PW - 8 SI Raj Kiran deposed as follows:-
"On 03.04.2014, I was posted at PS Govind Puri as Sub Inspector. On that day, I was on night emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM. At about 10:05 PM, I received a call regarding quarrel and thereafter, I along with Ct. Govinda reached the spot i.e. H. No. A-692, Transit Camps, Govind Puri, Delhi. Therein, we came to know that the injured had already been shifted to AIIMS Trauma Center. Thereafter, beat staff reached the spot. Thereafter, I left the beat staff at the spot and I along with Ct. Govinda went to AIIMS Trauma Center. Therein, I obtained the MLC of injured namely Aradhna. Thereafter, I met the complainant/ eye-witness namely Suchitra Pramanik. Thereafter, I recorded the statement of Suchitra which is already Ex.PW1/A bearing my endorsement at Point B. Thereafter, I prepared rukka which is now Ex.PW8/P1 bearing my signatures at Point A. Thereafter, I gave the rukka to Ct. Govinda and he went to the PS and got the FIR registered. In the meanwhile, the SHO had come to AIIMS Trauma Center and I handed-over the MLC to SHO. The SHO sent wireless message to the crime team for inspection of the spot.
Thereafter, I along with SHO went to the spot of the incident. The crime team inspected the spot. The inspection report is already Ex.PW5/P1. Crime team handed-over the inspection report to me. I handed-over the report to the SHO. Then I left the spot in regard to some other call.
XXXX by Sh. Aditya Sharma, Ld. Counsel for SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 35 of 74 accused Laxmi, Sanjeev and Wadhir.
The call regarding the quarrel was marked to me. I reached at the spot at around 10:15 PM. The place of the incident is just in the back lane of the police station. My departure entry was not made separately since it is mentioned in the call when it is marked to any official. Some persons were present at the spot. They told that the quarrel had happened on the road near A-692, Transit Camps. I do not remember whether there was any open ground near the spot of incident. I did not record the statement of any person when I had reached the spot. I deputed the beat constable at the spot and then left for the hospital. Beat constable had not arrived prior to me at the spot. During my first visit, I remained at the spot for about 10 minutes. I reached at AIIMS Trauma Center at about 10:50/10:55 PM. I remained at the Trauma Center for quite some time i.e. till 12:30 AM. From the family of deceased, Suchitra Pramanik was present at the hospital along with other relatives. I do not remember whether the husband and the other daughter of deceased was also present in the hospital. There were other relatives of Suchitra present when I recorded her statement. It took around 40-50 minutes to record the statement of Suchitra.
Again said, it took around 30-40 minutes to record the statement of Suchitra. I was accompanied by Ct. Govinda at AIIMS. SHO met me at the AIIMS Trauma Center. I do not remember whether I had mentioned meeting the SHO at AIIMS in my 161 CrPC statement. It is wrong to suggest that SHO did not meet me at the AIIMS and for said reason said fact is not mentioned in my 161 CrPC statement. I along with SHO reached the spot from AIIMS. Ct. Govinda had been sent for registration of FIR. Ct. Govind remained with me at AIIMS till around SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 36 of 74 12:10 AM when I send him for registration of FIR. I do not remember by what means myself and SHO reached the spot from AIIMS. We departed from AIIMS around 12:30 AM and reached at the spot around 1 AM. I do not remember whether I have mentioned in my 161 CrPC statement about departing with SHO from AIIMS and reaching with him at spot. It is wrong to suggest that no such fact is mentioned in my 161 CrPC statement as neither SHO met me at AIIMS nor he came at the spot from AIIMS.
When we again reached the spot, the beat staff and local persons were present at the spot. I do not remember whether anyone from the family of deceased was also found present at the spot. I did not record statement of anyone at the spot during my 2nd visit. The SHO sent the message to the crime team around 12:30 AM. The crime team arrived at the spot at about 1 AM. Crime team comprised of 2-3 members. The crime team inspected the spot and gave inspection report. The crime team remained at the spot for about 20-30 minutes. No seizure memo of any exhibits from the spot were prepared in my presence. I do not remember the time when crime team members left the spot. Crime team handed- over the report to me around 1:30 AM. I do not remember the contents of the report today. It is wrong to suggest that crime team did not inspect the spot in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that I never visited the spot and for said reason, I am unable to tell about the proceedings done by the crime team/ its report. It is wrong to suggest that I did not even visit the AIIMS or that whatever statements were recorded by me were recorded in the police station.
XXXX by Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Ld. Counsels for accused Govinda and Savita.
During my first visit at the spot, there were SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 37 of 74 many persons present at the spot approximately about 10. I did not notice any blood at the spot during my first visit.
Rest same cross-examination is adopted. "
26. PW - 9 W/HC Anita who witnessed the arrest proceedings of the accused Laxmi vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C and personal search memo vide Ex.PW1/G.
27. PW - 10 Inspector Manjeet deposed as follows:-
"On 04.04.2014, I was posted at PS Govind Puri as Sub Inspector and working as Division Officer of Transit Camp, Govind Puri. On that day, when the call was received regarding the incident in the intervening night of 3- 4.04.2014, I was also informed about the same being the Division Officer. I reached at the spot i.e. a chowk type area near the Transit Camp, Govind Puri. Crime Team was present there and had already inspected the spot. The exhibits from the spot were lifted by the Inspector Sunil Sharma. The exhibits included pieces of glass bangles, one rubber band, red t-shirt, pieces of brick. The exhibits were sealed with the seal of SK. The same were seized vide seizure memos which are already Ex.PW1/J, Ex.PW1/K, Ex.PW1/M all bears my signatures at Point C respectively.
The investigation of the case was on. On the next day i.e. 04.04.2014, at about 11 AM, the accused were arrested vide arrest memos already Ex.PW1/B (Wadhir Bala), Ex.PW1/C (Laxmi) and Ex.PW1/D (Sanjeev) all bears my signatures at Point C respectively. Their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G all bears my signatures at Point C SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 38 of 74 respectively. The said accused persons were got medically examined and were produced before Ld. MM and were remanded to JC. I have only so much role in the investigation. Again said, one shirt was also recovered which was produced by the son-in-law of the deceased and same was seized in my presence by the Inspector vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/L bearing my signatures at Point C. I can identify the accused Wadhir, Sanjeev and Laxmi, if shown to me.
At this stage, witness has correctly identified the accused Laxmi but has identified accused Wadhir as Sanjeev and Sanjeev as Wadhir.
I can identify the case property, if shown to me.
The case properties are already as Ex.PW1/P1 collectively (pieces of brick), Ex.PW1/P2 (pieces of bangles and rubber band), Ex.PW1/P3 (t-shirt) and Ex.PW1/P4 (shirt). XXXX by Sh. Aditya Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Laxmi, Sanjeev and Wadhir.
I received the information about the incident from the duty officer and thereafter, I reached the spot. I received the information around 11 PM in the intervening night of 3- 4.04.2014 by phone. I have not mentioned said fact in my 161 CrPC statement. I reached at the spot around 12 Mid-night or 1 AM but I do not remember the exact time. I was in the police station when I left for the spot. I do not remember the exact time but I probably left the police station around 12:30 AM. The spot is at the distance of 1 or 1.5 km from the police station. When I received the information I was busy in some other work but being the Division Officer, I had gone to the spot. When I reached the spot, IO/ Inspector Sunil Sharma, Crime Team members, beat staff but I do SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 39 of 74 not remember for sure. I do not remember the presence of other persons. When I reached at the spot, the Crime Team had almost completed their work. In my presence, the Crime Team handed- over the exhibits from the spot to the IO. There were two pieces of brick. The spot was an open chowk type area of a Maholla where people used to fill water. I do not exactly remember today whether there was any tap at the spot. I do not remember whether there was any empty vacant maidan at the spot. I do not remember whether there was any debris was lying at the spot.
I do not know to whom red t-shirt belong. The seizure memo of red t-shirt was prepared in my presence and I must signed the same. I went alone to the spot.
The shirt was produced by the son-in-law of the deceased later on in the police station. It was produced on 04.04.2014. It is wrong to suggest that the Crime Team never inspected the spot in my presence or that whatever proceedings were done were conducted in police station only or that I signed all the documents in the police station only.
XXXX by Sh. Pratyush Prasanna, Ld. Counsel for accused Govinda and Savita.
Same cross-examination is adopted."
28. PW - 11 Sh. Manoj Kumar, Junior Forensic / Chemical Examiner (Biology Division), FSL, Rohini deposed as follows:-
"I have been posted in the above-
mentioned institute since June 2012. Initially, I joined as Scientific Assistant and since 2016, I have been working as Junior Forensic./ Chemical Examiner (Biology) at FSL, Rohini.
4 sealed parcels were received in regard to the present case at FSL, Rohini on 24.04.2014 SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 40 of 74 through Ct. Pradeep and one sealed parcels was received on 29.05.2014 through Ct. Bal Kishan at FSL, Rohini. All the 5 parcels were marked to me for biological examination.
The seals were found intact and matching as per forwarding authority's letter. The description of the articles found in the parcels have mentioned in detail in my report.
On biological examination, blood was detected on Ex.3, 4, 5b, 5c and 5d whereas blood could not be detected on Ex.1, 2a, 2b, 5a and 5e.
The source of Ex. 3 (t-shirt), 4 (shirt), 5b, 5c and 5d (clothes of deceased) were subjected to DNA isolation (Exhibits 10 and 11 have been wrongly mentioned in my report by mistake).
Identifiler plus PCR amplification kit was used for DNA amplification. Gene maper IDX software was used for STR analysis (DNA Profiling) of each exhibit.
In the result of analysis, male DNA profile was generated from source of Ex.4 (t-shirt). Similar female profile was generated from source of Ex.5b, 5c and 5d (clothes of deceased).
The remnants of the exhibits were resealed with the seal MK FSL DELHI.
My report dated 19.08.2020 in this regard is now Ex.PW11/P1 bearing my signatures at Point A, B and C (including the allelic data). XXXX by Sh. Pratyush Prasanna, Ld. Counsel for accused Govinda and Savita.
It is correct that Ex.3 was a t-shirt and Ex.4 was a shirt. It is correct that male DNA profile was generated from the source of Ex.4. XXXX by Sh. Aditya Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Laxmi, Sanjeev and Wadhir.
Nil. Opportunity given. "
29. PW - 12 Inspector Yogendra Kumar was the IO of the SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 41 of 74 supplementary charge-sheet who filed the FSL result via supplementary charge-sheet.
30. PW - 13 SI Abhishek Singh was the police official who accompanied the IO to the and had gone to AIIMS, mortuary wherein postmortem of deceased was conducted and witness to the handing over dead body to her relatives vide memos Ex.PW6/P1 and Ex.PW6/P2.
31. PW - 14 HC Balkishan collected the viscera / exhibits / sample seal etc., regarding the postmortem of deceased Aradhana and handed- over the same to the IO. The seizure memo in this regard Ex.PW14/P1. PW14 also deposited the clothes of the deceased along with sample seal at FSL, Rohini.
32. PW - 15 Sh. Santosh Tripathy, Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed as follows:-
"In the year 2014, I was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (chemistry) at FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
One sealed corrugated box was received in regard to the present case FIR at FSL, Rohini on 24.04.2014 through Ct. Pradeep and same was marked to me for the chemical examination. The seals were found intact and tallied as per the forwarding authority specimen seal. The details of the parcel / exhibits received i.e. viscera of Aradhana have been mentioned in detail in my SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 42 of 74 report.
I conducted the chemical examination on the exhibits from 21.05.2014 to 13.06.2014. On chemical and TLC examination, no poisons, alcohol or pesticides, etc., were detected in the exhibits. After examination, the remnants of the exhibits were resealed with my seal. My detailed report dated 13.06.2014 regarding the chemical examination is now Ex.PW15/P1 bearing my signatures at point A and B. XXXX by Sh. Pratyush Prasanna, Ld. Counsel for the accused Govinda and Savita.
Nil. Opportunity given.
XXXX by Sh. Dushyant Sharma, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the accused Laxmi, Sanjeev and Wadhir Bala.
Nil. Opportunity given."
33. PW - 16 HC Govinda deposed as follows:-
"In the intervening night of 03-04.04.2014, I was posted at PS Govind Puri as Constable. On that day, I was on emergency duty in the police station along with SI Raj Kiran. At about 10:03 PM, SI Raj Kiran received DD No. 39A regarding quarrel at H. No. 652, Transit Camp, Govind Puri. We went there on motorcycle and we came to know that the injured was taken to hospital / trauma center by PCR. We also met beat staff i.e. HC Samay Singh, Ct. Bal Kishan and Ct. Pradeep. I along with SI Raj Kiran reached at AIIMS Trauma Center. We obtained the MLC of the injured. The IO recorded the statement of her daughter namely Suchitra. IO prepared the tehrir on the basis of said statement and handed-over to me. I went to the police station and got the FIR registered. Then I went to the spot and handed- over the copy of FIR and rukka to the SHO PS SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 43 of 74 Govind Puri.
XXXX by Sh. Pratyush Prasanna, Ld. Counsel for the accused Govinda and Savita.
It is correct that when I went to the spot, there was no blood lying there. I do not remember whether IO talk to public persons when we reached at the spot. IO did not issue any notice to any public person in my presence.
XXXX by Sh. Dushyant Sharma, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the accused Laxmi, Sanjeev and Wadhir Bala.
Same cross-examination adopted. "
34. PW - 17 W/Ct. Shanu has deposed that on 20.05.2016, she was posted at PS Govindpuri as Constable. On that day, she along with SI Rajender and HC Chhote Lal had gone to West Bengal. Therein, accused Govinda and Savita were produced in the local Court of Rana Ghat, West Bengal. IO obtained transit remand of 5 days for both the accused. Thereafter, accused were brought to Delhi.
She identified the accused Savita before the Court.
35. PW - 18 HC Pradeep who transmission-ed the copies of FIR to senior police officials. On 24.04.2014, he deposited the case property i.e. viscera box, sample seal, 4 sealed parcels along with documents to FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 95/21/14 Ex.PW18/P1 and RC No. 96/21/14 Ex.PW18/P2. The copy of acknowledgment regarding the same are Ex.PW18/P3 and Ex.PW18/P4.
SC No. 1287/2016FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 44 of 74
36. PW - 19 SI Harvir Singh (member of AATS, South-east District) who arrested the accused Savita and Govinda after their becoming PO.
37. PW - 20 Retired ASI Chhote Lal who conducted the proceedings u/s 82 CrPC against the accused Govinda and Savita on 01.08.2014.
On 22.09.2016, he along with SI Rajender went to West Bengal and obtained the custody of accused Govinda and Savita from Nadia District, Ranaghat and produced them before the Court of Ld. ACJM, Ranaghat and obtained their their 5 days transit remand and then he came back to PS along with lady constable. IO recorded his statement.
He identified both the accused persons before the Court.
38. PW - 21 ASI Deep Chand (member of AATS, South-east District) / part of the team who arrested the accused Savita and Govinda after their becoming PO.
39. PW - 22 Retired Inspector Sunil Kumar (IO) has deposed as follows:-
"On 03.04.2014, I was posted as SHO, PS Govind puri. On that day in the evening at about 10PM, PCR call was received regarding the quarrel which was marked to SI Raj Kiran.SC No. 1287/2016
FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 45 of 74 Later on SI Raj Kiran informed that in that quarrel one lady namely Aradhana was injured and brought dead in AIIMS Trauma Centre. Then I also reached AIIMS Trauma Centre. By that time SI Raj Kiran had already prepared the rukka and sent through constable for registration of FIR. He had also made endorsement that further investigation may be marked to me.
After the MLC the dead body was transferred to mortuary of AIIMS and I reached the spot i.e. Chabutra / chowk outside A-692, Transit Camp, A Block, Govindpuri. SI Raj Kiran also reached the spot on his vehicle. Complainant Suchitra also arrived at the spot from AIIMS. Even the Crime team including SI KP Shah and photographer Amit had reached the spot. There was no blood at the spot but there were broken bangles and probably a shirt of red colour, hair band of female. The spot was inspected and report was given by SI KP Shah to SI Raj Kiran and then same was handed over to me. Same is already Ex.PW5/P1.
Exhibits from the spot were lifted and seized by me through seizure memo. Same are already Ex.PW 1/L bearing my signature at point D, Ex.PW1/M bearing my signature at point D, Ex.PW1/J bearing my signature at point D, Ex.PW1/K bearing my signature at point D. Pieces of bricks from the spot were also seized through said seizure memo. The shirt of Sanjay which was found during the scuffling was also seized.
Out of various accused, three accused Wadhir Bala, Laxmi and Sanjeev Bishwas were available at their houses and they were called and were apprehended at the spot and taken to police station.
At this stage, witness has correctly SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 46 of 74 identified accused Laxmi. However, witness has identified the accused Wadhir as Sanjeev and the accused Sanjeev as Wadhir. Since the matter is old I got confused about the identities of said two accused. However, both of them are accused.
Case property was deposited with MHC(M). The accused were separately interrogated at the police station wherein female accused was interrogated in the presence of female police staff. All of them were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B, C and D all bearing my signatures at point D. their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/E, F and G all memos bearing my signature at point D. After their detailed interrogation their discloser statements were recorded. Same are already Ex.PW1/H1, H2 and H3 all bearing my signature at point C. Then the accused led us to the spot of incident and pointing out memo were prepared at their instance. Same are Ex.PW22/P1, P2 and P3 all bearing my signatures at point A. All the accused were sent for their medical examination. Documentation was prepared for autopsy of the deceased. The application to the autopsy surgeon in this regard is Ex.PW22/P4 bearing my signatures at point A. The dead body identification memos are already Ex.PW6/B1 and Ex.PW6/B2 both bearing my signature at point B. After the postmortem the dead body was handed over to the son of the deceased. Then we returned to the police station.
Then we made efforts to trace out the accused Govinda and Savita but without any success. The other three accused were produced in the Court and remanded to JC.
On 05.04.2014, the exhibits obtained in the postmortem were brought through SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 47 of 74 the constable. Said exhibits included viscera, clothes of deceased and the sample seal of the doctor concerned. Same were produced by the constable in the police station before me and I seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW14/P1 bearing my signature B. I had also recorded statement of witnesses associated with the investigation on 04.04.2014 and 05.04.2014.
On 12.04.2014, PM report was collected through staff and placed on file.
On 15.04.2014 Inspector Mahesh draftsman was called for preparation of scaled site plan. He took the measurements and I recorded his statement.
Efforts were made to trace accused Govinda and Sarita by obtaining the CDR of their mobile number. However, they could not be traced.
On 19.04.2014, NBWs were obtained from the court against said two accused. My application to the court for issuance of said NBWs against said accused is Ex.PW22/P5 bearing my signatures at point A. SI Raj Kiran and other staff went for execution of NBWs even at the address of the accused at Nadia, West Bengal. But accused could not be traced and NBWs returned unexecuted.
Thereafter, on 16.05.2014 process u/s82 Cr.PC was obtained from the Court. My application for issuance of process u/s 82 Cr.PC to the court is Ex.PW22/P6 bearing my signatures at point A. However, the accused could not be arrested despite execution of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C.
All the exhibits were sent to the FSL for examination. I recorded statement of the concerned police officials.
On 26.06.2014, I obtained SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 48 of 74 subsequent opinion on the PM report. Since three months were lapsing I prepared the chargesheet against the accused in custody and filed the same in the concerned Court.
During investigation the exhibits were sent to FSL for examination.
After the charge-sheet was filed against the accused who were in JC, the process server who had executed the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. appeared before the Ld. MM and after recording his statement, the Court declared the accused Govinda and Savita as PO on 01.08.2014. The certified copy of said order is Ex.PW22/P7.
The search for accused Govinda and Savita was continued and after discussion with DCP a separate Team was formed and the team was sent to West Bengal to trace said accused and on 15.05.2016, said team arrested both of the said accused at West Bengal and the team conveyed the information to our police station regarding their arrest. Said accused were produced before the Local Court in West Bengal and were remanded to JC. Thereafter, SI Rajender along with other staff including lady staff went there and 5 days Transit remand was obtained of both the accused and he produced both of them before the Ld. MM, Delhi on 22.05.2016. I appeared before the Ld. MM and obtained their PC remand for two hours. Said application is Ex.PW22/P8 bearing my signature at point A. Both accused were taken to the spot of occurrence and therein pointing out memo was prepared at their instance. Pointing out memo is Ex.PW22/P9 bearing my signature at point A. The disclosure statement of both accused was also recorded. The disclosure statement of the accused Govinda is Ex.PW 22/P10 bearing my signature at point A and disclosure statement of accused Savita is Ex.PW 22/P11 bearing my signature at point A. SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 49 of 74 Both of them were produced before Ld. MM and they were remanded to JC. I recorded the statement of witnesses who were part of the investigation.
I identify the photographs of the spot annexed in the judicial file which are already Ex.PW4/P1 (Collectively) (7 photographs).
I prepared the supplementary charge-sheet and filed against them.
I identify accused Govinda and Savita (witness has correctly identified both accused present in the Court).
I can also identify the case property if shown to me.
Two half bricks are already Ex.PW1/P1 (Collectively), pieces of bangles and rubber band are already Ex.PW1/P2 (Collectively), the T shirt of Govinda is already Ex.PW 1/P3, the t-shirt of witness Sanjay is already Ex.PW1/P4. Therefore the production of the same is dispensed with.
Xxxxx by Ms. Dolly Nair and Ms. Malvika Kulkarni, Ld. Counsel for accused Savita and Govinda.
On 03.04.2014, I was on duty round the clock being the SHO but I had joined as SHO on 03.04.2014 itself. I do not remember the time when I joined as SHO on 03.04.2014. Court Question: Did you join the duty in day time?
Ans. Yes. I had joined the duty in day
time.
It is wrong to suggest that the call
regarding the incident was not received in the PS or in my presence or that I was not informed about the call. I had reached the AIIMS at about 12.30 in the intervening night of 3-4.04.20214. I cannot say that the incident was of 9.30PM but the call was received around 10.03PM. It is correct that call SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 50 of 74 was regarding the quarrel. I do not remember whether the name of the caller was mentioned in the information received. I do not remember whether the investigation was made regarding the caller but the PCR form was obtained.
It is correct that I got the information about the case when I received information from SI Raj Kiran regarding death of deceased Aradhana at AIIMS, Trauma Centre. (Vol. SI Raj Kiran had proceeded on the call of the quarrel).
When I reached the hospital the daughter of the deceased was present and SI Raj Kiran was recording her statement. I remained at the AIIMS hospital for about 20-30minutes and I instructed SI Raj Kiran to shifted the dead body to mortuary and then proceeded to the spot. I reached the spot at about 12.30-1.00AM.
It is wrong to suggest that spot was not preserved in any manner. (Vol. Our staff was present there).
There were many floors in the building near the spot but I cannot say how many floors were there. Many families from West Bengal and Bihar were residing near the spot. The spot was open area but building was nearby. The spot was just infront of 692, Transit camp, A block, Govindpuri. As on today I do not remember the house number or the floor of deceased and accused persons. I do not remember today as to whether accused and deceased were resident in the same building or different building.
It was late time so when I reached at the spot public persons were not present there. It is correct that there was no water tap/ Tullu pump at the spot in the open. (Vol. The water connection was in the building just near the spot). Said building was property no. A692, Transit Camp, Govindpuri. I do not remember whether SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 51 of 74 any water tap / water pump is shown in the photographs of the spot. The certificate u/s 65 B IE Act must have been filed.
Further XXX by Ms. Dolly Nair and Ms. Malvika Kulkarni, Ld. Counsels for accused Savita and Govinda.
The relatives of accused Govinda also used to reside in the same building near which the incident happened but I do not remember the names, house number or floor of the said relatives. It is correct that neither the relative of Govinda nor the independent witnesses from the same building are witness to the documents prepared during police proceedings. Vol. We made enquiry from the relevant persons available near the crime scene. It is correct that no statement of other persons who were found irrelevant to the facts was recorded. No public persons were available to make enquiry from when I visited the spot from the hospital. I do not recollect as to how many total police staff was at the spot during my said visit. The photographs were taken in my presence in the night time. I do not remember the number of photographs taken or the name of photographer. I had lifted the exhibits from the spot after the inspection of crime scene. I do not remember the total number of exhibits from the spot. It is wrong to suggest that the brick was not lifted from the spot in my presence. Vol. I had seized it. It is wrong to suggest that said brick pieces were lifted from a heap of bricks. It is correct that I cannot tell the type, size or weight of brick pieces. Vol. I do not remember the same today. It is wrong to suggest that such details are not mentioned in the charge-sheet. Vol. I must have mentioned the details of bricks in seizure memo. It is correct that the bricks were not any unique item and are easily available in market. No independent witness was available during the SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 52 of 74 seizure. I did not investigate about the timings of water supply. It is wrong to suggest that I did not investigate whether there was any water supply at all on the date of alleged incident. Vol. The dispute it was due to the turns to collect water. The area was even wet and complainant had stated about the water supply. Said wet area may not be visible in photographs as the wet area is not clearly seen in the photographs. At this stage, the photographs Ex.PW4/P1 (colly) are shown to the witness. Rubber band is visible in the said photographs (Ex.PW4/P1 colly). It is correct that the bangle is not visible by seeing the said photographs. Again said: probably the brick is visible in the said photographs and not the rubber band. Witness has referred the last photographs in the Ex.PW4/P1 (colly). It is correct that in the photographs only a single small piece might be there and no dual piece is there as stated in the charge-sheet and statements.
It is wrong to suggest that the complainant along with all the accused persons present on the spot. Vol. They all were sleeping in their house after the quarrel. I do not have knowledge w.r.t. the any fingerprint was called or not or any fingerprints was found on the alleged weapon. Vol. Brick is a hard and rough surface so no fingerprint could be developed. It is wrong to suggest that neither any brick or the alleged weapon was found at the spot nor the same was seized or sent for any expert opinion. It is wrong to suggest that the site plan was not made at the instance or in the presence of the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that no public persons were made party to the recovery or to the investigation of all the documents as no such alleged incident happened at the alleged place. It is correct that I cannot say as to the dimension specification make, model, size or position of the alleged brick pieces SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 53 of 74 alleged to be found at the place of incident. It is correct that I cannot tell as to the number of occupant of the building adjacent to the crime scene. It is wrong to suggest that I did not make any enquiry or effort for taking statement of rest of the occupants apart from complainant of the building adjacent to crime scene. It is wrong to suggest that I did not give any notice or made any list to public person whom I asked w.r.t. the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I did not conduct fair investigation or made no effort to include public persons during recovery and investigation. It is wrong to suggest that the alleged red tshirt found on the alleged crime scene was of the husband of the complainant or of any other public person. It is wrong to suggest that the tshirt was not sent for any examination more specifically as to DNA of the accused Govinda. It is correct that no DNA report w.r.t red tshirt of accused is filed along with charge-sheet. I have mentioned the details of the red tshirt of accused Govinda in the seizure memo. It is correct that in the second opinion w.r.t. the alleged weapon of offence and nature of injuries no opinion as to the injury received by the deceased from the brick is mentioned. It is wrong to suggest that no efforts were made to enquire as to the accused Savita and Govinda as no allegations were made against them during the initial investigation. It is wrong to suggest that it was later on that accused Savita and Govinda left for their native place. I had examined the owner of the house but probably he has died later on. It is correct that no CCTV footage was available in or around the crime scene at that time. It is wrong to suggest that the efforts were not made to find accused Savita and Govinda at their work place as initially there was no allegations against them. It is wrong to suggest that all the investigation and enquiry was made at the PS and SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 54 of 74 all the statements were recorded at the PS. I cannot say as to whose CDR and the period of CDR was taken in the present case or the same has been filed on record. Vol. Probably the CDR of accused Govinda was taken to trace him. The police officials who had gone for execution of NBWs may have recorded the statement of public persons regarding the execution of warrants. I cannot say as the service w.r.t. NBWs was not made by me so I cannot say whether the process server mentions the house of accused being locked. I have not recorded the statement of process server. It is wrong to suggest that the subsequent opinion dated 26.06.2014 was taken after belated stage after the PM report dated 12.04.2014. Since I had not recorded and SI Raj Kiran recorded the complaint he can tell whether it was written by him or complainant. I had examined the complainant during investigation. It is wrong to suggest that complainant knows only Bengali and not Hindi. Vol. She knows Hindi also. It is wrong to suggest that the statements of complainant were not explained to her. The husband of complainant had only some pain in the fact due to scuffling but he said that he does not require medical treatment so he was not medically examined. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely or that I have not conducted a fair investigation or that I have proceeded only on the basis of allegations of complainant without independent verification of the facts or no recovery was made by me or that it was later planted by me.
XXX by Sh. Aditya Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Laxmi, Sanjeev and Wadir Bala.
Raj Kiran informed the duty officer about the lady being brought dead in the hospital and thereupon the duty officer conveyed the information to me around 10:50 PM. It is correct SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 55 of 74 that I have mentioned in my examination-in-chief that Raj Kiran informed me about the same. Vol. Raj Kiran must have been informed me by phone also. Vol. I had joined as SHO on the same day.
I reached AIIMS Hospital around 12/12:30 midnight. I remained there for about 10- 15 minutes. Raj Kiran was recording the statement of Suchitra Devi therein. There were other relatives also but I do not remember which particular relatives were present in the hospital at that point of time. I did not make enquiries from the family members in the hospital at that point of time. I did not record statement of any relative in the hospital.
I reached the spot around 01:00 AM. The spot was the open area in front of H. No. A-692, Transit Camp, Govindpuri. I reached at the spot in the government vehicle but I do not remember who else was accompanying me. Raj Kiran did not accompany me in the vehicle. Since it was late night there were not much persons available at the spot and we also did not disturb the residents for enquiries. After I reached at the spot, shortly thereafter SI Manjeet and crime team also reached at the spot. I remained at the spot around 02:30/03:00 AM. Suchitra and her husband had also arrived at the spot. Vol. The exhibits were lifted in their presence from the spot. I had prepared the site plan during said duration at the instance of Suchitra and recorded her supplementary statement. I do not remember the time when Raj Kiran arrived at the spot but he arrived after 01:00 AM. I do not remember the time when Suchitra arrived at the spot from the hospital. I do not remember if any other relatives were also present at the time of aforesaid proceedings at spot. I do not rememberlaxmi the exact time when SI K. P. Sah and photographer of crime team arrived at the spot but they arrived SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 56 of 74 after 01:00 AM. They inspected the spot and prepared report and mentioned their directions in the report. They also took the photographs. The spot inspection was done for around 30-40 minutes. SI K. P. Sah handed over the report to SI Raj Kiran who then handed over the same to me. The spot was just outside the A-692 building.
In the morning around 07:00 AM, we had gone to the spot again with whole team and made local enquiries but persons entered their homes on seeing the police and not divulged anything about the incident. I may not have mentioned the said fact in my examination-in- chief. The public persons did not disclose their names and details. No notice was served on the public persons. It is correct that there is no witness to the incident who was not related to deceased. I had made many seizure memo and I referred the same in my examination-in-chief. SI Manjeet, Suchitra and her husband were present when the seizure memo was prepared. As on today, I do not remember what was the first thing which was seized from the spot. The seized articles were deposited in the malkhana of the police station. SI Manjeet assisted me in the same. The articles were not seized at the instance of accused Wadhir Bala, Laxmi and Sanjeev. It is wrong to suggest that I did not conduct any proceeding at the spot and I recorded all the statements in PS only. It is correct that accused Wadhir, Laxmi and Sanjeev had not absconded and were available at their houses. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. "
40. PW - 23 SI Rajendra Kumar has deposed as follows:-
"I was posted at PS Govindpuri at SI. On 15.05.2016, information was received from Nadia, West Bengal regarding arrest of accused SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 57 of 74 Govinda and his wife Savita. Thereupon after receiving permission from Sr. Officers, I along with two lady staff proceeded to West Bengal and on 20.05.2016 obtained 5 days transit Remand from the concerned local Court at Nadia, West Bengal. My application moved before Ld. Addl. CJM, Ranaghat, Nadia, for the same is Ex.PW 23/P1 bearing my signature at point A. On 22.05.2016 I arrived at Delhi with accused and handed over the accused to IO Inspector Sunil Kumar. He obtained two hours police custody of both the accused from the concerned MM at Delhi. The accused were taken to the spot and pointing out memo was prepared at their instance and their disclosure statement was recorded. The pointing out memo is already Ex.PW22/P9 bearing my signature at point B. The disclosure statement of both accused was also recorded. The disclosure statement of the accused Govinda is Ex.PW 22/P10 bearing my signature at point B and disclosure statement of accused Savita is Ex.PW 22/P11 bearing my signature at point B. My statement was recorded by the IO.
I identify accused Govinda and Savita (witness has correctly identified both accused present in the Court).
xxxxx by Sh. Dushyant Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Laxmi, Sanjeev and Wadhir Bala. Nil (Opportunity given).
Xxxxx by Ms. Dolly Nair and Ms. Malvika Kulkarni, Ld. Counsel for accused Savita and Govinda.
I have made departure entry before proceeding to Nadia but I do not remember its number. I do not remember the exact time but it was on 20.05.2016. Matter is every old so I even do not remember as to it was morning or afternoon. I had obtained their transit remand from SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 58 of 74 the Court and not from local police station. It is correct that I do not know their identification prior to taking their transit remand. I do not remember the time when we started from West Bengal on 20th and reached at Delhi on 22nd. I had visited the spot with IO and accused. No independent public witness was joined during the PC remand and the proceedings during the PC Remand. It is correct that while making pointing out memo, the spot was not preserved. It is wrong to suggest that I did not visit Nadia, West Bengal for obtaining the transit remand of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I did not participate in the police remand of the accused or that no pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of the accused. It is wrong suggest that accused did not give any disclosure statements. It is wrong to suggest that all the documents were prepared the police station only. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
41. PW - 24 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, Professor, JPNATC, AIIMS, New Delhi has deposed as follows:-
"I am working in AIIMS since 1999. The AIIMS Trauma Centre started in 2006 and I have been working therein since its formation.
Dr. Pradeep Yadav was working as Senior Resident, Forensic Medicine at JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS. Presently, he is no more working in the said institution and I do not know about his present whereabouts. However, Dr. Pradeep Yadav worked under me and I have seen him writing and signing. Therefore, I can identify his writing and signatures. I have seen the postmortem report of deceased Aradhna w/o Sadhak Parmanik bearing PM report TC187/14 SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 59 of 74 dated 04.04.2014.
Same is in the handwriting of Dr. Pradeep Yadav and bears his signatures at point A. The report is now Ex.PW24/P1.
As per the PM report following external injuries were found during the postmortem:-
I) Abraded contusion 7.5 cm x 7 cm present over the left side of forehead from midline to left lateral and from supra orbital ridge of left orbit to upwards. There is an abraded area on the medial and upper edge of contusion of size 3 x 2.5 cm reddish brown in color.
II) Abrasion 3 x 1.5 cm reddish in color is present on the medial aspect of left elbow joint around medial epicondyle.
III) Abrasion 0.8 x 0.6 cm reddish in color is present on the middle interphalangeal joint of ring finger on dorsal aspect of left hand.
IV) Abrasion 0.8 x 0.4 cm reddish in color is present on the middle interphalangeal joint of the middle finger on its dorsal aspect of left hand.
V) Contused laceration 4 x 2 cm x skin deep present on the right lateral aspect of lower lip with surrounding contusion.
VI) Contusion 2 x 1 cm just about mucosal margin of upper lip in midline.
AS per the the PM following internal injuries were found:-
I) Sub scalp extra vasation of blood over left fronto temporal area. Skull intact. A thin film of defused subarachnoid hemorrage is present over frontal lobe left parietal and temporal lobes of brain.
As per PM report, visceras clothing and blood sample in gauze piece were preserved sealed and handed over to IO. As per PM report, time since death was about 12-14 hours prior to SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 60 of 74 postmortem examination.
As per PM report, the cause of death was due to head injury and its complications consequent upon blunt force impact. The injuries were antemortem in nature.
The visceras were preserved to rule out any concomitant intoxication and poisoning.
I have also seen the subsequent opinion dated 26.06.2014 given by Dr. Pradeep Yadav. Same bears his signatures at point A. Said opinion is now Ex.PW24/P2. As per the said opinion, Dr. Pradeep Yadav opined that the head injury sustained by the patient is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and it has also been given as cause of death in the postmortem.
XXX by Ms. Dolly Nair and Ms. Malvika Kulkarni, Ld. Counsels for accused Savita and Govinda.
I do not remember the exact date of joining and leaving of Dr. Pradeep Yadav. However, the tenure of senior resident is about 3 years and for the same period, he worked under my supervision. It is correct that Dr. Pradeep Yadav was also attached with other doctors of the department of Forensic Medicine, besides me. The injuries both external and internal as mentioned in PM report could have been caused by any blunt force. Hence, the possibility of injuries being caused by blunt force by fall from stairs or fall by slipping cannot be ruled out. I cannot say that such injuries are possible by accidental fall. It is correct that as per PM report about 400 ML digested food material was found in the stomach. The digestion of food in the stomach takes average 4-6 hours after consumption depending upon the type of food consumed. As per PM report, the digested food material was found in the stomach, hence, it cannot be commented upon as to which type of SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 61 of 74 food deceased had consumed. As per PM report, time since death mentioned as 12-14 hours which is not absolute and exact time as 10 PM or 12 AM cannot be commented.
It is wrong to suggest that no briefing of the facts/documents such as MLC report was submitted by IO. Minor variation depending upon postmortem changes can be seen in the size of the injuries depending upon the conditions in which body was lying or preserved. It is correct that the injuries mentioned in MLC of deceased Aradhna mentions 2 injuries as (i) bruise 2 x 2 cm on the forehead and (ii) abrasion 2 x 1 cm on the elbow joint. Since the deceased was declared brought dead life saving protocol is always the priority in such situations, hence, there may be discrepancies in the injuries described in the MLC and postmortem. It is correct that the discrepancies in the injury mentioned in the PM report is major variation. The PM report is a detailed examination of the injuries/body whereas in the brought dead cases the main priority is to revive the injured as compared to noting down the details of injuries. The purpose of PM and preparation of MLC is different and both cannot be compared. It is wrong to suggest that the observations in the MLC and in the PM report about the injuries are inconsistent or contradictory. In the case of brought dead patient the nature of injury and complication of injury is not mentioned as the patient dies. It is correct that I can not give any comment at this stage on the size or type or particulars and the force/make of the blunt weapon used in this case, however, on production of the same the corelation of weapon with injuries can be made. The abrasions present over the body as mentioned above in form of injuries could be indicative of struggle by deceased. It is wrong to suggest that no indication of struggle was found in SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 62 of 74 the PM report. It is wrong to suggest that all the findings mentioned in the PM report are not conclusive or not indicative of blunt injury. It is correct that there are four cuttings on the PM report which have been counter signed by the doctor. It is correct that postmortem was not conducted in my presence. It is correct that MLC was not prepared in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. XXX by Sh. Aditya Sharma, Ld. Counsel and Sh. Dushyant Sharma, Proxy counsel for accused Laxmi, Wadhir and Sanjeev.
Nil. Opportunity given."
42. PW - 25 Retired ASI Mahender Singh who was working as a duty officer in the intervening night of 03/04.04.2014 at PS Govind Puri and who prepared FIR, copy of FIR Ex.PW25/P1 (OSR) and endorsement to this effect Ex.PW25/P2 (OSR).
Defence witnesses deposed as follows:
43. DW - 1 Sh. Ashutosh Kumar deposed as follows:-
"I know the accused Laxmi, Sanjeev Vishwas and Wadhir Bala.
On 03.04.2014, at about 8:30 PM - 9 PM, I was present at my office (at ground floor) i.e. A-693, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, Delhi. On that day, I was paying wages to my labour. I heard screams of the people and I came out of my office and I saw that one lady was lying on the ground. People of the building had gathered there. When I asked the people what had happened to the lady, they told me that she had slipped from the stairs accidentally and her head was hit to dahleej in SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 63 of 74 front of the stairs. I asked the said people to immediately take the injured old lady to the hospital. None of the accused present in the Court today were present at the spot on the said day i.e. 03.04.2014. The family of the injured lady i.e. her daughter and husband were quarreling with some old men who were present at the spot. In my presence, the injured was taken to the hospital. After that, I went back to my office. XXXX by Sh. Aditya Trehan, Ld. Additional PP for the State.
I am doing the work of interior decorator. My office is located at A-693, Transit camp, Govind Puri. I came to my office daily at about 12 PM - 1 PM and remained there till 9 PM. In the year 2014, 7 labourers were working with me. I was paying Rs. 600/- daily wages each to those labourers. My office closely located near the spot. I cannot tell the exact time between 8:30 PM to 9 PM when I came out of my office and heard screams of people. I did not know the said lady or her name whom I have seen lying on the ground. (vol. The said lady does not reside there and her daughter and son-in-law resides there).
It is correct that I have not seen the quarrel which was happened with said lady before I saw her lying on the ground. It is correct that I have not seen the said lady fall or slip from the said stairs accidentally and her head was hit by dahleej in front of the stairs. I came to know from the public persons gathered there that the said lady was standing on the stairs and accidentally fall from there due to which she got head injury. It is correct that I cannot tell the name of those public persons from whom I got to know about the said lady. It is correct that I have no knowledge regarding the quarrel which took place between the family of the complainant and the family of accused persons which was on the issue of filling SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 64 of 74 water. (vol. There was only altercation). It is correct that I came outside my office, I do not make any PCR call to police on 100 number. I remained outside my office for about half an hour. I closed my office and left from there at about 09:35 PM. It is correct that I did not help in shifting the injured to the hospital. It is correct that I have never visited the hospital to see her. (vol. On the next day, I came to know that the said lady got expired). It is correct that I did not give any written representation to the police authorities regarding the facts which I have stated today in my examination in chief. (vol. No one came to me for inquiry about the said incident).
It is correct that I cannot produce any document, any attendance register of the labourers to whom I made payments, any CCTV footage which shows that on 03.04.2014, I was present at my office at 08:30 PM to 9 PM. (vol. The owner of the building can tell in this regard).
It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed a false and concocted story before the Court today in my examination in chief as nothing as deposed has happened at any point of time. It is wrong to suggest that on 03.04.2014 at about 9 PM at H. No. A-692 outside of transit camp, Govind Puri, Laxmi along with Sanjeev Vishwas, Wadhir Bala, Govinda and Savita had a quarrel with the deceased Smt. Aradhana and pushed her with the intent to kill her and in pursuance thereof, the accused Savita sat upon the deceased and accused Govinda hit with the piece of brick on the head of the deceased due to which the deceased Aradhana succumbed her to injuries."
44. DW - 2 Sh. Ganesh Chander deposed as follows:-
"I know the accused Govinda and Savita SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 65 of 74 and I used to reside at A-692, First Floor, Transit Camp, Govindpuri, New Delhi. At relevant time, I used to reside on the first floor and Govinda and Savita also used to reside on the said floor. The daughter of the deceased lady used to reside on the second floor.
On 03.04.2014 at about 9/9.30 pm, I was present at the place of incident and was filling water along with one Raju for the use in home. I heard a noise from behind and saw that one lady had slipped from the stair accidentally and her daughter was coming from upstairs. Thereafter the daughter started screaming and people gathered there. I saw the lady slipping from the stairs, she had fell from the first floor to the ground. The building in which she had fallen was under construction and some construction material, pebbles, stones and pieces of brick were also lying there. Accused persons in the present case were not present at the spot when the alleged incident took place. The deceased lady did not use to reside at the said place, however, she used to visit her daughter who used to reside there. However, whenever deceased lady used to come there, she used to quarrel with the people around and residing there. At the relevant time I used to work at C.R. Park and my working hours were from 10 am to 6 pm and I used to return home by 6.30 pm. People gathered there after the said lady had fallen from the stairs and after the daughter started screaming that she had fallen. I requested / asked the daughter of deceased lady to call the doctor and take her mother to the hospital, however, she did not listen to me and called the police. After sometime police reached at the spot and took the deceased in the PCR Van. Police did not make any inquiry from me. I left the spot after half an hour from there.
XXXX by Sh. Aditya Trehan, Ld. Additional PP SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 66 of 74 for the State.
At the time of incident, I was residing in the building of accused persons on the first floor as a tenant for about 6 to 7 months.
It is correct that my relationship with the family of accused persons was cordial. I was working in a restaurant at that time in C.R. Park. My working hours were from 10 AM to 06 PM and I used to returned at my house at about 06:30 PM.
The timings of water supply in our area is about 06:00 PM to 09:00 PM. We used to fill water on turn by turn basis. I went to fill water at about 7 - 7: 30PM. At that time one Raju is also with me. On that day, the water supply came about 08: 30 PM. At that time, Raju filled water from 8 to 8:30 PM. Thereafter, it was my turn to fill water. I filled water at around 09: 00 PM. It takes about 03 - 04 minutes to fill one bucket of water. (Vol. The water was coming at a lower speed). At that time, I was only with Raju. Nobody except me and Raju was present at that time.
It is correct that Ashutosh Kumar (DW-1) was also not present at that time.
I was standing near the staircase of the building having address A-692, First floor, Transit camp, Govindpuri, New Delhi. The distance where I was standing and the staircase from which the deceased got felled was about 03 Mtrs.
It is correct that I have not made any PCR Call or 100 number to Police.
I do not remember what clothes the deceased was wearing at that time. However, the daughter of deceased was wearing Salwar Kamees Suit. At that time, there was low light. The construction work was happening in the building of accused on the above-said address. I did not notice any blood or injury after I saw deceased SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 67 of 74 falling from stairs. I cannot tell the date, time and year of specific incidents, I have seen deceased quarreling with people residing there. (Vol. It was mostly on the days I had holidays from my office).
It is correct that I have not seen the deceased quarreling with people residing there. It is correct that I have not called any doctor at any point of time on that day.
Police had not recorded statement of any person in my presence including Raju. I cannot tell the name of those public persons who were present at the spot.
It is correct that I have no knowledge regarding the quarrel which took place between the family of complainant and family of accused persons on the issue of filing water.
It is correct that I did not give any written representation to the police authorities regarding the facts which I have stated today in my examination in chief. (Vol. Police did not ask from me so I didn't inform police. ) I was using mobile at that time.
It is correct that I cannot produce any document, CCTV footage or any other proof showing that on 03.04.2014, I was present at the place of incident.
It is wrong to suggest that no construction work was under progress at that time nor any construction, material Pebbles, stones and brick pieces were lying on 03.04.2014 It is wrong to suggest that I alongwith Raju was not present at the place of incident on 03.04.2014. It is wrong to suggest that I deposed a false and concocted story before the Court today in my examination in chief as nothing depose as happened at any point of time on 03.04.2014.
It is wrong to suggest that on 03.04.2014 at about 09: 00 PM at H. No. A-692 SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 68 of 74 outside of transit camp, Govindpuri, Laxmi alongwith Sanjeev Vishwas, Wadhir Bala, Govinda and Savita had a quarrel with the deceased Smt. Aradhana and pushed her with the intent to kill her and in pursuance thereof, the accused Savita sat upon the deceased and accused Govinda hit with the piece of brick on the head of the deceased due to which the deceased Aradhana succumbed her to injuries.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely being the tenant in the said building in order to save them from legal punishment in this case."
Discussion On Merits:
45. Having considered the relevant law and the settled principal with respect to the offences with which the accused has been charged with, I shall proceed with examining the evidence led by both the sides.
46. In the present case, the fight is alleged to have occurred on the spot.
None of the accused had motive to cause the death of the victim. No evidence has been led by the prosecution to show any pe- preparation, conspiracy or motive of any accused to cause the death of the victim.
47. The injury sustained by the victim as mentioned in her MLC are all simple injuries. Not even one single injury is opined to be grievous or otherwise sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
SC No. 1287/2016FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 69 of 74
48. Prosecution has also not proved any special / peculiar medical condition of the victim within the knowledge of the accused by virtue of which accused would be possessed of the knowledge that due to some medical condition even a fall may result in the death of the victim.
49. Testimony of PW6 Geet is hearsay in nature as she reached the spot after the alleged incident.
50. With respect to the place of quarrel, PW3 had deposed that it occurred on the ground floor where water motor was installed. Whereas in the testimony of PW8, the place of quarrel is stated to be on the road. Per contra PW22 i.e. the IO has deposed that the incident took place on the Chabutra. This is a major contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with respect to the place where alleged incident took place. This has not been explained by the prosecution.
51. PW3 deposed that accused Sanjeev lived on the 2 nd floor and accused Laxmi was a resident of the ground floor of the same building where he was residing whereas accused Wadhir lived in the adjacent building. During cross-examination, he contradicted himself by saying that Sanjeev was a resident of another building which was 2- 3 buildings away from his house and Wadhir lived in building which was adjacent to the building next to his house. Whereas PW1 SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 70 of 74 deposed that Wadhir was a resident of another building which was in the next gali and Sanjeev resided in the next building. These contradictions have not been explained by the prosecution.
52. As per the testimony of the police witnesses, no blood was not found at the spot when the police reached after receiving the information of the incident.
53. PW1 and PW3 have deposed that PW1 did not go to the hospital with the PCR, but the police witnesses deposed that rukka was prepared at the hospital on the basis of statement of PW1. PW8 SI Raj Kiran has also deposed that PW1 had visited the hospital with the victim contrary to the testimony of PW1 and PW3. This contradiction has not been explained by the prosecution.
54. PW1 deposed that she saw the quarrel from her floor and her mother came out of the room when the quarrel started. Whereas PW3 deposed that he and PW1 had a quarrel with all the accused and at that time, the victim reached the spot to see her grand-daughter and intervened in the quarrel. This is a major contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with respect to time and manner of arrival of the victim at the spot.
55. While PW1 deposed that quarrel took place with Govinda and Savita, PW3 contradicted her by deposing that initial quarrel was with Govinda and Laxmi and Savita came later on.
SC No. 1287/2016FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 71 of 74
56. While PW1 deposed that Savita sat on the chest of her mother/ victim while Govinda hit her with the brick, PW3 contradicted her by deposing that accused Govinda sat on the chest of the victim while Savita hit her with the brick. This contradiction has not been explained by the prosecution.
57. In the present case, police seized two brick pieces as the weapon of officence whereas none of the witnesses have deposed about hitting of the victim with two pieces of brick. Further, opinion of the doctor was not sought by the IO whether the injury suffered by the victim was caused by the brick piece which was allegedly recovered.
58. During the FSL examination, no blood was discovered on any brick contrary to the deposition of PW3 who deposed that there was blood on the brick. This is yet another major contradiction which has remained explained.
59. PW1 has denied that recovery of brick was made at her pointing out and in her presence and thereby negated her signatures on the seizure memo of the brick. This contradiction has also remained unexplained.
60. As per the testimony of the witnesses, there were several public persons who had gathered at the spot. However, not even a single independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. Even the residents/ other occupants of the building had not been examined.
SC No. 1287/2016FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 72 of 74 The landlord of the building was not examined on the aspect whether the tenants were provided water on turn by turn basis as alleged. This was important as PW1 had admitted that once the motor switched on, water was available at all the floors and they could fill the water from their respective floors. If the testimony of PW1 on this aspect is believed, then there was no occasion for the alleged fight as she could very well fill water from her own floor when the motor was switched on.
61. There are major contradictions in the injuries allegedly suffered by the victim as mentioned in her MLC vis-a-viz postmortem report. There are several alterations and cuttings on the postmortem report of the victim which have not been explained. During his cross- examination, PW24 has admitted that the injury which was opined to be the cause of death can also be a result of fall from stairs or slipping. PW1 had at one point deposed that her mother came out of her home on 2nd floor after hearing of quarrel. Thus, accidental death due to slipping/ fall down from stairs cannot be ruled out.
62. With respect to u/s 174A IPC qua the accused Govinda and Savita, the process u/s 82 CrPC was not got published in the newspaper as per the guidelines of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sunil Tyagi Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr in CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 and CRL.M.C. 4438/2013, date of decision 28th June, 2021. In these SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 73 of 74 circumstances, in view of the non-compliance of the mandatory directions of the said judgments, accused Govinda and Savita are acquitted for offence u/s 174A IPC.
63. There is nothing on record to establish the culpability of the accused persons in the commission of the offence charged against them. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and if any doubt has been created then benefit of it should be given to the accused. The prose- cution has failed to prove the charge on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted for offences U/s 302/34 IPC.
64. Personal Search items of accused persons, if not already released, be released to them as per rules. Digitally signed by Shivani (Announced in the Open Court Shivani chauhan on 10th February, 2026) chauhan Date:
2026.02.10 16:00:18 +0530 (SHIVANI CHAUHAN) Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-01, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/10.02.2026 SC No. 1287/2016 FIR No. 364/2014 State v. Laxmi.Sanjeev Vishwas & Ors Page no. 74 of 74