Delhi District Court
State vs Smt Seema on 12 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. GURMOHINA KAUR: ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE (SOUTH-WEST)-05, DWARKA COURTS:
DELHI
Sessions Case No.440740/2016
CNR No: DLSW01-002175-2015
FIR No.472/2015
Police Station: BHD Nagar
Under Section: 302/201 IPC
In the matter of:
State
VERSUS
Seema
W/o late Sh. Om
R/o 331A, Krishna Colony
Najafgarh, Delhi.
Date of filing of the case : 05.11.2015
Date of Reserving judgment : 04.08.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC was committed to this court on 05.11.2015 being a Sessions Triable Offence.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
That on 15.08.2015 at about 10.30 p.m. at H.No.331-A, Gali No.17B, Krishna Colony, Gopal Nagar, New Delhi, the accused Seema committed murder of her husband namely Sh. Om (since deceased), aged about 42 years by strangulating him State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 1/55 with her hands and thereafter, she knowingly concealed the dead body of her husband (since deceased) in a Septic Tank by removing the cover of the said Tank and thereafter installed an iron cover on the said septic tank with the intention to screen herself from the legal punishment and thereby she committed the offences punishable under Section 302/201 IPC.
3. On completion of investigation, it was concluded by the IO, that Accused Seema had committed the offence under Section 302/201 IPC. Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was put before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate with a view to put the accused on trial.
4. In the light off the police report and the documents filed along with the same, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence, complied with the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C and the committed the case to the Court of Session.
5. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the Counsel for the Accused, charge was framed against the Accused under Section 302/201 IPC by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 10.12.2015. The charge was read over to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In support of the case, the prosecution got examined the following witnesses:-
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 2/55 6.1. PW-1/Dr. Pravindra Singh deposed that on 21.08.2015 at about 12.30 p.m, the body of Sri Om was brought to the hospital by Executive Magistrate Sh. Suchet Singh, assisted by Inspector Shilwant Singh for postmortem. He further deposed that the patient had been declared brought dead on 20.08.2015 at about 11.27 PM by Casualty vide CR No.61919 vide MLC No.4730/2015 and conducted the postmortem of the deceased vide PM No.196/2015 Ex.PW-1/A. He further deposed that as per the PM findings, the cause of death in the case was due to Asphyxia following compression of the neck and the time since death had been approx 5-6 days at the time of PM examination and the injury no.1 had been caused by sharp edged object. He further deposed that after the postmortem, viscera preserved in saturated common salt solution and the blood sample dried in gauze piece, clothings and maggots for precise time since death estimation were sealed with the seal of RTRM Hospital and handed over it to IO for analysis. He further deposed that on 05.03.2016, he had given subsequent opinion Ex.PW-1/B and on the request of IO, he had submitted the PM and FSL report.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. During his cross-examination, he stated that it was not mentioned about the damage to the trachea in the aforesaid PM report. He further stated that in the PM report, it was not mentioned about the remains of hair, blood, mud or human flesh present in the nails of deceased. He further added that the body had been in the stage of decomposition. Further, he denied the suggestions putforth to him.
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 3/55 6.2. PW-2/Dr. Sunil Dalal deposed that on 20.08.2015 at about 11.27 p.m., one patient namely Sri Om S/o Sh. Tara Chand, aged about 40 years had been brought in casualty by Constable Narender of PS BHD Nagar. He further deposed that he examined the said patient vide MLC No.4730 Ex.PW-2/A and when the said patient had been brought to casualty, he was brought dead and the body was in decomposed condition. He further deposed that after examining the said patient, the body of patient had been shifted to the mortuary for autopsy examination.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. During his cross-examination, he stated that the nature of injury had not been mentioned in the MLC as it was in a decomposed condition. He added that the injuries on the body had not been noticeable, hence, they had not been mentioned in the MLC.
6.3. PW-3/WHC Saroj deposed that on 20.08.2015 at about 7.25 p.m. Vishnu Prasad had approached him in her office and he informed her about the incident and she had recorded the said information vide DD No.47A, Ex.PW-3/A on his statement about the incident. She further deposed that after recording the said DD, the same had been entrusted to Inspector Sheelwant for further management and thereafter at about 10.25 p.m., she received rukka brought by HC Mahipal which had been sent by Inspector Sheelwant and on the basis of the same, she got recorded the FIR of the present case Ex.PW-3/B through CIPA Computer Operator Constable Bijender. She further deposed that she made her endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW-3/C and handed it over to HC Mahipal.
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 4/55 She was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. During her cross-examination, she stated that the distance between the place of incident and the police station was approximately 15-20 minutes and HC Mahipal remained for about 30 minutes in the police station. She further stated that DD No.47A was recorded by her directely on the statement of Sh. Vishnu Prasad in roznamcha register. She further denied the suggestions putforth to her.
6.4. PW-4/Vishnu Prasad deposed that deceased Shri Om was his youngest brother and he had been residing at Krishna Colony, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi for the last 2-2 ½ years alongwith his family members i.e. his wife Seema and two children i.e. son aged about 8 years and daughter aged about 12 years and his deceased brother was the driver by profession. He further deposed that 20.08.2015, he was out of station as he was in the profession of property dealing and at about 3/3.30 p.m., he had received a telephonic call on his mobile no.xxxxxx4822 from his wife from her mobile no.xxxxxx0865 who told her that Seema, wife of his deceased brother had been weeping and Seema was in perplexed condition and asked his wife that either she could come at residence of Seema would come to their residence at Dwarka. He further deposed that when his wife inquired from Seema why she was in so perplexed condition, she replied that 5 days had passed over about the death of the husband of accused Seema i.e. Shri Om and after making the enquiry, his wife explained all the things to him and then he came to his residence at Dwarka and then he alongwith his wife had State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 5/55 reached at the residence of his deceased brother Shri Om at Krishna Colony, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh and after reaching there, they had met brother-in-law of deceased namely Rajinder, his mother-in-law, his co-brother (Sadu) and 2-3 other more persons who had showed their innocence about the incident. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Rajinder had gone to police station BHD Nagar and they had met the Duty Officer and disclosed the facts to him and then he had taken them to the SHO and they told all the facts to SHO about the death of his brother. He further deposed that thereafter, SHO alongwith his staff, he and Rajinder returned back to residence of accused and thereafter, police officials had done their inquiry and he had become unconscious as he got the information that his brother was no more and being a heart patient, he could not bear the information of the death of his brother. He further deposed that on the next day, he had identified the dead body of his deceased brother in RTRM hospital vide identification statement Ex.PW-4/A and he had received the dead body of his deceased brother Shri Om.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he had resiled from his previous statement given to the police wherein he denied the statement Ex.PX-1 (point X to X, point X1 to X2, X3 to X4, X5 to X6, X7 to X8, X9 to X10 and X11 to X12) made so before the police and denied all the suggestions putforth to him.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross-examination, he stated that his deceased brother Shri Om alongwith his family used to reside at their native State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 6/55 village prior to their living at Najafgarh and they had been living in Najafgarh since last 2 ½ years from the death of his brother and he could not tell in which classes and in which schools, the children of accused were studying in the year 2015 but the son was aged about 8 years and daughter was aged about 12 years. He further stated that they separated 20 years back and he was handicapped, hence, he did not have complete knowledge about the family of his deceased brother and they used to meet occasionally with each other and his brother used to consume liquor. He further stated that he did not know the period since when the deceased had been consuming liquor and added that deceased had started consuming more liquor after shifting in Najafgarh area and they had been annoyed that deceased was consuming excess liquor and he used to consume liquor even during day time also. He added that he had not spoken with Seema face to face or on telephone between 15.08.2015 to 22.08.2015 and he had seen the accused Seema in her house on 18.08.2015. He stated that at the time of incident and even at present, he had been residing in Kargil Apartments, Dwarka, Delhi, his second brother namely Krishan had been residing in Narela, his third brother namely Jai Kishan had been residing in village Kharhar, District Jhajjar, Haryana and the deceased Sri Om had been residing in Najafgarh. He admitted that their relations were not cordial with accused Seema and deceased Sri Om. He voluntarily stated that they were annoyed due to behavior of deceased as he had been alcoholic and also due to adamant behavior of accused. He further stated that he had remained unconscious at the house of accused on 20.08.2015 and State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 7/55 he could not tell the exact time of his presence at the place of incident with the police. He added that he had not met with the accused Seema and even had no conversation with her between 10.08.2015 to 22.08.2015. He further stated that he was not aware whether during the said period, accused Seema had been present at her matrimonial home or had gone somewhere. Further, he denied all the suggestions putforth to him.
6.5. PW-5/Israr Babu deposed that he had brought the summoned record i.e. Customer Application Form of Mobile No.xxxxxx9703, Ex.PW-5/A which had been allotted in the name of Shri Kishan S/o Tara Chand and ID proof i.e. Aadhar Card Ex.PW-5/B. He also brought the CDR of the said mobile number w.e.f. 01.08.2015 to 21.08.2015 Ex.PW-5/C (running into 5 pages) and the certificate U/Sec.65B (4) (c) of Evidence Act, Ex.PW-5/D and another Customer Application Form of Mobile No.xxxxxx0726, Ex.PW-5/E, allotted in the name of Sh. Krishan S/o Tara Chand alongwith Election ID Card Ex.PW-5/F as well as the CDR of the said mobile number w.e.f. 01.08.2015 to 21.08.2025 Ex.PW-5/G and the certificate U/Sec.65B (4) ( c ) of Evidence Act, Ex.PW-5/H. He also brought the common Cell ID Chart of both the above said numbers for Delhi and NCR, Ex.PW-5/I. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for accused. During his cross-examination, he denied that he had submitted Ex.PW-5/c, Ex.PW-5/D, Ex.PW-5/G, Ex.PW-5/H and Ex.PW-5/I after tampering the same.
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 8/55 6.6. PW-6/Krishan deposed that deceased Shri Om was his youngest brother and he had been residing in front of Grain Market, Najafgarh, New Delhi for the last 6 and 7 years alongwith his family members i.e. his wife Seema (accused) and two children i.e. son aged about 6 years and daughter aged about 9 years. He further deposed that on 20.08.2015, he was present at his shop and at about 4.30 p.m., he received a telephonic call on his mobile phone from his wife who told him that Seema had made a call to her and told that "ghar aajao, naas ho gaya" and thereafter, he alongwith his wife had gone at Najafgarh at the residence of the parental house of Seema as they had not been aware about the exact address of his deceased brother. He further deposed that when he alongwith Rajinder, brother of accused Shri Om had reached there, the police had been already present there and one SI had been making inquiries from the persons who had been present there and accused Seema had been sitting inside the house.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled from his previous statement given to the police. He denied the statement Ex.PX-2 made so before the police and denied all the suggestions putforth to him.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. During his cross-examination, he stated that he had visited 8-10 times at the residence of his deceased brother Sri Om at Najafgarh and he had no knowledge about the name of school and the classes in which children of his deceased brother had been studying. He further stated that his deceased brother used to consume liquor and he was driver by profession. He voluntarily State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 9/55 stated that the persons who was in the profession of driving they often consumed liquor. He further stated that he could not tell the exact residential address of his deceased brother and he was annoyed with his deceased brother due to his habit of consuming liquor. He further stated that he had no knowledge if accused Seema had gone to her parental home since 10.08.2015 to 22.08.2015. He added that neither he had met with the accused Seema nor he had any conversation with her between 10.08.2015 to 25.08.2015 and that he had remained at the spot for about 8-9 hours till the body of his deceased brother had been taken out from the septic tank and his signatures had not been obtained on any other paper at the spot. He voluntarily stated that when the postmortem of the body of the deceased was got conducted, his signatures had been obtained. He further denied the suggestions putforth to him.
6.7. PW-7/Babli Devi deposed that accused Seema was her sister-in-law and on 20.08.2015, accused Seema had made a telephonic call to her and had asked her to come at her residence as Sri Om had died 4-5 days ago. She further deposed that she also told her that she had a scuffle with her husband Sri Om and "is hathapai mei mere se uska gala dab gaya aur who khadde main pada hai" (in that scuffle his throat was pressed by her and he is lying in pathole and she replied her that she was alone so how could she visit as her husband had not been present at home at that time and thereafter, she had made a call to her husband on his mobile no.xxxxxx4822 from her mobile phone. She further deposed that she asked her husband to come home as Seema had State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 10/55 called her and after about 2 hours her husband came home and she had asked her husband that they had to go to Najafgarh at the residence of Sri Om and she had narrated all the facts to him as told to her by Seema and thereafter, she alongwith her husband had gone to the parental home of Seema and from there, they had made enquiry but could not find any clue. She further deposed that her husband and brother of accused namely Rajender went to police station and she had remained at the parental home of Seema and from parental home of accused, she alongwith her Bhabhi and her sister Sukhan had gone to Krishna Colony, Najafgarh where accused Seema had been residing with her husband and when they had reached there police had been already present there. She further deposed that many public persons had been present there and they had sitten outside the matrimonial house of Seema and police personnel had been carrying out the proceedings inside the house and she had seen the dead body of Sri Om only at the time when he was being removed from the house.
She was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for accused. During her cross-examination, she stated that deceased Sri Om had been residing at Najafgarh since last 2-2 ½ years alongwith his family members and prior to that he had been residing at Village Karhar, District Jhajjar, Haryana and she could not tell the exact address of house of Sri Om as he had never visited the house of deceased alone. She further stated that deceased Sri Om used to consume liquor for the last 2-2 ½ years since he had shifted to Najafgarh and she could not tell in which standard children of Sri Om had been studying. She further stated that she State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 11/55 never made call to Seema or her children to know about their well being, however, she used to receive their calls. She added that she had not met the deceased Sri Om, accused Seema or their children between 01.08.2015 to 25.08.2015 nor there had been any telephonic call between her and any family member of Seema except call dated 20.08.2015 and she had no knowledge if Seema had gone to her parental house alongwith her children from 10.08.2015 to 22.08.2015 and she could not tell the mobile number of accused Seema from which she had received the call of Seema on 20.08.2015. She further stated that she could not tell the exact time when she had made call to her husband and when he had come back home and she also could not tell the time when they had left their house for Najafgarh. She added that she remained at the parental house of Seema for about 30-45 minutes and she alongwith Bhabhi and sister of accused Seema remained at the house of Sri Om for about 1-1 ½ hours. She further denied the suggestions putforth to her.
6.8. PW-8/Ct. Hardeep Singh deposed that on 01.09.2015, he was called by the IO of the present case and accordingly, he had reached at PS BHD Nagar and from there, he alongwith IO of the present case reached at H.No.331-A, Gali No.17-B, Krishna Colony, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh where he had taken the rough notes at the instance of IO and thereafter, he had reached in his office and on the basis of rough notes, he prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW-8/A and handed over the same to IO.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused person and during his cross-examination, he had stated that he did not State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 12/55 remember the time when he had visited the spot and he had remained at the spot for about 30-40 minutes. He further stated that he was accompanied by Inspector Sheelwant Singh and the rough notes had been destroyed in routine manner. He admitted that Ex.PW-8/A did not bear the signature of Inspector Sheelwant Singh and when he had prepared the said site plan in his office, Inspector Sheelwant was not present with him. Further, he denied the suggestions putforth to him.
6.9. PW-9/Anil Kumar, photographer deposed that on 20.08.2015, he was called by Inspector Sheelwant to reach at the spot i.e. H.No.331, Krishna Colony, Gali No.17-B, Najafgarh and he had accordingly reached there and found many police officials and public persons of the locality. He further deposed that there had been a gutter in the said house, the said gutter was opened and the dead body of a male had been taken out from the gutter. He further deposed that one lady had been sitting there under veil (ghoonghat) and she had stated that the dead body had been lying in the gutter and the dead body had been taken out with the assistance of public persons. He further deposed that the time when the dead body had been taken out of the gutter, he had taken the photographs and also viedographed the moment. He had brought 15 negatives Ex.PW-9/B1 to Ex.Pw-9/B15 of the positives of the photographs Ex.Pw-9/A1 to Ex.PW-9/A15 and CD Ex.PW-9/C. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross-examination, he stated that IO had called him at the spot and earlier also, he had taken the photographs of other State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 13/55 places at the asking of IO. He stated that he had reached the spot at about 7:30 or 7:45 p.m. and had remained there till about 9.30 p.m and when he had reached there, there were about 30-40 persons present. He further stated that he had not taken photographs and recorded video of all 30-40 persons present there. He voluntarily stated that 30-40 persons had been present outside the house in the street. He further stated that the CD had been prepared by use of digital camera by copy of the image from digital camera. He admitted that the images in the digital camera could be edited and he denied the suggestions putforth to him.
On being recalled for further examination-in-chief U/Sec.311 Cr.P.C., the said witness further deposed that his certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the photographs and CD of the videography regarding place of occurrence was Ex.PW-9/D. He further stated that he could identify the proceedings in the CD conducted at the place of occurrence and the photography Ex.PW-22/X was played in the laptop brought by PSI Akash Kumar on behalf of SHO PS BHD Nagar in compliance of the directions.
During his deposition U/Sec.311 Cr.P.C. the following observation made by the Court regarding the video:-
In the undated videography, the lid cover of the iron tank inside the house is removed and a dead body is seen inside the tank. The iron tank was sealed with the cement which was broken with iron rods and the cement used to seal the said iron tank was found in a gunny bag in the same house. The person breaking the seal of the iron tank is wearing purple color shirt State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 14/55 and as per the witness the same is a labourer. The indian toilet is also found sealed with cement. The floor of the house was broken by a labour using hammer, who is wearing a gamcha around his nose and mouth and by another labour wearing grey and black t-shirt. After breaking the house, a wooden laddar is placed where another labour is seen going inside the septic tank and the dead body is removed using ropes. The dead body is not found to be wearing any clothes and is taken out and placed on a white plastic sheet.
Witness states that videography is of 20.08.2015 and of the proceedings of recovery of dead body from septic tank at the instance of accused Seema from her house. The videography was conducted by him".
The witness further admitted that in the videography in CD Ex.PW-9/C, no date and time was shown in the videography Ex.PW-22/X and there was compilation of different clips in CD Ex.PW-9/C. He further admitted that accused Seema was not visible in the video Ex.PW-22/X in CD Ex.PW-9/C. He denied the suggestion that the alleged dead body had not been recovered at the instance of accused Seema. He further stated that the videography of outside and inside of the house had been conducted and the adjoining plots of the house on both sides had been vacant. He further stated that he did not know the exact address i.e house number of the house and house number was also not visible in the video. Further, he denied the suggestions putforth to him.
6.10. PW-10/Suchet Singh, Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 15/55 deposed that on 20.08.2015 at about 8:15 p.m., he received the mobile call from SDM Sh. Himanshu Gupta and as per directions, he had gone to H.No.331-A, Krishna Colony, Gopal Nagar. He further deposed that in his presence, IO Inspector Sheelwant Singh had got removed the dead body of a male from Septic Tank and filled the Form No.25.35 (1) (B) Ex.PW-10/A on 20.08.2015 for Death Report-Unnatural Death by Violence after inquiries for postmortem on 21.08.2015, Ex.PW-10/B and after the postmortem, the dead body had been handed over to Sh.
Krishan and Sh. Vishnu Prasad, brothers of deceased.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. During his cross-examination, he stated that he had reached the aforesaid house at about 9.00 p.m. and UDC of his office had accompanied him. He further stated that 30-40 persons had been collected there and Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-10/B were in the writing of Inspector Sheelwant Singh. He further stated that Ex.PW-10/B had been prepared in the hospital and he remained at the spot for about 2 hours. He remained at the spot for about 1 hour or 1 ½ hours and he had reached hospital at 10.00 a.m. on 21.08.2015.
6.11. PW-11/Sunil Kumar deposed that about 2 or 2 ½ years ago in the year 2015 date and month, he did not remember but he had received a phone of madam Seema whereby she had asked him to clean the pit and he had taken his tractor no.HR-13J-5730 to the house of accused Seema at Gali No.17 B, Krishna Colony, Najafgarh, near Janta Vihar and he did not remember the number of house of accused. He further deposed that he had reached there State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 16/55 at about 2 or 2.30 p.m and he had emptied the lavatory pit from inside house of accused by use of pipe after removing the iron cover of sewer and thereafter, he had obtained his charges and had gone away.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl.PP for State and stated that he had received 4/5 phone calls from the accused and admitted that he had received phone call on 17.08.2025 from the accused. He further added that the complete address of accused where he had gone was H.No.331A, Gali No.17B, Krishna Colony, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, where safety tank had been filled which he had emptied. He denied the suggestion that boy namely Raju had emptied the safety tank.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. During cross-examination, he stated that he had gone alone there and safety tank was inside the house. He further stated that he had removed the cover of the safety tank first and pit was about 8 or 10 feet in depth and filled fully and one person could remove the said cover of safety tank. He further stated that he had put the cover of the safety tank over the safety tank after emptying the safety tank and 10 minutes had been taken by him in completing his job. He admitted that he did not have any telephonic talk with accused and voluntarily stated that accused had called on the mobile phone of his father and his father had sent him to the house of accused.
6.12. PW-12/Pradeep Kumar deposed that on 17.08.2015, he had been doing work of mason in Krishna Colony at Najafgarh, in home of Pandit and at around 1.00 p.m., accused Seema had State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 17/55 come to him and asked him that there had been a small lid of safety tank as she had to get the chamber of safety tank enlarged and put a big lid there. He further deposed that he had accompanied accused Seema to her home perhaps number 233 or 232, again said 331A, Gali No.17 B in Krishna Colony, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi and he had made the upper hole of safety tank a bigger one to 1 ½ feet x 1 ½ feet from 9 inches x9 inches. He further deposed that he had been given Rs.600/- as labour charges by accused and after completing aforesaid work, he had returned from there.
He was cross-examined by ld.counsel for accused wherein he stated that he did not remember the day of the week on 17.08.2015 and he had not been made to read his previous statement before his deposition.
6.13. PW-13/Rajeev @ Sanju deposed that prior to incident in question, he had been resident in Goyala Dairy and in the year 2011, they had constructed the house. He further deposed that Sri Om was residing at a distance of 1000 or 500 yards from his house and he did not know the accused present in the court and he had gone with Shri Om to any place and he did not know anything about this case.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State. During his cross-examination, he stated that he was inquired by Inspector Sheelwant Singh and he had not given any statement Mark PX-1 to him. He denied that Sh. Om was his friend besides neighbour or he alongwith him had consumed liquor. He admitted that on 14.08.2015, he had spoken on telephone with State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 18/55 Shri Om and he had not gone to sister of Shri Om to give sidda and Motorcycle No.DL9SAK5721 was his motorcycle. He denied that on 15.08.2015, he had gone at about 10.00 a.m. on his aforesaid motorcycle or asked Shri Om on phone to come with him or waited at shop for Shri Om or that at about 11.30 a.m., Shri Om had come at shop of the old lady or from where he alongwith Shri Om after taking goods from Subzi Mandi had gone to matrimonial home of sister of Shri Om at Village Pepla, District Jhajjar Haryana or on return at 5.00 p.m., took a bottle of country liquor from border theka and they consumed it on the way. He denied that at about 6.30-7. p.m., on 15.08.2015, they returned to Krishna Colony and had gone to their respective homes. He correctly identified accused Seema, as the wife of deceased Shri Om. He denied that on 17.08.2015, he had met accused in the street outside or that in front of her home in a vacant plot, she was burning clothes and he asked her "bhabhi kya jala rahi ho". He further denied that accused Seema told him that "chuho ne kapde kaat diye, unhein jala rahi hun". He further denied that when he inquired from accused Seema where Shri Om was, accused Seema told her that in the night of 15.08.2015 after quareling with her Shri Om had run away. He further denied that on 20.08.2015 when police came then he had come to know that accused Seema had killed her husband Shri Om and put his body in the septic tank.
He was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
6.14. PW-14/Shishir Malhtora deposed that he had provided the copies of CAF of mobile no.xxxxxx3493 in the name of Kailash State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 19/55 and of mobile no.xxxxxx2369 in the name of Sh. Om with the certified call detail records from 01.08.2015 to 21.08.2015 of mobile no.xxxxxx3493 whereas no data/CDR for search period could be found for the other aforesaid mobile number. He further deposed that the Cell ID Chart and Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act was also provided. He further stated that copy of CAF of mobile no.xxxxx3493 in the name of Kailash with copy of ID proof was Mark P-14/1 and the CDR of aforesaid mobile number for the period from 01.08.2015 to 21.08.2015 was Ex.PW-14/A. He further stated that the Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act was Ex.Pw-14/B and the Cell ID Chart was Ex.Pw-14/C and the copy of CAF of mobile no.xxxxxx2369 in the name of Sh. Om with copy of ID Proof was Mark P-14/2.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. During his cross-examination, he stated that the CDR had been saved automatically and he had taken the printout of the CDR. He denied that the CDR Ex.PW-14/A was an edited CDR and not correct as per stored data. He denied that their company was not facing any liquidation proceedings. He voluntarily stated that he had brought with him a copy of Letter bearing reference no.InAircel/0846 dated 23.05.2018 addressed to him by Mr. Vijay Kumar V. Iyer Insolvency Professional. He further stated that since despite search no data/CDR had been found for requested search period with respect to mobile no.xxxxx2369 so it could not be provided to IO and hence, he denied that there was no connectivity between mobile numbers xxxxxx3493 and xxxxxx2369 due to which the CDR aforesaid had not been State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 20/55 provided.
6.15. PW-15/Ajit Singh deposed that on 21.09.2015, he had given to IO, (1) the Customer Application Form of mobile no.xxxxxx0865, Mark P-15/1 in the name of Vishnu Prasad; (2) the Call Detail Records of aforesaid mobile number pertaining to period from 01.08.2015 to 21.08.2015 Ex.PW15/A; (3) the Customer Application Form of mobile no.xxxxxx3142 in the name of Sh. Surender Singh Mark P-15/2; (4) the Call Detail Records of aforesaid mobile number pertaining to period from 01.08.2015 to 21.08.2015 Ex.PW-15/B; Certificate U/Sec.65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-15/C for aforesaid CDRs and the original CAFs of aforesaid documents had been destroyed in fire regarding which the information had been lodged in concerned police station Mark 15/P. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. During his cross-examination, he stated that he had received the notice after which he had given the documents to IO and no memo had been prepared for handing over of documents. He further stated that he could not tell the number of FIR registered for loss of documents and he could not tell the year of CAFs destroyed. He denied that his company had not lodged any report of loss of documents because of which number of FIR was not there on Mark P15/3. He stated that he had not brought any action taken report on Mark P15/3 nor he had inquired about the same. He also denied that no fire had taken place and all the documents did not bear his initials. Further, he denied the suggestions putforth to him.
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 21/55 6.16. PW-16/Constable Satender deposed that on 09.09.2015, on the directions of SHO, he had taken four sealed parcel from MHCM with forwarding letter with sample seal and Road Certificate 137/21/15 and 138/21/15 to FSL Rohini and the parcel of Viscera had been deposited there and other three parcels had been returned with objection. He further deposed that he had returned to police station and had given the acknowledgment and three sealed parcels to MHCM and till the case property remained in his custody, it was not tampered with.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. During his cross-examination, he stated that he was posted in beat on 09.09.2015 and had received the parcel in between 9 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. and after about 1 ½ hours, he had reached FSL and objections had been given in writing. He denied that the parcels has been tampered with so they had been returned. He stated that he did not know the entry number of register of MHCM in which there was mention of return of parcels. Further, he denied the suggestions putforth to him.
6.17. PW-17/Constable Hansraj deposed that on 14.09.2015, he had taken two sealed parcels and sample seal from MHC(M) PS BHD Nagar vide RC No.141/21/15 to FSL Rohini and deposited them there and on return, he had deposited the acknowledgment and copy of RC to MHC (M).
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused, wherein he stated that he had received the parcels at about 10.00 or 10.30 a.m. and he had handed over the acknowledgment and copy of RC to HC Raj Kumar. He further stated that he had State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 22/55 returned back at about 3.00 p.m and he could not tell the number of entry in register of MHC(M). Further, he denied the suggestions putforth to him.
6.18. PW-18/HC Kuldeep deposed that on 22.08.2015 at about 9.15 a.m., he had accompanied Inspector Sheelwant Singh to 26 N. MD Road, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh where they had met accused Seema. He further deposed that they had met brother and mother of accused Seema and Inspector Sheelwant Singh had made inquiries from accused and accused Seema had given disclosure statement Ex.PW-18/A, was arrested vide memo Ex.PW-18/B, was conducted personal search Ex.PW-18/C and thereafter, the accused had been taken to H.No.331A, Gali Number he did not remember at Krishna Colony, Najafgarh. He further deposed that at that place near Almiraha and bed, the accused Seema pointed out towards one "dao" having handle of wood and upper portion of iron and the said "dao" had been seized vide memo Ex.PW-18/D and he had taken the accused Seema to RTRM hospital for her medical examination and from there he had brought her to Police Station. He further deposed that the said "dao" was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-18/P1 and the accused Seema had also pointed out towards a mason namely Rajesh working in a home in street next to her home.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State. During his cross-examination, he admitted that on 22.08.2015, his statement was recorded by the IO and he did not remember so he could not admit or deny that name of the aforesaid mason was Pradeep Kumar.
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 23/55 He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he had accompanied Inspector Sheelwant, Constable Hari Om and HC Mahipal in an official vehicle Gypsy driven by driver and he did not remember the number of departure entry. He further stated that they had only gone at Ground Floor, so he had no idea how many floors had been built at RZ-26 and he had no idea whether RZ-26 had been South or North facing. He further stated that they had remained at RZ-26 for 30-45 minutes and then again said for about 1 hour and RZ-26 was in a residential area and he did not remember whether any neighbour or independent witness was called at RZ-26. He further stated that they had reached at H.No.331A at about 10.30 a.m. and accused had given her disclosure statement at RZ-26. He further stated that they remained at H.No.331A for about one hour and Constable Hari Om accompanied them to hospital and they reached hospital at about 12.30 p.m. and had remained there for about ½ an hour. He further stated that H.No.331 A was in a residential area and he did not remember any independent witness or neighbour had been called there. He further stated that it took about 20-25 minutes to reach PS from hospital and his statement was Ex.PW-18/DA. He further denied the suggestions putforth to him.
6.19. PW-19/Ct. Hari Om deposed that on 22.08.2015, he had accompanied IO Inspector Sheelwant Singh, WHC Kuldeep and QRT Staff in offical Gypsy at 9.20 a.m. from Police Station to RZ-26, M.D. Road, Gopal Nagar and there they had met accused Seema, Rajinder, brother of accused and mother of accused. He State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 24/55 further deposed that accused Seema had given her disclosure statement Ex.PW-18/A and had taken them to her home at 331 B, Gali Number, he did not remember at Krishna Colony. He further deposed that at that place near Almiraha and bed, the accused Seema pointed out towards one "dao" having handle of wood and upper portion of iron and the said "dao" had been seized vide memo Ex.Pw-18/D and there was cement in polythene and a karni near bathroom there which were sealed in a parcel by IO and sealed with the seal of "SS" and had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-19/A. He further deposed that IO also made inquiries from mason Pradeep working in a home at a distance of 100 meters from the home of accused and accused was arrested and her personal search was conducted. He further deposed that he had accompanied WHC Kuldeep and accused to RTRM hospital where medical examination of accused was conducted. He identified the weapon of offence "dao" was Ex.Pw-18/P1. He further identified the seized cement and karni from H.No.331B as Ex.PW-19/P2 and Ex.PW-19/P1 respectively.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross-examination, he stated that his duty hours on 22.08.2025 were from 8.00 a.m to 12.00 night and he did not remember the name of driver of QRT, the official vehicle i.e. Gypsy. He further stated that they had reached RZ-26 within 10 minutes and the gypsy was parked 20-25 meters away from RZ-26 and within 10-15 minutes, they had reached at RZ-26, M.D. Road, Gopal Nagar and the same was home of brother of accused. He further stated that he could not tell the area of the home of accused but it was a single storey and the said house had State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 25/55 been facing towards West. He further stated that the said house was in a residential area and no neighbour had been called and 4- 5 neighours had come themselves and he did not remember how many number of papers had been prepared in all by the IO there. He further denied the suggestions putforth to him.
6.20. PW-20/ASI Mahipal Singh deposed that on 20.08.2015 at about 7:25 p.m, IO Inspector Sheelwant received DD No.47A from Duty Officer W/HC Saroj vide which he alongwith IO, complainant Vishnu Prasad, Rajender Bhardwaj and other staff had gone to spot i.e. H.No.331A, Gali No.17B, Krishna Colony, Gopal Nagar, where accused Seema met them. He further deposed that on inquiry, accused had disclosed that on 15.08.2015 at about 10.30 p.m., her husband Shri Om (since deceased) was in drunken condition and had given threat that "tere ko aur tere done bahcho ko maar dunga " and when Shri Om had tried to take knife, she had grabbed his neck from behind and due to which he fell down and thereafter, accused Seema observed that he was not taking breath and she assumed that her husband had died. He further stated that thereafter, she had kept the body of her husband in the bed and had also disclosed other things and she left the house with her children and had gone to her parental house at Gopal Nagar. He further deposed that accused Seema further told that on the following day, after leaving her children at her parental house, she had returned back to her house and had thrown the dead body of her husband in the sewer tank and the lid of the said sewer tank had been fixed with cement and thereafter, she had kept the washing machine on the State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 26/55 lid and at about 3:00-3:15 p.m, she had given the aforesaid information to her jethani namely Babli and thereafter, Babli had informed about the said fact to her husband Vishnu Prasad and brother of Seema namely Rajender and they had also reached there. He further deposed that she had given the said information to them also and thereafter, they had shifted the washing machine and after checking, they had found that the lid of sewer tank had been recently fixed with cement and thereafter, IO had informed to SDM, Najafgarh and called the Crime Branch Team through wireless set. He further stated that IO had also called private photographer and at about 8.30 p.m. private photographer had reached at the spot and at about 9.00 p.m. as per instruction of SDM, Tehsildar namely Suchet Singh had also reached there. He stated that at about 9:15 p.m., the Crime Team also reached at the spot and after inspecting the spot, Tehsildar had called some public persons and thereafter, the lid of the said sewer was opened. He further deposed that the videography and photography had been done by the photographer and a male dead body had been seen in the said sewer tank and the dead body had been identified by accused Seema, Rajender and Vishnu Prasad to be of Shri Om. He further deposed that Crime Team also inspected the spot and had prepared video and thereafter, the IO prepared rukka and had handed over the same to him at about 10:00 p.m. for registration of FIR and then he had gone to PS BHD Nagar and hd got the FIR of the present case registered. He stated that he had returned to the spot and had handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO at about 11.25 p.m. He further deposed that IO had conducted further proceedings and State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 27/55 had sent the dead body to RTRM Hospital and his statement was recorded by the IO. He correctly identified the accused.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein during his cross-examination, he stated that they had gone to spot from PS by QRT Gypsy and he did not remember the number of said vehicle and they were 8 persons including complainant namely Vishnu Prasad and Rajender. He further stated that they had left the police station at about 7:30 p.m and had reached at the spot at about 7:50 p.m. and the QRT Gypsy has been parked 50 meters away from the spot. He further stated that he did not remember whether the said house was a single storey or double storey and also how many room had been there in the said house and the house of the accused was situated in the residential area and he did not remember the colour of the said house. He denied that he did not visit the spot on 20.08.2015 alongwith IO Sheelwant Singh and other staff that is why he was not able to give the description of the spot/house of the accused. He further stated that he could not tell the name and number of public persons who were called by Tehsildar and he could not tell the number of the documents prepared by the IO at the spot from rukka. He further stated that he did not know whether the said bed had been made the case property or not by the IO and he did not know whether the signatures of accused Seema had been obtained on any document by the IO on 20.08.2025. He further stated that he had not been shown any photography or videography before the Court and he had never seen the photographs and videos which had been prepared at the spot on 20.08.2015 so he could not say whether the accused was seen in State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 28/55 said photographs and vidoes or not. He further stated that he could not tell the exact number of Crime Team members and their names and he could not tell how many persons had reached at the spot and he did not know whether accused Seema was arrested on 20.08.2015 or not. He admitted that his signatures did not appear on any document. He further denied the suggestions putforth to him.
6.21. PW-21/HC Suresh deposed that on 20.08.2015, he was member of Mobile Crime Team which was headed by SI Surender and he alongwith the Crime Team officials reached at the spot i.e. H.No.331A, Gali No.17 B, Krishna Colony, Najafgarh, New Delhi upon receipt of DD No.47A where IO alongwith other police staff were present. He further deposed that one body was found in Septic Tank of the said house and he had clicked the photographs of the spot including the septic tank having the body and the body was retrieved and taken out from the septic tank. He further deposed that he also clicked the photographs of the house as well as other articles and he handed over the photographs to IO after developing them. The witness identified the 17 photographs Ex.PW-21/A (colly) and negatives of the said photographs as Ex.PW-21B (colly).
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. During his cross-examination, he stated that he alongwith SI Surender and HC Rajender had reached at the spot at about 9.15 p.m on government vehicle and when he had taken photographs, 40-50 persons were present there and he had not issued the Certificate U/Sec.65 B of Indian Evidence Act. Further, he State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 29/55 denied the suggestions putforth to him.
6.22. PW-22 Inspector (retired) Sheelwant Singh deposed that on 20.08.2015, on receipt of DD No. 47 A, he along with staff and complainant Vishnu Prasad and Rajender had reached at H. No. 331/A Gali no. 17 B, Krishna Colony, Gopal Nagar, New Delhi at about 07:45 PM. He correctly identified the accused Seema who had met them at the aforesaid house and on enquiry, she had disclosed that on 15.08.2015, her husband had consumed liquor and at about 10:30 pm, a quarrel had taken place between her and her husband. He further deposed that she had further told that her husband had given abuses to her and also gave beatings and threatened to kill their children and had run to pick knife or rod and on this, she had caught hold his neck from behind and after some time, he had fallen unconscious. He further deposed that accused further told that she had put the body of her husband in a bed(Diwan) on that day and on the next day, she had thrown the body of her husband in a septic tank inside the house and covered the tank with the cover with the help of cement. He further deposed that accused further told that on the next day, she had gone to house of her mother along with the children and she could not stop to tell about the incident and on this, on 20.08.2015, she had narrated on phone about the entire incident at around 3:00/03:15 pm on telephone to her Jhethani Smt. Babli. He further deposed that he had informed the area SDM and after some time, Executive Magistrate, Sh. Suchet Singh had come at the spot and also called the crime team and a private photographer. He further deposed that after arrival of Sh. Suchet State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 30/55 Singh, Crime team and private photographer, the septic tank was opened and the entire proceedings were photographed and videographed by the photographer and on opening the septic tank, a male decomposed dead body was recovered which was identified by accused, Sh. Vishnu Prasad and Rajender as that of Sri Om. He further deposed that he had prepared rukka Ex. PW22/A and had sent HC Mahipal to the PS for registration of the case and after FIR, investigation was assigned to him. He stated that on inspection, the seat of toilet was found filled with the cement. He further deposed that during investigation, he had prepared site plan Ex. PW22/B and had filled Form 25.35 Ex. PW10/A and thereafter, the dead body of deceased was sent to mortuary RTRM hospital and SI Surender, In-charge Mobile Crime Team had prepared a report of inspection and handed over the same to him which he made part of record. He further deposed that on 21.08.2015, post mortem of the dead body was got conducted and after post mortem, the doctor handed over some sealed pullandas and sample seals to him which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW22/C and the dead body of deceased had been handed over to Vishnu Prasad. He further stated that on 22.08.2015, the accused was arrested, her personal search was conducted and her disclosure statement was recorded and the pointing out of one 'Dav' was prepared at her instance and one plastic gunny bag containing cement and one 'Chhoti Karni' were seized and thereafter, the case property was deposited in the malkhana. He further deposed that during investigation, he had recorded statement of witnesses and had sent the exhibits to FSL, collected call detail records and other relevant papers, State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 31/55 photographs, certificate u/s 65 B of IEA from the concerned persons and had got prepared scaled site plan, collected FSL report and had obtained subsequent opinion of the doctor. He stated that on completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. He further deposed that the reports of FSL were Ex. PW22/D and Ex. PW22/E. He correctly identified the case property i.e. 'Dav', Ex. PW18/P1, Karni Ex.PW22/P1 and the Gunny Bag Ex.PW-22/P2.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused wherein he stated that no written complaint was filed by Vishnu Prasad and Rajender on 20.08.2015 and he did not know whether the DD entry 47A contained the signature of Vishnu Prasad and Rajender. He further stated that there had been no signature of Vishnu Prasad and Rajender on DD No. 47A and he had left the police station at around 07:30 pm and had returned to police station at around 01:00 am on 21.08.2015. He further stated that he did not remember the DD entry by which he had returned to the police station and when he had reached at the spot on 20.08.2015, deceased's brother Rajender had told him about Seema. He stated that he did not remember whether he had mentioned the said fact during investigation. He denied that no one had told him about the identity of Seema or that Seema was not present on the spot on 20.08.2015. He further stated that he had not recorded any statement of Seema on 20.08.2015 and had not recorded statement of any witness on 20.08.2015 and had not seized the dewan (bed). He further stated that he did not remember whether he had seized any mobile and he had informed the SDM by mobile but he did not remember the said State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 32/55 mobile number and he informed the SDM at about 08:30 pm and SDM reached at the spot at around 09:00 pm alongwith UDC Pradeep. He further statement that he had not recorded the statement of UDC Pradeep. SDM had made him filled the Form 25.35 and there had been no signature present on the said form of SDM. Further, he denied the suggestions putforth to him. He further stated that he had not sealed the house after recovery of the body but the house had been locked and the keys was with him and he had no where mentioned that the house was locked by him and the keys were with him in investigation. He further stated that he did not remember whether he had paid the private photographer and he did not remember whether he had taken any bill from the private photographer and the lid of septic tank was opened with the help of public persons at the instance of SDM. He further stated that he had not written the statements of these public persons because they had refused for the same and he had not seized the lid of the septic tank. He further stated that the accused had not co-operated when asked about the lid of the septic tank and hence, there was no mention about the place from where she had purchased the same. He further stated that he had not written anywhere in the charge-sheet that accused did not co- operate in the investigation. He further stated that he had informed his seniors about the incident through police control room and SHO and ACP had visited the spot and he had not mentioned this fact in the charge-sheet. He further stated that he had not seized the documents of ownership of property of the alleged incident and he did not record statement of any person from the neighbourhood. He further stated that the measurements State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 33/55 of the septic tank were not taken and the Site Plan was prepared on the pointing out of accused and as per his own observation and no pointing out memo was prepared and the signatures of accused and any police official were not taken on any site plan. He further stated that at the time of seizure of Dau, karni and cememt, no public/panch witnesses was present and the Crime team did not handover any exhibit. He voluntarily stated that the report was submitted by the crime team and he had not prepared any site plan about the place of seizure of Dav, Karni and cement. He denied that no such site plan of recovery was prepared because the same had not been seized from the place. He stated that the broken concrete around the cover of septic tank had not been seized and the safety equipments had not been called for before entering the septic tank because the tank was empty. He further stated that he did not remember if any request was made for the videography of the postmortem examination and the dead body was decomposed apparently at the time of recovery. He further stated that that no request for DNA was made. The witness was further shown the carbon copy of memo handing over /taking over of deceased dated 21.08.2015 Ex.PW22/DA encircled portion 'X' where it was written that "received dead body with death slip dated 20.08.2015" and he stated that that date 20.08.2015 was of death slip and not of handing over the dead body which was 21.08.2015 which was mentioned under his signatures. He further stated that the person, namely, Sh. Kailash had been found the subscriber of the mobile phone xxxxxx3493 which the accused was allegedly using was not joined in the investigation and cited as a witness in this case. Further, he State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 34/55 denied the suggestions putforth to him.
6.23. PW-23/Dr. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Director, Biology, FSL, Rohini, New Delhi deposed that on 14.09.2015, two sealed parcels in connection with case were received in the FSL and the same were marked to him for examination and the seals on the parcels were found intact as per forwarding letter. He further stated that the parcels were opened and the contents of the same were examined by him. He further deposed that he prepared a detailed report of examination Ex.PW22/E and the remnants of the exhibits had been sealed with the seal of "IKMFSLDELHI" and the serological was Ex.PW23/A which was the part of report Ex.PW22/E. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the accused Seema. During his cross-examination, he stated that he did not have any concern with the cause of death and the samples were sent to the lab for examination of blood and its analysis.
6.24. PW-24/Ms. Isha deposed that accused Seema is her mother and deceased Late Sh. Shriom was her father and in the year 2015, she had been residing at House No. 331A, Gali No. 17B, Krishna Colony, Najafgarh, New Delhi alongwith her parents and my younger brother, namely, Jatin. She further deposed that her mama (maternal uncle), mami (maternal aunt) had been residing with his maternal grandmother (nani) at House No. R-26, Gali No. 23, M-Block, Gopal Nagar, M D. Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi and at that time, she was studying in Class V in New Holy Faith Public School, Krishna Colony and her brother Jatin had State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 35/55 been also studying in the same school in 2 nd Standard and her father Sh. Shriom was a driver and her mother was doing the job of stitching at home. She further deposed that her father used to drink occasionally during attending any function and the relations between her mother and father had been cordial. She further deposed that on 15.08.2015, again said, on 10.08.2015, her father was out of Delhi and due to this, she alongwith her mother (accused) and her brother had gone to house of her nani at Gopal Nagar, New Delhi for attending a function of totabandhai. She voluntarily stated that they had not returned home till 22.08.2015 and stayed there and in the last of August 2015, approximately on 29th or 30th August, her taiji Smt. Neeta came to their house of nani and she took her and her brother Jatin to our native place at Village Kharar, District : Rohtak, Haryana and on the way to Village Kharar, her taiji Smt. Neeta told them that her father had expired and due to this reason, she was taking them to their native village and she remained in Village Kharar till teharvi of her father. She further deposed that someone from the neighbourhood informed her mama Sh. Rajender that their house at Krishna Colony, Najafgarh, New Delhi had beem opened for the last 3-4 days and on this her mama had gone there to check their house and she had lastly seen her father in the month of July, 2015. She voluntarily stated that most of the time, he used to be out of Delhi for his job. She further deposed that on 15.08.2015, she was not present at her home and she had not seen her father on that day and she did not know anything more about this case and police never examined her in this case.
She was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State. During State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 36/55 her cross-examination, she denied that on 15.08.2015, she was present at her home at House No. 331A, Gali No. 17B, Krishna Colony, Najafgarh, New Delhi with her mother (accused Seema) and her brother Jatin. She further denied that on 15.08.2015, her father had gone to house of her bua guddi in day time for giving seedha and had returned home at around 07/7:30 pm and at that time, he was drunk. She voluntarily stated that on 15.08.2015, she was not present at her home and she was at the house of her nani. She denied that on 15.08.2015, her father had come home with Sanju uncle or at that time she and her brother had been watching T.V. and after taking dinner, they both had slept. She further denied that she woke-up on hearing the noise of quarrel between her father and mother and she had seen that both had been quarreling and her father started throwing clothes from the almirah and on this, her mother had taken her and her brother on the roof and made them sleep there. She further denied that she and her brother woke up on the next date i.e. on 16.08.2015 at about 08/09:00 am and came down and found that clothes were lying near the gate of their house and her father was missing from the house and she further denied that she asked her mother (accused) about her father and she told that after quarreling, he had gone from the house. She further denied that on 16.08.2015, they remained at home and on that day, a small snake was found in the house and due to this in the night, they had gone to the house of Poonam aunty for sleeping after having food. She further denied that on 17.08.2015, in the morning, after taking bath at the roof of their house, she and her brother had gone to school and when they had returned at around 01:30 pm from the State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 37/55 school, she found "mummy gatar ka dhakkan lagwa rahi thi" . She further denied that her brother had gone to tuition and when she was sitting on a chabutra in the neighbourhood and was working homework of the school, thereafter, she had gone to play with one boy whom they used to call murgi. She further denied that her mother was not well and on this, they had taken her to a doctor near house of her nani and thereafter, they had gone to house of our nani and stayed there in the night. She further denied that on 18.08.2015 at about 06:00 - 06:30 am, they came to their home at Krishna Colony and after taking bath, they had gone to school and after returning from school, she alongwith her mother and brother had gone to our bua Ramrati, Badoli, District Sonipat. She further denied that after two days on 20.08.2015, in the afternoon, they had returned to their home with her mother and found that in the laterine, cement was pasted and the pipe of laterine was covered with a cloth so she asked her mother about the same, she told her that there had been bad smell from the laterine, therefore, she had fixed cement and covered the pipe with a cloth to avoid the bed smell. She further denied that thereafter her mother had sent her and her mother to house of her mausi Sukan and told them that she would come after sometime. She further denied that after reaching home at their mausi, asked them to watch TV and told that she would be returning after sometime. She further denied that in the night after taking dinner prepared by Rekha didi, they slept in the house of mausi. She denied that on 21.08.2015, her taiji Smt. Neeta had taken her and her brother Jatin to Village Kharar and on the way, she told her that her father had been murdered by her mother (accused) and State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 38/55 thereafter, they stayed in Village Kharar for 4-5 days. She denied that she was examined by the police on 06.09.2015 and her statement was recorded by the police and she had stated the aforesaid facts to the police in her statement Mark PW6/A. She further denied that she had concocted the story that she had gone to house of her nani on 10.08.2015 or since the accused Seema is her mother, she is deliberately not deposing against her in order to save her. She further deposed that she has been residing with her mother (accused) for the last about 5-6 years. She voluntarily stated that earlier she had been residing with her nani. She admitted that after release of accused on bail, she is residing with her. She voluntarily stated that she is the only caretaker of her.
She was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
6.25. PW-25/Retd. SI Surender Singh deposed that on 20.08.2015, on the requisition of local police, he along with HC Suresh, Photographer and fingerprint expert HC Ashok Kumar reached the spot H. No. 331 A, Gali No. 17B, Krishna colony, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi at about 09.15 PM and he inspected the scene of crime and prepared a detailed report of inspection. He deposed that the scene of spot was photographed by HC Suresh Kumar and his Inspection report was Ex.PW-25/A. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused wherein he stated that no chance prints were lifted from the spot as the same had not been found there and one iron karni and some cement were lifted from the spot and the same had been handed over to local police. He further stated that he did not know whether any seizure memo had been prepared at the spot or State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 39/55 not. Further, he denied the suggestions putforth to him.
6.26. PW-26/ASI Raj Kumar deposed that on 21.08.2015, Inspector Sheelwant Singh had deposited four sealed pullandas and two sample seal pertaining to this case in the malkhana with him and he had made entry to that effect in register no. 19 vide entry no. 1098 Ex.PW-26/A(OSR). He further deposed that on 22.08.2015, Inspector Sheelwant Singh had deposited two sealed pullandas pertaining to this case in the malkhana with him and he had made entry to this effect in register no. 19 vide entry no. 1100 Ex.PW-26/B(OSR). He further deposed that on 09.09.2015 on the instruction of IO and SHO, one sealed pullanda pertaining viscera of deceased and sample seal and FSL form had been sent to FSL Rohini through Constable Satender vide RC No. 138/21/15 and after returning from the FSL, he brought the receipt of FSL and handed over the same to him. He further deposed that the copy of RC was Ex.PW-26/C(OSR) and the copy of Receipt was Ex.PW-26/D(OSR) and on 14.09.2015 on the instruction of IO and SHO, two sealed pullandas, sample seal and FSL form had been sent to FSL Rohini through Constable Hansraj vide RC No. 141/21/15 and after returning from the FSL he brought the receipt of FSL and handed over the same to him. He further deposed that the copy of RC was Ex.PW-26/E(OSR) and copy of Receipt Ex.PW-26/F(OSR) and till the pullandas and sample seals remained in his custody and the same had not been tampered with.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions putforth State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 40/55 to him.
6.23. PW-22/Inspector (Retd.) Sheelwant Singh was re- examined under Section 311 Cr.P.C vide order dated 24.09.2024 and he identified the proceedings in the CD already Ex.PW-9/C of the videography conducted at the spot.
On being cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused, he stated that CD Ex.PW-9/C on being played on laptop, he admitted that in the videography in CD Ex.PW-9/C, no date and time was shown in the videography Ex.PW-22/X. He denied that the video in CD was of different clips and admitted that accused Seema was not visible in the video Ex.PW-22/X in CD Ex.PW-9/C. He denied that the alleged dead body had not been recovered at the instance of accused Seema. He voluntarily stated that she was standing outside. He stated that no pointing out memo had been prepared and the videography was only inside of house. He admitted that accused Seema was nowhere seen in Ex.PW-22/X and by the time, the dead body had been allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Seema, she was not arrested in the present case. He further stated that there was no document on record to show that the house was belonging to accused Seema. He voluntarily stated that the accused was residing there with her husband and admitted that no house number or any name plate were seen in the video Ex.PW-22/X and the adjoining plots of the house on both sides were vacant. He again said that only one side plot was vacant and the statement of the neighboring plot had not been recorded and only oral enquiry was made. He further stated that the material i.e. iron cover and State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 41/55 piece of concrete had not been seized by him and no sample of the deceased was taken by him for DNA matching and the statements of the persons who had dug the septic tank, were not recorded. He voluntarily stated that they were not inclined to become witness and they had joined the digging process only on the condition that they would not be made witnesses in this case. He further stated that he had not served any written notice upon them for not becoming witness and giving their statement or the dead body of deceased had not been recovered from the house of accused Seema.
Witness Sh. Jitender, SSO, (Chemistry) was dropped by Ld. Addl. PP for the state from the list of witnesses as his report was per se admissible under Section 294 Cr.P.C. Moreover, metallic poison, ethyl, methyl alcohol and pesticides etc. could not be detected in the exhibits and the said report has already been exhibited as Ex.PW22/D during the testimony of Inspector Sheelwant.
7. On completion of Prosecution Evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and her statement was recorded on 15.07.2025. During his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied having knowledge of the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against her and stated that she had been falsely implicated in the present case and she came to know about the death of her husband after his death. She further stated that she was at her mother's house for the last 10 days at the time of alleged incident and did not know how her husband was murdered.
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 42/55
8. At the stage of Defence evidence, accused Seema did not wish to lead Defence Evidence.
9. Final arguments heard on behalf of Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State and counsel for accused. Record perused. Considered.
10. At the stage of final arguments, the Counsel for the Accused argued that the circumstantial evidence did not form the complete chain of evidence to prima facie establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He further stated that the body of deceased was found in a decomposed condition and it has not been proved or established that the accused had concealed the dead body of her deceased husband in her house. It is submitted that all the evidence was hearsay evidence and the material public witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem after 6 days and the DNA sample of the dead body was not taken for the purpose of identification. It is submitted that the compliance of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act was also not done at the time of recovery of dead body of the deceased. It is submitted that the evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused and the accused be acquitted in the present case.
11. Per-contra, it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Chief PP for the state that there is incriminating evidence to prima facie State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 43/55 establish the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of accused and the videogrpahy placed on record corroborates the same. It is further stated that PW-7/Babli to whom the accused had informed about the commission of murder has withstood of the test of the cross-examination and has corroborated the case of the prosecution. It is prayed that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused and hence, it is prayed that the accused be convicted in the present case.
12. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Seema had made telephonic call to her sister-in-law Babli Devi on 20.08.2015 and asked her to come to her house as the deceased Om Prakash had died 4-5 days ago. It is further stated that accused had also told Babli Devi that she had scuffle with her husband (since deceased) and this scuffle she had pressed his throat and stated that deceased Sri Om was lying in the pot hole. It is further alleged that PW-7/Babli Devi thereafter called her husband Vishnu Prasad who is the brother of the deceased and had narrated all the facts to him as told to her by accused Seema. It is further case of the prosecution that the brother of the accused and husband of Babli Devi, Vishnu Prasad, thereafter went to the police station and informed to police. It is the case of the prosecution that during investigation, it was found that the accused had on 15.08.2015 at about 10.30 p.m. grabbed the neck of the deceased when he had come home drunk and had threatened the accused that he would kill her and had taken out a knife and thereafter, the accused grabbed his neck from behind State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 44/55 due to which he fell down. Further, it is the case of the prosecution is that when the accused Seema apprehended that her husband was not breathing, she assumed that her husband had died and had kept the body of the deceased in the bed. Further, it is also found in the investigation, the accused alongwith her children left to her parental home and returned back on the next day and threw the body of the deceased in the sewer tank and got the lid of the sewer tank fixed with cement and kept a washing machine on the top of it.
FINDINGS FOR THE COMMISSION OF OFFENCE U/SEC.302 IPC:-
13. In the present case, the prosecution has examined the following material public witnesses namely PW-4/Vishnu Prasad, PW-6/Krishan, PW-7/Babli Devi, PW-11/Sunil Kumar, PW-12/Pradeep, Pw-24/Isha and PW-13/Rajeev.
13.1. PW-4/Vishnu Prasad who was one of the informant who alongwith Krishan had gone to the police station to inform about the commission of the offence by accused Seema. It is pertinent to mention that PW-4/Vishnu Prasad has stated during his deposition that on 20.08.2015, he had received a call at about 3.00/3.30 p.m. from his wife on his mobile phone who had told him that accused Seema had called his wife and was in a perplexed condition and on enquiry, accused Seema had told her wife that about 5 days had passed since the death of her husband and his wife explained all the things to him. He further stated that State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 45/55 he reached home and he alongwith his wife to the house of his deceased brother at Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh. He also deposed that he had met the brother of accused Rajender there and he alongwith the brother of accused Rajender went to police station Bahadurgarh Nagar and disclosed all the facts. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state and he had denied that his wife had informed him that accused Seema had told him that 4 days earlier she had committed the murder of her husband and the dead body was put into Gutter. It is pertinent to mention that this witness denied all the other suggestions putforth by Ld. Addl. PP for the state. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, he admitted that his relations with the deceased brother were not cordial. In this context, it is pertinent to mention in the entire deposition, the brother of the deceased has nowhere stated that his wife had informed him that accused Seema told his wife that she had committed the murder of his husband and thereafter put the dead body in the gutter.
13.2. The said witness is not the material witness and PW-7 his wife Babli Devi deposed that on 20.08.2015 that accused Seema had made telephonic call to come to her house and deceased Om had died 4-5 days ago. She further stated that accused Seema had told her that she had scuffle with her husband and further told that she had pressed the throat in the scuffle and the dead body was lying in the pot. She further deposed that she asked her husband to come home and thereafter, she alongwith her husband went to the matrimonial home of the deceased and then to the parental home of the accused Seema but on enquiry no clue could be found. She further stated that she had not met the deceased, State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 46/55 his children and wife between 01.08.2015 and 25.08.2015 nor there was telephonic call between her and any family member of accused Seema from 01.08.2015 to 25.08.2015 except call on 20.08.2015. She further stated that it requires mentioning that the brother of accused was not made a witness despite taking evidence on record that he had gone alongwith Vishnu Prasad to PS BHD Nagar to inform about the same. The crucial witness in the present case is PW-7/Babli Devi who is the person to whom purportedly accused Seema called on 20.08.2015 to inform that she had committed the murder of the deceased in a scuffle and had concealed his dead body. To prove this extra judicial confession of the accused, it is seen that the prosecution examined PW-7/Babli Devi and PW-4/Vishnu Prasad while PW-7/Babli Devi has stated during his cross-examination that she could not tell her mobile number and she also not told the exact time when she had called her husband and when he had come back to home. Further, it is pertienent to mention that the husband of Babli Devi, Vishnu Prasad to whom she had purportedly passed on the information has denied that his wife Babli Devi had denied that accused Seema had confessed about murdering her husband and putting her body in the pot.
14. It is settled proposition of law that extra judicial confession is very weak type of evidence and it should be accepted with circumspection and should be gently corroborated with other material particulars.
15. It is further seen that PW-6/Kishan who is the younger State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 47/55 brother of deceased stated that on 20.08.2015 he was at his shop at 4.30 p.m. when he received a telephonic call from his wife that Seema had called her. He stated that he alongwith his wife went to the parental house of Seema and thereafter, he alongwith Rajender brother of accused went to the residence of deceased Om and when they reached there, the police was already there. It is pertinent to mention that while PW-4/Vishnu Prasad has stated that the brother of accused was alongwith him when they went to PS to inform on 20.08.2015. PW-6/Krishan has stated that he had gone to the parental house of the accused alongwith Rajender. This witness also resiled from his previous statement and did not support the case of the prosecution.
16. It is pertinent to mention that PW-24/Isha who is the daughter of deceased and accused who stated that on 10.08.2015 and again stated on 15.08.2015 she alongwith her mother (accused ) and brother Jatin had gone to Nani House to Gopal Nagar to attend the function and did not return back to home till 22.08.2015. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State where she denied all the suggestions putforth to her. Thus, it is seen that the family members of the deceased who were purportedly given information by the accused herself on 20.08.2015 that she had committed the murder of her husband 4- 5 days prior to that and thereafter put his body in a pit could not be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Thus, the hearsay confession of the accused Seema that she had committed the murder of her husband to her sister-in-law State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 48/55 has not substantially proved by any corroborative evidence. In fact the testimony of PW-4 is that of hearsay evidence and is based on the knowledge which he purportedly received from PW-7/Babli Devi who is his wife. PW-7/Babli does not remember her mobile number during her cross-examination and she could also not tell the mobile number from which Seema had purportedly had called her on 20.08.2015. It is thus seen that the material public witnesses including the complainant have not supported the case of the prosecution in toto. Though, PW-7 Babli stated that she has informed telephonically by the accused that she had committed the murder of her husband, the said hearsay evidence has not been proved conclusively during the trial.
18. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond doubt and have to be connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstance, the cumulative effects of circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond reasonable doubt.
19. It is also pertinent to mention that no chanceprints were lifted from the spot and the iron karni and the cement which was used to seal the pit was also not sent for examination. It is further come on record during the deposition of PW-22/Retired Inspector Sheelwant Singh that he had not recorded the statement of Seema on 20.08.2015 and he had also not seized the dewan (bed) in State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 49/55 which the accused had put the dead body of the deceased prior to disposing of the same in the pit. It also requires mentioning that he had not seized any mobile phone. It also requires mentioning that PW-22 IO/Retired Inspector Sheelwant Singh has stated during his cross-examination that the lid of the septic tank was opened with the help of public persons at the instance of SDM, however, he had not written the statement of public persons because they had refused. IO had also stated during his cross- examination that there was no mention in the charge-sheet from where the accused had purchased the same since she had not disclosed about the same during the investigation.
20. PW-11/Sunil Kumar was a tractor driver who had purportedly emptied the lavatory pit from the inside the house of accused by using pipe after removing iron cover from the sewer. This witness also did not support the case of the prosecution but admitted that he had received the call on 17.08.2015 in this regard. PW-11/Sunil Kumar deposed that on 17.08.2015 accused Seema had come to him and asked to get the Chamber of safety tank enlarged and put a big lid there. He stated that he made the upper hole of the safety tank into bigger one. He was given Rs.6,000/- as labour charges. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had got the sewer pit cleaned and thereafter, had got the safety tank enlarged and had got a bigger lid for the same on 17.08.2015 and the dead body of Sri Om was recovered from the said pit. In this context, it is pertinent to mention that none of the two witnesses examined namely PW-11 and PW-12 has stated that they have seen the accused Seema committing the murder of State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 50/55 the deceased or that she wanted to dispose of the dead body of her husband in the said tank or that she had even seen the dead body of the deceased at the time when they were working inside the house of accused on 17.08.2015.
21. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, in view of the aforesaid facts, evidence and discussions as adumbrated above, the Charge U/Sec.302 of murder could not be established conclusively in the present case qua accused Seema.
FINDINGS FOR THE COMMISSION OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 201 IPC:-
22. Further, it is also pertinent to mention that even from the perusal of the video pertaining to the dead body of deceased vide Ex.PW-9/C, which was played in the court, accused Seema cannot be seen. Infact, PW-9/Anil Kumar who was the photographer/videographer who had taken photographs and also videographed, the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from H.No.331, Krishna Colony Gali No.17 B, Najafgarh, has stated during deposition that a lady was seen sitting there under a veil but has no where it has been stated by the said witness that the lady was accused Seema. It also requires mention that the entire video is undated and untimed and there is no mention of address of the house in the said video from the alleged recovery had taken place and further, this witness PW-9 has admitted that the CD was prepared with the copy of the images of the Digital Camera. Therefore, it is seen that the defence has to able to cast a State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 51/55 doubt as to authenticity of CD as well as the allegations of the prosecution that the dead body of deceased Sri Om was recovered at the instance of accused Seema and in her presence.
23. The complicity of the accused could have been proved by the ocular evidence or circumstantial evidence. The ocular witness turned hostile and the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to infer the guilt of accused. It is well settled law that to convict the accused on circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of events pointing towards the guilt of the accused and no other. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343, that:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
24. In case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Hon'ble Apex Court had State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 52/55 laid down the test which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (2) The circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established; (3) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, State Vs. Mohd. Khalil FIR No. 148/2017, PS Chandni Mahal 9 of 11 that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (4) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency; (5) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (6) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must so that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
25. In Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406, it was held that the suspicion however, grave cannot take the place of proof and prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" "true" but has to upgraded in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture.
26. The court must always bear in mind that the circumstances proved should be so strong as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and no one else.
State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 53/55
27. It is well settled law that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused has a right to maintain silence in the trial. Every accused is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave cannot take place of proof.
28. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Charge U/Sec.201 IPC has not been proved during trial beyond reasonable doubt qua accused Seema in the present case.
CONCLUSION:-
29. In the present case, the main star witnesses of the prosecution along with other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution to prove the complicity of the accused in the commission of the present offence. The circumstantial evidence is insufficient and does not form complete chain of events leading to the inescapable conclusion of guilt of accused.
30. Thus, this Court unflinchingly holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused by leading convincing or cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to discharge the burden placed upon it and State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 54/55 therefore, the accused is entitled to be exonerated.
31. Resultantly, the accused Seema is hereby acquitted of the Charges U/Sec. 302/201 IPC.
32. Bail Bonds u/s. 480 BNSS (U/Sec. 437-A Cr. P.C). furnished and accepted, which shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
33. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN GURMOHINA KAUR by GURMOHINA COURT ON 12.09.2025. KAUR Date: 2025.09.12 (Gurmohina16:34:42 Kaur) +0530 ASJ-05 (South- West), Dwarka Courts, Delhi State Vs. Seema FIR No. 472/2015 Page No. 55/55