Delhi District Court
State vs Poonam Rani on 21 April, 2012
In the court of Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, Additional Sessions Judge,
South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 123/2010.
In the matter of :
State
Versus
Poonam Rani,
W/o Kuldeep Singh,
R/o 39, Village Shahpur Jat,
New Delhi.
FIR No. : 269/2010.
Under section. : 302 IPC.
Police Station : Hauz Khas.
Case received on : 06.12.2010.
Reserved for order on : 20.03.2012.
Date of decision : 09.04.2012.
J U D G M E N T
1. Standards of proof to convict a person on circumstantial evidence has been couched by the Apex Court in the proposition that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. Those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt State v. Poonam Rani Page No.1/52 of the accused, when taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. It needs no reminder that legally established circumstances and not merely anguish of the court can form basis of conviction and more serious the crime the greater should be the care taken to scrutinize the evidence, least suspicion takes place of proof.
2. Whether the prosecution could establish a complete chain of evidence which is conclusive in nature and consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and inconsistent his innocence? For an answer fact of the present case gain importance. Vide DD no.58A dated 06/07.08.2010, police was informed about entering of thieves in the house no.39, Shahpur Jat and they had attacked the grandmother. The above said information was assigned to SI Narender Kumar. SI Narender Kumar along with HC Rajan reached to the spot. In the meanwhile, Inspector Rajiv Kumar had also State v. Poonam Rani Page No.2/52 arrived at the spot, where he found blood in a large quantity scattered at the bichhoni lying on the floor of the living room at 5th floor. Blood was also found scattered on the dewan lying in the same room. Another dewan was also having blood stains. Left and right walls were also found blood stained. Iron almirah lying inside the room was found open but no article was found touched or tampered. In the meanwhile, Sharvan Devi, deceased, was sent to AIIMS hospital where her MLC was prepared and doctor declared her dead at 3.30am on 07.08.2010. Statement of Poonam Rani was recorded. In her statement, she has stated that she is graduate from Delhi University. Her house is five storeys. She resides with her fatherin law and motherinlaw. Her husband has five brothers and he is the youngest. Rajesh has been living in other side of the building. In the same floor at the right side her brotherinlaw Mahabir is residing along with his family. Her husband Kuldeep, her elder brotherin laws Dharambir and Rajesh along with their sons had gone to Haridwar for taking kanwad. Her motherinlaw and fatherinlaw have been living at the barsati floor constructed above the fifth floor. Her motherinlaw has been sleeping with her in those days because her husband had gone for taking kanwad. She closed the door of the house and went to sleep in the front room after putting the AC on. At about 1.30am in the night, she woke up and saw two boys talking State v. Poonam Rani Page No.3/52 with her motherinlaw addressing her as mausimausi. She thought perhaps they were known to her motherinlaw and they were saying to her motherinlaw to give them whatever she had. Her motherin law told them that she has a large family and she will call them. In the meanwhile, one person went inside and another person was outside having iron rod in his hand and he whacked the iron rod on the head of her motherinlaw because her motherinlaw was talking in loud voice. At that time light was on of the Pooja room and the light was coming to her room and due to which she had seen clearly. Her motherinlaw had cried aloud when she was whacked. The same person had given three and four blows on the head of her motherinlaw. Her motherinlaw had fallen on the bed and thereafter crying haihai and fell down on the bichhoni lying on the floor. Assailants had asked her to keep silent the female child. In the meanwhile, the person who entered inside the room had come out and had gone outside. Assailants had also taken weapon of offence with them and did not enter inside the room. She had put on the light and found her motherinlaw lying on the floor. She had informed her sisterinlaw Santosh and cried loudly. Her botherinlaw and sisterinlaw had come to her room and woke other family members. Thereafter, her family members had taken her motherinlaw to the hospital in Maruti van. They had returned from midway because her State v. Poonam Rani Page No.4/52 motherinlaw was died in the way. Police was informed. Police had taken her motherinlaw to the hospital. Later on she came to know that her motherinlaw was declared dead. She had also stated that the above said incident was done by two unknown persons who had attacked her motherinlaw by heavy iron rod. The above said statement was got endorsed by the police and got registered the case under section 302 IPC. During the course of investigation, IO had collected the evidence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the complainant Poonam Rani in the present case stating that it was Poonam Rani who had killed her motherinlaw. Accused Poonam Rani was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the IO filed the charge sheet in the court for trial.
3. After being heard, vide order dated 13.12.2010, accused Poonam Rani was charged for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has relied upon as many as thirty five witnesses namely, Kuldeep Singh, Smt. Santosh, Som Prakash, Ram Prakash Panda, Bhim Singh, Mahabir, Rajesh, Mahender Singh, Smt. Bala, Gokul, Mustafa, Wasim, Dr. Rajender Kumar, Sh. Parshuram Singh, Nodal Officer Vodafone, State v. Poonam Rani Page No.5/52 Nodal Officer, MTNL, Dr. Madan Kumar, Dr. Adarsh Kumar, Dr. Ashish Jain, Dr. Shashank Poonia, SI Mahesh Kumar, HC Rajan, SI Narender Kumar, W Ct. Sonioka, HC Lallu Ram, HC Kishore Kumar, Kuldeep, Ct. Sunder ASI Mohammad Swaley, W Ct. Mukesh, SI Jitender Kumar, Ct. Dinesh, Ct. Mukesh Kumar, Ct. Rajender Singh and Inspector Rajiv. In fact, the prosecution has examined thirty three witness.
5. The prosecution evidence consists of three sets of evidence. The first set of evidence consists of oral testimony of Kuldeep Singh, Smt. Santosh, Om Prakash, Ram Prakash, Bhim Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Mahender Singh, Mahabir Singh, Smt. Bala, Mohd. Wasim, examined as PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW11, PW12, PW13, PW14 and PW28 respectively. The second set of evidence consists of medical evidence of Dr. Adarsh Kumar, Dr. Ashish Jain, Dr. Shashank Punia, Dr. Rajender Kumar and Dr. Madan Kumar examined as PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9 respectively. Remaining evidence is of the police officials who had carried out the investigation or helped in carrying out the investigation of the present case.
6. PW18 is women Ct. Sonika, who had received a call in the State v. Poonam Rani Page No.6/52 police control room at about 2.23am about entering the thief at house no.39, Shahapur Jat and my mother had been hit. The caller number is 9868910445. She recorded the said call at police head quarter and transferred to the police station Hauz Khas. She also proved the copy of the form no.1, recorded at PCR, as Ex.PW18/A. PW20 ASI Mohd. Swalay had recorded the above said information sent from the police head quarter and recorded DD entry at serial no. no.58 in register A. He has proved the said entry as Ex.PW20/A. That call was assigned for inquiry to SI Narender Kumar. At about 5.15am, he had got registered the FIR on the basis of rukka sent by Inspector Rajiv Kumar through Ct. Sunder. After registration of the case, he handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Sunder. He also proved the copy of the FIR as Ex.PW20/B. He further deposed that on 17.08.2010 SI Narender Kumar brought three sealed pullandas sealed with seal of hospital, postmortem report along with inquest papers. The same were handed over to him and he prepared the seizure memo and proved the same as Ex.PW20/C in regard to the handing over the said sealed pullandas and seal and obtained the signatures of SI Narender. Sealed parcels and sample seal were deposited by him in the malkhana on the same day and handed over the seizure memo to the IO. PW21 HC Rajan was entrusted the copy of the DD no.58A and 85B by the duty officer with instruction State v. Poonam Rani Page No.7/52 to hand over the same to SI Narender Kumar and he handed over the same to SI Narender Kumar. PW22 Ct. Rajender Singh was working as Rojnamcha Munshi on 07.08.2010 in the police station Hauz Khas. He had recorded DD no.85B on receiving an information from AIIMS by Ct. Kripal Singh. He had brought this DD no.85B in the court and proved the same as Ex.PW22/A. PW23 Ct. Mukesh Kumar had taken sealed parcel no.1 to 24 along with two sample seals to FSL vide RC no.95/21 on 28.10.2010. He had handed over the acknowledgment receipt to the MHC(M). PW24 Ct. Kuldeep Singh was the special messenger and he had delivered the copy of FIR to the Illaka Magistrate and other senior officers at their residences at the instruction of the duty officer on 07.08.2010. PW10 SI Mahesh Kumar was posted as Draftsman in Crime Branch. He had visited the spot along with Inspector Rajiv Kumar on 18.10.2010 and took rough notes and measurements of the spot. Subsequently he prepared a scaled site plan and proved the same as Ex.PW10/A.
7. PW25 SI Jitendra Kumar had gone to house no.39, village Shahpur Jat, at fifth floor on being informed by the police control room and inspected the scene of crime. He has proved his report as Ex.PW25/A, bearing his signature at point A. PW29 Ct. Dinesh was State v. Poonam Rani Page No.8/52 posted with crime team South District as photographer. On 07.08.2010 he visited the house no.39, Shahpur Jat, Delhi and took photographs of the room where blood was lying. He had taken 34 photographs. He also proved the said photographs as Ex.PW29/A1 to A34 and the negatives of the same as Ex.PW29/B1 to B34.
8. PW26 HC Lallu Ram had brought the summoned record i.e. Register no.19 and the RC register in the court. He deposed that on 07.08.2010 and 08.08.2010, he was working as MHC(M) and on both dates, SI Inspector Rajiv Kumar deposited sealed parcels. He further deposed that on 17.08.2010 SI Narender Kumar had also deposited more sealed parcels and sample seal in the malkhana. He made an entry in register no.19 at serial no. 1917, 1918 and 1932 in this regard. He further deposed that on 28.10.2010 he had sent the sealed parcels and the sample seal to FSL Rohini through Ct. Mukesh Kumar vide RC no.95/21 of that day and on 23.02.2011, the sealed parcels and the results were received from FSL Rohini. He further deposed that he handed over the result to the IO and retained the parcels in the malkhana. He made an entry in register no.19 to this effect. He also proved the copy of register no.19 containing the above entries as Ex.PW26/A, copy of RC vide which the sealed parcels were sent to FSL Rohini as Ex.PW26/B and the copy of acknowledgment of State v. Poonam Rani Page No.9/52 deposit issued by the FSL Rohini as Ex.PW26/C.
9. PW17 Sh. Israr Babu, Nodal Officer from Vodafone had brought the summoned record i.e. Original prepaid application form of mobile no.9711822167. As per record, this number was allotted to Sh. Kuldeep Pawar, S/o Sh. Bhim Pawar. He has proved the copy of the said application as Ex.PW17/A and copy of the ID proof as Mark PW17/A. He also proved the call detail record as Ex.PW17/B and the certificate under section 65 B of the Evidence Act as Ex.PW17/C. PW27 Sh. Sunil Kumar, Nodal Officer had also brought the summoned record in respect of mobile phone no.9868910445, allotted to Sh. Ram Kumar. He proved the copy of the customer application form as Ex.PW27/A, copies of the identity proof of the customer as mark PW27/A, mark 27/B and mark 27/C and the copy of acknowledgment as mark PW27/D. He also proved the call detail record of the said number as Ex.PW27/B running into two pages for 06.08.2010 and 07.08.2010.
10. PW31 SI Narender Kumar was assigned the DD no.58A for preliminary inquiry on 07.08.2010. He along with Ct. Sunder went to house no.39, Shahpur Jat and found one Rajesh taking his mother to hospital in maruti van. He also followed them and went to AIIMS State v. Poonam Rani Page No.10/52 hospital where the doctors declared the mother of Rajesh namely Mrs. Sharvan Devi as brought dead. Thereafter, he came back to the spot and found Inspector Rajiv there and went to 5th floor of the house. Several teams like crime team, finger print bureau and FSL officials were at the spot. He further deposed that he went to AIIMS mortuary and got the postmortem done on the dead body. He recorded the statements of witnesses regarding identification of the dead body. The dead body was handed over to the husband of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW5/B bearing my signature at point X. He had also filled up the inquest papers and proved the same as Ex.PW31/B and request for postmortem as Ex.PW31/C. He further deposed that he brought the team of doctors to the spot for getting the same inspected. He further deposed that he again joined the investigation of this case on 17.08.2010 and had brought sealed parcels from AIIMS hospital, inquest papers, the postmortem report and sealed parcel are handed over to duty officer ASI Mohd. Swaley. The seizure memo is Ex.PW20/C bearing my signature at point B.
11. PW33 Ct. Sunder had accompanied SI Narender Kumar Ojha to house no.39, Shahpur Jat on receipt of a call by him on 07.08.2010. He deposed that at the spot, one Rajesh was taking his mother Smt. Sharvan Devi to hospital in a Maruti van. He further deposed that he State v. Poonam Rani Page No.11/52 along with SI Narender Ojha went to AIIMS hospital with Rajesh and the injured Smt. Sharvan Devi was declared as brought dead. He further deposed that they came back to the spot i.e. 39, Fifth Floor, Shahpur Jat and found blood lying on the floor of the room as well as on the bed. SI Narender Ojha recorded the statement of Smt. Poonam Rani. A rukka was prepared on that statement and was given to him for registration of the case. He got the case registered and came back to the spot with original rukka and copy of FIR. He further deposed that the team of doctors from AIIMS hospital visited the spot. He further deposed that he had checked the doors and the bolts of the doors and found them intact. He further deposed that they had checked the bolts and the doors because earlier when they reached the spot, they heard that some thieves entered the house and caused injury to the injured (deceased) but nothing was found indicative of entry in the house by thieves during the inspection of doors and bolts.
12. PW30 HC Kishore Kumar and PW32 Inspector Rajiv Kumar had also reached at the spot. They also found one Rajesh taking Smt. Sharvan Devi in a Maruti van to the hospital along with family members. PW32 Inspector Rajiv Kumar asked HC Kishore Kumar to escort Smt. Sharvan Devi to AIIMS hospital where she was State v. Poonam Rani Page No.12/52 declared brought dead. He also reached at the place of incident i.e. Fifth floor left side portion of the building. There were splashes of blood on the walls and roof. Two beds (diwans) were also having plenty of blood. A gadda, gudri were lying on the floor of first room with pool of blood. PW32 inspected the room. The last room which was the Pooja room of the said house was having a iron almirah in open condition but the articles were not found disturbed. The middle room was also witnessed blood stains bed sheet, one was on the double bed and other was on the dressing table. A child underwear having blood stains was lying on the double bed. A coco cola colour piece of cloth was also found on the double bed. He further deposed that he made preliminary inquiry from Smt. Poonam Rani who was present there and she told that two unknown persons entered in their house in the intervening night at about 12.30 pm, they were having hot conversation with her motherinlaw Smt. Sarvan Devi. When her motherinlaw threatened to call the family member, one of them whacked the iron rod on her head and she fell down on the floor. Other one entered in the Pooja room and both of them went away. The iron rod was with the persons who assaulted her motherinlaw. PW32 recorded the statement of Smt. Poonam Rani in this regard and endorsed the same and sent it for the registration of the case through Ct. Sunder to PS. PW32 further deposed that crime team, State v. Poonam Rani Page No.13/52 South District also inspected the spot. SI Jitender Kumar was the in charge of the Crime team and Ct. Dinesh was the photographer. Ct. Dinesh took the photographs of the place of occurrence from various angles. FSL team, finger print bureau were also called by Sh. Atul Kumar (then SHO), who also reached at the spot. Finger Print Bureau officials and FSL officials inspected the place of occurrence. Thereafter SI Narender came to the spot and he was instructed by SHO to conduct the proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. Sh. Kuldeep Pawar, son of the deceased Sarvan Devi, also reached at the spot. He further deposed that he picked up a blood stained bed sheet from the diwan which was lying on the south eastern side of the room. Thereafter he cut a piece of cloth from one blood stained "shanil" cover lying on the mattress and also a piece of the same cover for the earth control purpose. Thereafter, he cut a piece of blue colour blood stained mattress which was lying on the same bed. He also cut a piece for the purpose of earth control. Thereafter, he cut a piece of blood stained bichhauni for the purpose of earth control. Thereafter, he cut a piece of the mattress lying by the side of the bichhauni which was also stained with blood. He also cut a piece for the purpose of earth control sample. Thereafter, He took a blood stained bedsheets from the other deewan on which Smt. Poonam Devi was stated to be sleeping. He further deposed that he also cut a State v. Poonam Rani Page No.14/52 piece of blood stained mattress and a piece of earth control from the same mattress and a pillow which was having three covers was also witnessed on the said bed. He took one pillow cover and made a parcel and put in a plastic container and remaining pillows along with two covers were kept in a white colour cloth parcel. Thereafter, a pillow which was found on the mattress on the floor was also kept in a white cloth parcel. Thereafter, he picked up blood stained broken bangle pieces and put them in a white paper and after that he scratched the blood splashes from the wall and also scratched earth control samples from near the blood splashes on the wall. All the exhibits lifted by him were put in a transparent plastic container except the pillows. All the parcels were sealed with the seal of RK and taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that he started lifting the exhibits from the second room which was interconnected with the room from which he had lifted the aforesaid exhibits. First of all, he picked up a blood stained bed sheet which was found on the double bed. Thereafter, he lifted a child underwear which was found on the double bed and a meharoon colour piece of cloth which was also lying on the double bed. A blood stained bed sheet was found on the dressing table. He further deposed that he sealed each of the exhibits after putting them in plastic containers separately and sealed with the seal of RK. The State v. Poonam Rani Page No.15/52 seizure memo Ex.PW3/A, bears his signature at point X. He further deposed that thereafter, they moved to the lobby, adjacent to the second room and conducted the search of a washing machine which was lying near the wash basin on the right side portion of the lobby. He conducted the search of washing machine which was having dirty clothes and a blood stained chunri was recovered from the washing machine. He further deposed that Sh. Kuldeep identified this chunri and told that both his mother Smt. Sharwan Devi and his wife Smt. Poonam used to wear the same. Thereafter, a lady's suit stained with blood was also recovered from the washing machine. Sh. Kuldeep identified the suit and told that the suit belonged to his wife and his wife used to wear it. He prepared the two parcels of the aforesaid chunri and suit in a transparent plastic container and sealed with the seal of RK and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he called Smt. Poonam Devi in the lobby and asked her as to what clothes she was wearing at the time of incident. Smt. Devi explained that she was wearing the clothes which she was wearing at that time. He told her to change her clothes and hand over the same to him. Smt. Poonam Rani changed the clothes and handed over to him. He further deposed that that suit was worn by the complainant Smt. Poonam Rani when he reached at the spot and he recorded her statement in this regard i.e. the statement on which the FIR was State v. Poonam Rani Page No.16/52 registered. This suit was not having any blood stains. He prepared a parcel of the recovered suit and put in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of RK and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C bears his signature at point X. Thereafter, he approached the third room which was interconnected with other rooms. He further deposed that a blood stained iron Musal of Hamamdasta was lying on the slab on the southern side of the room. The Musal was already examined by the FSL team, finger print bureau and crime team. He took the Musal and put in a separate plastic container and sealed with the seal of RK and took its possession by preparing seizure memo Ex.PW1/D bears my signature at point X. He further deposed that the seal of RK was handed over to HC Kishore after use. He further deposed that thereafter, he prepared unscaled site plan Ex.PW32/A of the place of occurrence on the basis of his inspection of the scene of crime. He further deposed that thereafter, he conducted inquiries from the inmates and other witnesses including Wasim, Gokul and relatives. He recorded the statement of witnesses including the recovery witnesses. He further deposed that Sh. Kuldeep told me there are two types of the doors on the entrance of house. One is net door and other one is wooden door. The net door always remained closed with bolts ( chitkani). The bolts of the net door as well as of the wooden door were found intact. No damage were noticed on State v. Poonam Rani Page No.17/52 them. He recorded the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C of witnesses on his laptop. Thereafter, he along with staff left the spot and proceeded to the PS. He came back to PS and deposited the sealed parcel as per their seizure memos in malkhana. He further deposed that on next day i.e. 08.07.2010, he along with HC Kishore, Ct. Mukesh and other staff proceeded to the place of occurrence i.e. 39 Shahpur Jat. He called Smt. Poonam Rani along with her husband Sh. Kuldeep and examined her. During cross examination, she broke down and confessed her guilt. She told that her motherinlaw Smt. Sharwan Devi was dominating nature and she used to dominate her because of her laziness towards household activities and education. On the fateful night, her motherinlaw and she was in the living room, there was exchange of hot talks on the same issue. Fortunately, an advertisement of Shardha University was being telecasted on the T.V. Her motherinlaw again taunted her and suggested her to go through B. Ed. Examination. When accused Poonam Rani ignored her, she again taunted her with words 'isse achha hota mein apne ladke ka byah lagihui ladki te kar deti'. On hearing this, she lost her control over her senses and went inside the third room and picked up an iron Musal and struck the head of the deceased Sharwan Devi. After first blow, Smt. Sharwan Devi fell down on the floor and cried . She also threatened Poonam Rani that State v. Poonam Rani Page No.18/52 she will be calling the other family members. Smt. Poonam Rani scared and thought that if her motherinlaw explained the incident to the family members, they will destitute her. At this she hammered the Musal 1012 on her head and forehead. After that she sat near body of her motherinlaw and remained there for one and more hours. She then created a self made story of strange persons entering the house and communicated through mobile to her father. Her father Sh. Ram Kumar made a PCR call from his mobile. He further deposed that after that he arrested the accused Poonam Rani vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/E bears his signature at point X. HC Kishore, Ct. Mukesh, SI Narender were with him. Information regarding the arrest of the accused was communicated to her father and husband who were present there. The personal search of the accused was got conducted through lady Ct. Mukesh vide memo Ex.PW1/F bears his signature at point X. Thereafter, a detailed disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by him. She pointed out that after committing the murder of her motherinlaw, she put off her kalwa, churi and Kada and kept in a plastic panni and put the same in a bag and hanged outside the room in balcony. She further disclosed that she washed her blood stained hands in a plastic tub which was lying in the bathroom. He further stated that she had introduced the story of entry of strangers in order to save herself. The disclosure State v. Poonam Rani Page No.19/52 statement of the accused is Ex.PW1/G bears his signature at point X. He further deposed that thereafter, he recovered the kalawa, Kada and Churi of accused Poonam Rani on her pointing out. He kept the recovered articles in a plastic container and took the seal of RK from HC Kishore and sealed the container with it and took into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/H. Later on, as per the disclosure cum pointing out of the accused, hand washed water was seen lying in the tub in bath room. He collected it in a plastic container and sealed the container with the seal of RK and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/J. Thereafter, he along with case property and accused came to PS. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C in PS on his laptop. He further deposed that thereafter he collected the PCR form already Ex.PW18/A and placed the same on file. He further deposed that after that he collected crime team inspection report and placed it on the file. The finger print bureau report and FSL report were also collected. I recorded the statement of in charge, crime team SI Jitender and photographer Ct. Vinay. He also collected CDRs of mobile phone of accused and her father Sh. Ram Kumar. The mobile phone connection of accused was issued on the ID of her husband Kuldeep Pawar. He proved the notices under section 91 Cr.P.C for obtaining the CDRs and other related State v. Poonam Rani Page No.20/52 documents as Ex.PW32/B and Ex PW32/C. He proved the statement of Smt. Poonam Rani recorded by him on 07.08.2010 as Ex PW32/C and got the case registered through Ct. Sunder. He called the draftsman SI Mahesh Kumar and got the measurements for preparation of the scaled site plan. Subsequently, he obtained the scaled site plan Ex.PW10/A from SI Mahesh Kumar and placed the same on record. He contacted the photographer Ct. Dinesh, Crime team to produce the developed photographs. Ct. Dinesh explained that the photographs could not be developed as the negatives of the photographs got exposed to moisture. He recorded his statement in this regard. Later on, he clicked the scene of the crime with his own camera in the presence of Sh. Kuldeep Pawar to reconstruct the scene of crime. He proved the said photographs as Ex.PW32/E1 to E17 and as Ex.PW32/F1 to F17. He also received FSL result and placed on record as Ex.PW32/G and Ex.PW32/H. He also sent the recovered weapon of offence i.e. Musal to autopsy surgeon for obtaining subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW6/B. He also identified the case property of the present case.
13. PW9 Dr. Rajender Kumar has received the message from the Director, FSL for visiting the scene of crime at 5th floor of house no. 39, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi on 07.08.2010. He along with Dr. State v. Poonam Rani Page No.21/52 Parshuram Singh visited the scene of crime and inspected the same. Blood was detected on wall (front and right side), on beds (front and left side) and on bedding and on floor of the drawing room. Blood stained clothes were found on the bed of central room and a metallic blood stained morsel (Musal) was found on the slab. He prepared a report regarding his inspection and proved the same Ex.PW9/A, bearing his signature at point A. PW6 Dr. Adarsh Kumar, PW7Ashish Jain and PW8 Dr. Shashank Punia are the members of the board constituted for the postmortem examination of the deceased. They conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Sharwan Devi, aged 70 years, female. It was deposed by PW6 Dr. Adarsh Kumar that on examination he found blood clots adherent to scalp hair and black eye effects in the left eye. The following antemortem external injuries were found on the dead body :
1.Lacerated wound of size 4 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep was present or left side of forehead 3 cm above to the left eyebrow. It was obliquely placed with upper end of wound closer to the midlife. margins of the wound were irregular and associated haematoma were present over base and margins of the wound.
2.Lacerated wound of size 5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep was present or left side of forehead 4 cm above to the left eyebrow. It was obliquely placed with upper end of wound closer to the midlife. margins of the State v. Poonam Rani Page No.22/52 wound were irregular and associated haematoma were present over base and margins of the wound.
3.Lacerated wound stellated shape was present over left temporal region 5 cm above the tip of left mastoid. Horizontal limb of the wound was measuring 10 x 0.5 cm x bone deep, suprior (upper vertical) limb was measuring 2 x 0.5 cm x bone deep and inferior (lower vertical) limb measuring 0.5 x 0.2 cm x bone deep. margins of the wound were irregular and associated haematoma were present over base and margins of the wound.
4.Lacerated wound of size 4 x 0.5 cm x bone deep was present over left temporal region. It was placed obliquely and situated 8 cm above the tip of left mastoid. margins of the wound were irregular and associated with haematoma.
5.Lacerated wound of size 3 x 0.5 cm x bone deep, vertically placed was present over left temporal region. Lower end of the wound was placed 6.5 cm above the tip of left mastoid. margins of the wound were irregular and associated haematoma were present over base and margins of the wound.
6.Lacerated wound of size 2 x 0.2 cm x cartilage deep was present horizontally over left ear pinna associated with blueish colour contusion involving whole of the left ear pinna and post auricular region. Blood clots were adherent over base and margins of the State v. Poonam Rani Page No.23/52 wound.
7.Lacerated wound of size 1 x 0.2 cm x bone deep was present over left post auricular region. It was placed horizontally and blood clots were adherent over base and margins of the wound.
8.Lacerated wound of size 1 x 0.2 cm x bone deep was present over left post auricular region. It was placed horizontally and situated 1 cm below injury No. 7. Blood clots were adherent over base and margins of the wound.
9.Lacerated wound of size 2 x 0.2 cm x skin deep was present 1.5 cm lateral to left eye. It was placed obliquely with upper end of the wound closer to midlife. Margins were irregular and blood clots were adherent over base and margins of the wound.
10. Lacerated wound of size 1.5 x 0.2 cm x bone deep was present over right occipital region. Margins were irregular and blood clots were adherent over base and margins of the wound.
11 (12). Lacerated wound of size 0.5 x 0.2 cm x bone deep was present over right temporal region. Margins were irregular and blood clots were adherent over base and margins of the wound. 12 (13). Multipal contusions, reddish blue in colour were present diffusely in an area of 33 x 22 cm over the back.
13 (14). Contusion reddish blue in colour of size 2 x 2 cm was present over right shoulder region.
State v. Poonam Rani Page No.24/52 14 (15). A linear scratch abrasion of size 2 cm was present over back of the right forearm situated 6 cm above right wrist joint, red in colour.
He further deposed that on internal examination there was presence of diffused haematoma involving bilateral fronttemporooccipital region of scalp. Depressed communized fracture of left frontal and temporal bones of skull. Multiple fissured fractures were radiating from area of com munition, extending over left side of middle cranial fossa, anterior cranial fossa and posterior cranial fossa extending unto right side of anterior cranial fossa. Fractures were associated with haematoma. Diffuse subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage involving both cerebral hemispheres and base of brain. Comm united fracture of left maxilla and fracture dislocation of left mandibular joint with associated haematoma. As per his opinion, the cause of death in this case was opined as craniocerebral injury caused by blunt force impact and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that all the injuries were antemortem in nature. He further deposed that after conducting the postmortem, clothes, Blood in gauze, scalp hair were handed over to the IO in sealed parcels. He has also proved the postmortem report as Ex. PW6/A. He further deposed he had also given his subsequent opinion on an application dated 25.02.2011 moved by Inspector Rajiv State v. Poonam Rani Page No.25/52 Kumar and proved the same as Ex.PW6/B.
14. PW16 Dr. Parshuram Singh has proved his report as Ex.PW16/A, bearing his signature at point A. On 07.08.2010 he had visited the house no.39, Shahpur Jat, Delhi where an old lady was reported to have been murdered. On examination of room, he found blood like material lying on the floor as well as on the beds in the room. He further deposed that stains appears to be blood stains, which were present on the walls of the room. The doors of the room were examined and no breakage/damage, which is indicative of forcible entry was observed and no sign of ransacking of almirah kept in the inner most room was observed.
15. PW1 Kuldeep Panwar Singh deposed that he was staying at the 5th floor of the house no.39, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi. They are five brothers. His other brothers reside at other floors of the house and his parents used to stay with him in a separate room/ barsati room at the 5th floor. He along with his elder brothers namely Rajbir and Dharambir had gone to Haridwar for taking the kawad. On 07.08.2010 he was informed about the death of his mother Smt. Sharwan Devi. He along with my brothers and nephews immediately returned home. The police personnel were present at his house and State v. Poonam Rani Page No.26/52 were inspecting the scene of crime. Thereafter he reached at the AIIMS hospital where the postmortem on the dead body of his mother was conducted. They brought the dead body home and cremated the same. He also witnessed the search of the room conducted by the police, where his mother was killed and removed the blood stained bed sheet of the yellow and brown colour from the bed lying in the room and kept the same in a plastic dabba and sealed the same with the seal of RK and also took one blood stained piece and one piece without blood of the shaneel cover and kept the same in two plastic dabba separately. Police also took one blood stained piece and one piece without blood of the mattress lying on the bed and separately kept the same in two plastic dabbas, also took the blood stained piece of bichhoni/guddad lying on the floor, kept the same in a plastic dabba, blood stained piece of the white colour gadi, the blood stained bed sheet of another bed at which the accused was sleeping, blood stained piece of the mattress of the bed at which the accused was sleeping, the blood stained pillow cover of the bed of the accused, the blood stained pillow along with cover kept on the bichhoni of the floor, the blood stained broken pieces of bangles and the blood stained earth control samples from the blood stained wall. He further deposed that IO kept the said articles separately in separate pullandas and sealed the same with the seal of RK. He also State v. Poonam Rani Page No.27/52 proved the seizure memo of these articles as Ex.PW1/A consisting of three pages bearing his signature at point A. He further witnessed the lifting of various articles by the police. He further deposed that IO also got changed the clothes of the accused which she was wearing and prepared a pullanda of the same sealed with the seal of RK and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that thereafter the police further searched his house and one Musal was found from the tand of the third room. The Mussal was also contained the blood stains. He further deposed that thereafter the police interrogated the accused Poonam Rani and she confessed her guilt. The police prepared the site plan of his house at my instance. Police recorded his statement to this effect. He further deposed that on 08.08.2010 the police arrested the accused vide arrest memo now Ex PW1/E which bears his sign at point A and her personal search was also conducted by a lady constable and recorded her disclosure statement and proved the same as Ex.PW1/G. He further deposed that in his house Rs. 1,80,000/ and other valuable articles were also kept in the almirah of the Mandir room and on checking the cash and the valuable articles were very much available in the almirah and were not tampered with. He also witnessed the recovery of one red colour kalawa and bangles kept in a polythene from the wall of the gallery of the flat, which she State v. Poonam Rani Page No.28/52 was wearing at the time of the incident, pursuant to her disclosure statement . The IO prepared the pullanda of the same and sealed with the seal of RK and took into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/H, which bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that at the pointing out the accused, the IO collected some red colour water from the tub, in which the accused had washed her hands after the incident, and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed with the seal of RK. His statement was recorded by the IO to this effect. He further deposed that on 29.10.2010 the police again came to his house and told him that the earlier photographs have been damaged and again took the photographs of the bed in the drawing room, the lobby where the washing machine was kept, the tand in the Mandir Room where from Mussal was recovered. He further deposed that his wife used to having the mobile phone of vodafone which was in his name and police also recorded his statement to this effect. He identified the accused as his wife. He has also identified the case property Ex.P1 to Ex.P28.
16. PW2 Smt. Santosh has detailed the fact about the marriage of the accused with his brothernlaw Kuldeep as well as the fact of residing at 5th floor of the premises bearing no.39, Village Shahpur Jat. She further detailed the fact about the hot conversation taken State v. Poonam Rani Page No.29/52 place at about 10.30/11.00pm on 06.08.2010 between her motherin law and accused Poonam Rani. She further stated that on hearing the heated conversation, she and her husband went to them and they got pacified the matter. Both, her motherinlaw and Poonam Rani were sleeping in the same room on the same night. At about 12.00 pm midnight her husband went out of the room and went to the toilet and thereafter he was smoking and by that time her husband heard one cry. At this, her husband asked her if her daughter Jyoti is scared and she replied that she is sleeping properly. Thereafter they came to their room and went for sleep. She further stated that thereafter at about 1.30am on the same night, accused Poonam knocked their door and said twice that 'Santosh, maan ko maar diya, jo ab mujhe marenge'. Hearing this, her husband and she came out. The light was on. Poonam was wearing pink suit and she was not much perturbed. They went inside the room and saw that her motherin law was lying on the ground with her face towards the ground and blood was also lying there in huge quantity. They brought her motherinlaw in proper form. Poonam was having her daughter Bhoomi in her lap. She checked her motherinlaw, she had lost her breath and her body had rigor mortis. By that time her fatherinlaw also came there and her brotherinlaw Mahender, her sister Bala and another brotherinlaw Rajesh also came there and they removed her State v. Poonam Rani Page No.30/52 motherinlaw in Maruti van to trauma center, where doctor declared her dead. She further stated that she asked Poonam as to what happened and she told that 'she along with her kids was sleeping in the room with AC on and that at about 1.30am in the night, she heard some noise and saw that two persons came in the room and that they were calling her motherinlaw as Mausi and they asked her mother inlaw to give them whatever she was having. Poonam further told her that one of them went inside and one remained standing there. Her motherinlaw told them to call the family members. By that time, the person standing near her motherinlaw gave a iron rod blow on her head 23 times and went away and took the iron rod with them and thereafter Poonam got us awaken. PW2 further deposed about the recovery of the pink colour suit of Poonam Rani, which was she waring since morning as well as witnessed seizure of the same. Police had also searched the washing machine and took out one chunari and one blood stained suit belonging to the accused Poonam Rani. Her statement was recorded by the police. She further deposed that on 08.08.2010 police again came to their home and interrogated accused Poonam Rani in her presence as well as in the presence of her husband and she confessed her guilt. She also identified the case property i.e. one chunni and one suit which are Ex.P23 and Ex.P24.
State v. Poonam Rani Page No.31/52
17. PW13 Mahabir Singh is the husband of PW2. He has also detailed the fact about the hot exchange of words carried out between his mother and sisterinlaw Poonam and also deposed that his mother Sharavan Devi was staying at firth floor in the portion of his brother Kuldeep along with accused Poonam Rani as his brother was not present in the house. He also deposed about the fact of about 12.00 midnight when he was smoking and hearing a cry. He thought that his daughter Jyoti had cried due to some fear. He asked his wife as to Jyoti is scared. His wife replied from inside the room that Jyoti was sleeping. He further deposed that at about 1.30am, the accused Poonam Rani knocked the door of my room by calling and also called the name of his wife for opening the door. He also deposed about the fact that at that time Poonam was saying ' Maa ko maar diya, mujhe bhi maar denge'. He further deposed that they went to the room of Poonam Rani, where his mother was lying upside down and he turned the face of his mother up. In the meanwhile his father also came over there. Blood was lying in the room and foul smell was coming from the room. He further deposed that he was planning to take his mother to some hospital for check up. He also deposed that he took his mother to the trauma center, AIIMS in Maruti van along with his wife, wife of his brother Rajvir namely Bal, Rajesh and State v. Poonam Rani Page No.32/52 Mahender. Doctors declared his mother as brought dead. He asked the accused about the incident to which she replied that two thieves had entered the house and they were calling his mother Mausi and they were having iron rods and that they gave iron rod blow to his mother and thereafter both went outside the house along with the iron rod.
18. PW5 Bhim Singh is the husband of the deceased. He deposed that he was retired from Army and staying at the 6th floor of house no.39. Mahabir and Kuldeep were staying along with their families at 5th floor and Rajbir and Dharambir were staying at 4th floor. Accused Poonam Rani was having small kid so my wife deceased Sharvan Devi used to sleep with her. He heard noise that his wife had been killed so he came downstairs and went the first room of the portion occupied by his son Kuldeep. He saw that his wife was lying on the floor with her face towards the floor. His daughterinlaw Santosh and Bala also came there. They brought his wife downstairs and took her to hospital in the van of his son. He asked Poonam Rani as to what happened, she replied that two persons had come. One of them went inside and one was speaking to deceased ans was calling her Mausi. Accused Poonam further told him that she saw that the person talking to deceased had discussion for about 1520 minutes State v. Poonam Rani Page No.33/52 and thereafter he gave iron rod blow on the head of deceased due to which, she feel down and thereafter that person again gave blows many times on her head and ran away with the rod. He further deposed that police had come and collected the blood stained clothes and blood stained suit of the accused Poonam from the washing machine and iron Musal kept on the tand in the Pooja room and took into possession the same. He checked the house and found that Rs. 1,80,000/ kept in the house were intact and nothing was stolen or removed from the house. He further deposed that when police interrogated accused Poonam Rani, she confessed her guilt. Police also recorded his statement to this effect. PW3 Som Prakash and PW4 Ram Prakash have witnessed the recovery of the articles as well as the lifting of finger prints. They witnessed that in their presence IO called the crime team, finger print bureau and FSL team at the spot. They also identified various case property.
19. PW11 Rajesh Kumar is the son the deceased. He was residing at the 5th floor of the building which is situated in the adjacent building of the same house. At about 1.30am, his brother Mahender and his nephew Banty called the bell of my flat and asked him to come down stairs saying that someone has killed his mother and that she was to be taken to hospital. He came downstairs and took his State v. Poonam Rani Page No.34/52 mother to hospital in his van. He also asked the accused Poonam Rani as to what happened after coming back from the hospital and she had stated the same story 'two persons had come in the night and one of them was having an iron rod with him and that person hit his mother on the head with iron rod two or three times and thereafter both the persons had left along with the rod'. Same is the statement of PW14 Smt. Bala. She had also stated that she heard some noise and went to the 5th floor and her Jeth, her fatherinlaw, her sister Santosh were present in the room of accused Poonam Rani. She further deposed that she saw her motherinlaw Smt. Sharavan Devi lying smeared with blood and her body was totally cold. She along with other family members had taken her to AIIMS hospital where the doctors declared her brought dead. She further deposed that the accused Poonam Rani confessed before the police that she had killed her motherinlaw.
20. In order to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused to which the accused denied and claimed innocence and false implications. She stated that she did not know as to why her family members were against her. She also preferred to examine one witness in her State v. Poonam Rani Page No.35/52 defence. DW1 has deposed that in the intervening night of 07/08.08.2010 at about 2.20 or 2.30 am he have received a call on his phone from his daughter and she had stated to him that two unknown persons had got opened the gate from his motherinlaw and fled away after causing hurt to her motherinlaw. His daughter had also asked him to call the police and ambulance. He immediately informed the police at 100 number by stating that motherinlaw of his daughter had been caused injury by two unknown persons who had run away after causing injury. He further deposed that as he was getting ready for going to Sahapur Jat, he received the reply from the police in order to ascertain the address of Sahapur Jat, he replied to the police that he did not know the address at Sahapur Jat and disconnected the phone. Thereafter, he immediately called his daughter for ascertaining her correct address. His daughter had given the phone to his fatherinlaw Bhim Singh and he talked to him and he informed his house number as 39 Sahapur Jat. He replied to Bhim Singh that he would send the police and ambulance to his house. He further deposed that thereafter, he came out from his house and walked at about 200 to 250 paces and had come at the road where he found the PCR stationed. He requested the PCR officials to take him to Village Sahapur Jat. PCR van had taken him to the Sahapur Jat. He had seen many a people at Sahapur Jat. Among State v. Poonam Rani Page No.36/52 them one or two police person were also there. Sharwan Devi was found lying in a private van. He further deposed that several ladies were standing there including his daughter. His daughter was having her daughter in her laps. The wearing clothes of his daughter was having blood stains. He asked his daughter to change the cloth and give her daughter to somebody else telling that he was going to the hospital along with Sharwan Devi. In the van there were two persons already sitting along with Sharwan Devi. We had taken Sharwan Devi into AIIMS hospital. When he returned back along with stretcher, he had seen one Rajesh whose name later on disclosed as such was weeping, stating mumy mumy. They all three with the assistance of one or two persons who had come for their help had led the motherin law of his daughter from stretcher and had taken to the doctor. In this process his clothes as well as the clothes of Rajesh were also blood stained. As doctor examined the motherinlaw, they were asked to wait. We had waited by standing outside. They came back to Sahapur Jat leaving the dead body in the hospital. He further deposed that he was asked by Bhim Singh to go to his house for freshing because it was Saturday. At about 10.00am he reached to the AIIMS hospital directly from his home. Dead body was received to them at the time of lunch. He along with deceased Sharwan Devi reached to the Sahapur Jat. He remained at Sahapur Jat even after State v. Poonam Rani Page No.37/52 cremation of dead body for 23 hours. He further deposed that on 09.08.2010 he sent his son to the house of his daughter at about 1.00 pm because the incident had been occurred in the family of his daughter. At about 2.00 or 2.30 his son had called him stating that he was called at Sahapur Jat. Within half an hour he reached at Sahapur Jat and saw many people there including one person known as masterji. As he had taken tea and water. After 1015 minutes one white colour long vehicle had come having Som Parkash, son of masterji and Dharambeer, eldest son of Bhim Singh. He was made sit in the vehicle along with his son. Thereafter, they had reached to the PS Haus Khas. There were 1012 people from Sahapur Jat including his son inlaw Kuldeep. He was taken to one of the rooms by masterji, Som Parkash and Dharambeer. Additional SHO and SHO were present there. There masterji was telling to his daughter by stating that your father would have arrived and you would tell. He was gushed down. SHO of the PS had asked my soninlaw to give him the water by taking outside. Kuldeep had given water to him. He remained in that room along with Kuldeep for 1015 minutes. Masterji had told him that he had called the 100 number otherwise the matter would have been sorted out or would have told the police that deceased was died due to fall.
State v. Poonam Rani Page No.38/52
21. On behalf of the State, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has presented the facts and stated that accused first had killed her motherinlaw while she was sleeping in the intervening night of 7/8.08.2010 and thereafter she had created a story to the police that someone had entered in the house and killed her motherinlaw. Her motherinlaw refused to go down to the pressure of the unknown persons who were demanding key. There were a number of articles which were having blood stains. Even the clothes of the accused were also having blood stains of the deceased as mentioned in FSL report Ex.P25. Even the accused has confessed her guilt before a number of family members who had deposed as such and nothing material has come out from the cross examination of these witnesses. Moreover, the scientific expert who was called by the IO in order to examine the scene of crime has stated that no force was used to push the gate and prove his report. There was only one gate for entry and the kabari, who used to sleep below the stairs has stated categorically that no one had come in the intervening night of 7/8.08.2010 and used force to enter in the premises no.39, Shahpur Jat. Therefore, the prosecution has proved by the evidence that it was accused Poonam Rani who had killed her motherinlaw by Musal which was recovered at the tand and it was also having blood stains of mother inlaw.
State v. Poonam Rani Page No.39/52
22. On the other hand, counsel for the accused has advanced his arguments stating that the prosecution has relied upon the circumstantial evidence in the present case despite having eye witness namely Subhash, the son of the accused. He has been deliberately withheld by the prosecution. He was seven to eight years old at the time of incident. He relied upon the case titled as Mukesh v. State, Cr. Appeal No. 615/2008, decided on 04.05.2010 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court where it was held that "the possibility that the children of couple were present at the time of house of question at the time of murder of the deceased cannot be ruled out as deposed by PW10 that the age of the eldest child of the couple was seven or eight years". He further submitted that statement of these witnesses regarding the altercation taken place between the deceased and the accused does not inspire the confidence because when the FIR was written, witnesses did not raise any kind of anger or protest when the FIR was being recorded at the statement of the accused herself. He further argued that the testimony of the witnesses regarding the time of death is totally different and contrary to the medical evidence. According to the witness, rigor mortis was present on the body of the deceased while according to the medical evidence and deposition of PW8, the time of death took place half a day before when the post State v. Poonam Rani Page No.40/52 mortem of the deceased was carried out. According to this witness rigor mortis starts about two hours after death and it takes twelve hours to complete. He further lambasted upon the prosecution case stating that from the photographs taken from the scene i.e. Ex.PW29/A12 to Ex.PW29/A14 it is apparent that the alleged Musal has been kept and it is not at the tand and it has been kept at different place and these photographs were alleged to be taken from the place of incident from where it was seized by the IO and despite repeated questions PW29 could not pin point the place from where it was seized and this witness was the member of the crime team. He further stated that at that time it was not alleged as weapon of offence and the crime team has specifically directed the IO to recover the weapon of offence. Further no justification was given by the IO with regard to the delay in seizing the articles from the scene of crime as the crime team had visited in the early hours between 3.00am to 5.00am on 07.08.2010 and all the articles were seized from the place of incident in the evening hours after the cremation of the deceased. He further submitted that the accused has not been charged under section 201 IPC and the charge against the accused is that of section 302 IPC. He further submitted that the prosecution has not proved any motive of killing rather the defence is much more reliable that some persons had entered into the house with an intention to commit State v. Poonam Rani Page No.41/52 theft and however deceased was killed with the iron rod blow which was given by one of the assailants as the deceased refused to bow down to the pressure of the unknown persons. He further submitted that benefit of doubt be given to the accused and the accused be acquitted.
23. I have heard the arguments at bar, perused the record and analysed the evidence. From the testimony of PW6 Dr. Adarsh Kumar, it has been proved on record that the cause of death in this case was due to craniocerebral injury caused by blunt force impact and all the injuries are antemortem in nature. On postmortem examination as many as fifteen injuries were found on the body of the deceased on the head, forehead i.e. Forehead and ear. Doctor examined the dead body found the presence of diffused haematoma involving bilateral fronttemporooccipital region of scalp. Depressed communited fracture of left frontal and temporal bones of skull. Multiple fissured fractures were radiating from area of communition, extending over left side of middle cranial fossa anterior cranial fossa and posterior cranial fossa extending upto right side of anterior cranial fossa. PW6 further opined that the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report from 112 could be produced by multiple blows. Injury no.13 may be produced by blunt force State v. Poonam Rani Page No.42/52 impact by object or surface and injury no.14 was suggestive of sign of struggle.
24. Now the question arises whether it was accused who had killed the deceased by giving Musal blow or somebody else who had entered into her house and had given blow to her motherinlaw repeatedly and gone away along with the weapon of offence as defence taken by the accused is true. The prosecution story herein is based on the statement of the accused herself who has stated to the police that on the fateful night, she was sleeping with her motherin law and children in her flat at fifth floor. As per statement of the complainant/accused, at about 1.30am in the night, two persons were talking to her motherinlaw while addressing her as MausiMausi. Initially she thought the persons were known to her motherinlaw. These persons were telling to her motherinlaw whatever she had, she should give to them. Her motherinlaw had retorted that she has a large family and threatened to call them. In the meanwhile one person had entered inside and the second person was standing outside having an iron rod and whacked the rod on the head of her motherinlaw because her motherinlaw was speaking in a loud voice. She was able to see the incident because the light of the Pooja room was on. That man had also given three to four blows on the State v. Poonam Rani Page No.43/52 head of her motherinlaw. Her motherinlaw fell on the bed and crying with pain and then fell on the bichhoni lying on the floor. Assailants had asked her to keep silent the child. The person inside had also entered and had gone away along with the weapon of offence. She had called her jethani Santosh through phone and was crying in loud voice. Her jeth and jethani had come to her room and called other relatives.
25. The prosecution has in possession of the evidence of the statement of the accused itself on which basis the case was registered, scientific evidence Ex PW15/A where the officers of the FSL did not find any breakage or sign or any forceful entry on the gate, the blood group A found on the clothes of the accused which she was wearing and her disclosure statement given in the presence of her husband. Prosecution has further in possession of the evidence to the fact that the deceased and accused were residing on that fateful night and the husband of the accused had gone to Haridwar along with his family member for taking the kawad. Further prosecution has the evidence in possession that accused and deceased was seen alive on the previous night and a quarrel had been heard by PW3 and 13 and they both wife and husband had gone to pacify the matter. Further the prosecution has the evidence that State v. Poonam Rani Page No.44/52 PW13 had heard the cry when he had awaken to urinate and was smoking in the veranda at midnight. Further the prosecution has the evidence of the Musal recovered from tand of the Pooja room. Whole of the evidence pin point towards the accused that it was the accused who had killed his motherinlaw and nobody had any occasion to enter into the premises and killed the motherinlaw by giving iron rod blow.
26. Now, see the defence of the accused. The first leg of the argument of the defence is that despite of having eye witness the prosecution has not examined him and it creates doubt about the prosecution story. But so far so this argument is concerned it does not discredit the prosecution case at all because it is not necessary to examine each and every witnesses. Moreover the prosecution has not said that child Shubham was ever awaken. The second leg of argument is that the version of the prosecution witnesses cannot be believed as there is no other witness who had stated anything about the hot exchange of words between the accused and the deceased except PW2 and PW13. But that fact does not discredit the case further because the fact that the incident was just happened thereafter between two to three hours and the statements have been recorded by the IO on 07.08.2010 itself. Defence further argument is that motive State v. Poonam Rani Page No.45/52 has not been proved as alleged by the prosecution. It is well established law that in the cases based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of the motive assumes significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise establish by the conclusive circumstances and chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistence only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
27. It is the matter of fact herein that the deceased and the accused were residing at the 5th floor accommodation. Kuldeep, husband of the accused, had gone for taking kawar along with family members. As per PW16 who had visited the scene of crime along with Dr. Rajender from FSL at the request of the SHO of PS had stated that there was no sign of breakage or forceful entry in the house. The articles in the Pooja room were found intact. It is the matter of fact that the amount of Rs.1,80,000/ remained untouched lying in the drawer in the Pooja room. If there is no breakage or sign of forceful entry in the house, naturally one can infer that it is the accused who had an opportunity to kill the deceased. Moreover, in the present case each and every article remained intact. If any stranger had come and entered the premises then certainly they had come with an State v. Poonam Rani Page No.46/52 intention to rob the house. There is no any kind of enmity existed with the deceased with any person. Even the accused had not alleged anything the enmity of the deceased. Rather it is the case of the accused herself that the assailants had been demanding to give whatever her motherinlaw had. When her motherinlaw refused to bow down to the pressure, then the unknown persons had whacked the iron rod on the head of her motherinlaw and given three to four blows. It is the accused who had said that she was given signal to keep the children silent who was in her lap and the assailants had gone along with weapon of offence. But on which direction the assailants had gone, accused did not give any answer.
28. Investigating Officer PW32 deposed about the recovery of a number of articles. PW32 deposed that after registration of the case they moved to the lobby and conducted the search of a washing machine and a blood stained chunari was recovered from it. Kuldeep identified this chunri and stated that both, his mother Smt. Sharwan Devi and his wife Smt. Poonam, used to wear the same. Thereafter, a lady's suit stained with blood was also recovered from the washing machine. Kuldeep also identified the suit and told that the suit belongs to his wife and his wife used to wear it. IO also asked accused Poonam Devi as to what clothes she was wearing at the time State v. Poonam Rani Page No.47/52 of incident and she explained that she was wearing the clothes which she was wearing at that time. IO also asked her to change her clothes and hand over the same to him. Accused Poonam Rani changed her clothes and handed over to him. IO also stated that this suit was worn by the accused Poonam Rani when he reached the spot and this suit was not having any blood stains. These articles were sent to FSL.
29. During examination blood group A was found on Ex.PW18/A, 18/B and Ex.PW19/B, which are lady's shirt and salwar by Senior Scientific Officer Mrs. Poonam Sharma of FSL. The blood group A was of the deceased. The lady's salwar suit was admittedly of the accused. All the recoveries have been effected in the presence of Kuldeep, husband of the accused. There is no denial that the lady's suit, having blood stains, does not belong to the accused. The only defence is that the accused had changed her clothes after having blood stains and put it in the washing machine but the above said fact goes against the accused because it is not the human conduct to change the clothes when her motherinlaw had been hit by some stranger, rather than she should have called her jethjethani immediately, who have been residing at the same floor, after seeing the assailants going outside the premises along with the weapon of State v. Poonam Rani Page No.48/52 offence. But in the present case, the accused had gone to change her clothes first, put the same in the washing machine and thereafter, she had called her jeth and jethani. The circumstances detailed above form a complete chain of evidence leaving no gap for the accused to slip away. The evidence is conclusive in nature and lead to single hypothesis of guilt of the accused, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
30. Taking into the aforesaid circumstances in consideration, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased was murdered by the accused Poonam Rani by giving Musal blows. Therefore, accused Poonam Rani is held guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. She is convicted accordingly.
Announced in the open Court (Atul Kumar Garg)
On 09.04.2012. Additional Sessions Judge04,
South District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi.
State v. Poonam Rani Page No.49/52
In the court of Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 42/2011 In the matter of :
State Versus Subhash Kumar, S/o Jhagru Swarankar, R/o Patwar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand.
Presently House No.193A, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi.
FIR No. : 164/2011. Under section. : 302 IPC. Police Station : Malviya Nagar. Order on Sentence
1. Leniency has been claimed by the counsel for the convict stating that the convict is a young boy of thirty years of age having no previous criminal antecedents. He has his parents to lookafter who have been residing at Bokaro, Jharkhand.
2. On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer State v. Poonam Rani Page No.50/52 stating that the convict does not deserve any leniency. The convict in a preplanned manner had throttled his wife in the rented accommodation and fled away from the scene of crime. It is only after ten days, the convict was apprehended. He has advocated maximum sentence to be given to the convict as per law.
3. I have heard arguments on behalf of the convict as well as on behalf of the State by their respective counsel. As per prosecution case, the convict who had been living with his wife in a rented accommodation at Malviya Nagar had throttled his wife and fled away. The police was informed about the dead body only after two days of her death and thereafter convict was searched. He was apprehended and he also confessed his guilt. Earlier, the parents of the deceased had made allegations against the convict for demand of dowry.
4. After going through the record and hearing the arguments on behalf of both the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the facts of the present case nowhere make out this case to be rarest of rare one, therefore, convict Subhash, S/o Jhagru Swarankar, is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ for the offence punishable under section 302 of the State v. Poonam Rani Page No.51/52 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. A copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost.
File is consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (Atul Kumar Garg)
On 21.04.2012. Additional Sessions Judge04,
South District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi.
State v. Poonam Rani Page No.52/52