Delhi District Court
State vs Raj Kumar S/O Ayodhya Prasad R/O Jhuggi ... on 14 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH BHATT, ASJ06 (CENTRAL)/ TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No.:107/14
Unique ID no.:02401R0383092014
State Vs Raj Kumar S/o Ayodhya Prasad R/o Jhuggi Sarai Rohilla, Railway
Station, Delhi
Permanent add. Village Sitkah Pandey PS. Chavni, Distt. Basti U.P.
Case arising out of:
FIR no. : 496/14
Police Station : Sarai Rohilla
Under Section : 302 IPC
Date of Institution : 12/08/2014
Date on which order was reserved : 05/10/2015
Date of Decision : 14/10/2015
J U D G M E N T:
1. This is a case U/s 302 IPC.
2. Prosecution's case is that deceased was wife of accused and were living in a jhuggi along with their two minor sons aged about 34 years. On the previous night of incident in question, accused had quarreled with one Hemraj who claiming his illicit relations with deceased, showed photograph of deceased with him. Accused got furious. Deceased fled from the spot and was found hiding behind a vehicle in the neighbourhood. She was pacified and brought back. But within 1015 mins. she came crying to Shanti and SC no.:107/14 Page 1/22 stated accused was beating her. Shanti allowed deceased to stay in her jhuggi for the night and did not open the door despite accused repeatedly asking for opening of the door. In the morning accused "behla fusla kar" took his wife to the jhuggi. At about noon time Shanti visited their jhuggi and found accused with deceased and their minor children. At about 01:30 p.m. Karan elder son of the deceased informed Shanti that his mother was not waking up. Shanti went to the jhuggi and saw deceased was lying unconscious on the ground. She informed neighbourers. Accused came from outside and started crying. Deceased was taken to hospital. Shanti had expressed her suspicion that accused had killed the deceased. Police arrived in the hospital where deceased was declared brought dead. As per MLC, deceased was having 'V' shape ligature mark on neck. Postmortem was conducted. On the spot belt, cloth piece and other articles were taken into possession. Crime Team prepared its report. Accused was arrested. Doctor had opined that cloth piece recovered from the spot could have been used for the offence in question. Exhibits were sent to FSL. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
3. Prosecution has examined 21 witnesses.
4. PW1 Duty Officer had recorded FIR on 16/05/2014 at about 04:05 p.m. Sent copy to IO and various Senior Officers. He recored DD in respect of joining of Police officers for investigation of the case.
5. PW2 brother of deceased stated accused was in the habit of consuming liquor and beating the deceased. On 13/05/2014 Shanti informed him telephonically that his sister deceased had died. He came to Delhi and identified the dead body at mortuary and received the dead body after postmortem for last rites.
6. PW3 stated that accused was living at some distance from his jhuggi and he SC no.:107/14 Page 2/22 was meeting deceased whenever she was calling him by telephone. He had taken photograph of deceased with him on his mobile. In the previous night he and accused took drinks together but quarrel started between them. He demanded his loan money and showed his photograph with deceased (Gudia) on his mobile. On seeing the photograph accused got furious and threatened that he would not spare his wife (deceased). Deceased ran away. On the next day he came to know that deceased was killed. He handed over his mobile phone having the said photograph of deceased to IO.
7. PW4 complainant was knowing deceased, accused and Hemraj. She came to know that deceased was having illicit relation with Hemraj. On 12/05/2014 (night) quarrel took place between Hemraj and accused. Hemraj showed his photograph with deceased on his mobile to accused, on which deceased ran away. They searched for accused and accused took her with him. After 1015 mins. deceased again came running and crying and disclosed that accused was beating her. She kept deceased in her jhuggi for night. On the next morning accused took deceased with him. At 11:00 to 12:00 noon she saw deceased present in her jhuggi along with her children. At about 01:30 p.m. Karan minor son of deceased came to her jhuggi and told her that his mother was not waking up. She went to jhuggi and saw deceased lying on floor in unconscious state. She informed neighbourer. Accused came and started weeping. They took deceased to the hospital where deceased was declared brought dead. She suspected that accused had killed his wife.
8. PW5 sisterinlaw of deceased stated that her husband (PW2) come to Delhi for taking deceased to attend marriage of her sister but accused did not allow her. Accused was habitual drunkard and used to beat and quarrel with deceased. On 13/05/2015 they had received call from Shanti that deceased had expired. She along with her husband come to Delhi and identified the dead body of deceased.
SC no.:107/14 Page 3/22
9. PW6 prepared the scaled site plan of the spot.
10. PW7 was Pradhan of jhuggis where accused along with deceased was residing. On coming to know about death of deceased he had gone to the jhuggi and saw dead body of deceased lying on the floor. He asked accused to take deceased to hospital.
11. PW8 prepared the MLC of the deceased and had noted 'V' shape ligature mark on the neck.
12. PW9 had accompanied SI Sanjay Kaushik to hospital where MLC was collected. On 14/05/2015 dead body was moved to mortuary where postmortem was conducted. Doctor had handed over 04 sealed parcels containing viscera, blood gauze, nail clippings and clothes of deceased. After postmortem dead body was handed over to relatives of deceased.
13. PW10 was on petrolling duty and on receiving information about suicide by a lady had reached the spot and from the spot IO took into possession two gents belt and one piece of cloth. Photograph of the spot were taken. On 16/05/2015 on the pointing out of Shanti accused was arrested. Accused made disclosure statement and led to the house of Hemraj where Hemraj produced his mobile phone having photograph of Hemraj and deceased and identified the case property of the present case.
14. PW11 stated that his wife (PW4) informed him about accused beating deceased. He had gone to Delhi and in the morning of the day of incident had dissuaded accused from ill treating his wife. He left for Agra but in between received telephonic call from his wife that accused had killed deceased. He returned to the spot and along with others took deceased to hospital.
15. PW12 conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased and opined that SC no.:107/14 Page 4/22 deceased died due to asphyxia, antemortem compression of neck by means of ligature which was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. Besides this there were 13 other injuries caused by nail and blunt force impact. He had given cloths, viscera, blood gauze and nail clippings of deceased. He gave subsequent opinion that homicidal death could not be ruled out and yellowish colour nylon cloth piece could possibly have caused above said ligature mark on the neck of deceased.
16. PW13 Incharge of Crime Team found belts and cloth piece on the spot and prepared their report.
17. PW14 took viscera, pulanda containing mobile phone, nail clipping, blood in gauze from MHC(M) and deposited with FSL.
18. PW15 photographer of Mobile Crime Team took 05 photographs of spot.
19. PW16 delivered copy of FIR to IO at spot.
20. PW17 delivered copies of FIR to concerned MM and senior Police officers.
21. PW18 was MHC(M). IO had deposited 07 sealed pulandas. On 16/05/2014 sealed pulanda of mobile phone was received. On 16/05/2014 he had delivered the exhibit to be deposited with forensic department of the hospital and later handed over the exhibits of the case to be deposited with FSL.
22. PW19 FSL expert examined the mobile phone of the present case and retrieved one photograph image and submitted his report along with printout of photograph.
23. PW20 was the first IO who on receiving of information of the incident visited the hospital, took MLC thereafter, returned to the spot, recorded statement of witnesses, FIR was lodged. He accompanied second IO at the spot. Crime Team came, photographer took photographs. Two gents belts and one piece of cloth from the spot were seized vide separate SC no.:107/14 Page 5/22 pulandas. Dead body was shifted to mortuary, postmortem was conducted. Report collected. Subsequent opinion stating possibility of homicidal death was received. He arrested accused on the pointing out of Shanti. Accused made disclosure statement and led to the house of Hemraj. Hemraj produced his mobile phone and showed the photograph of deceased with him. The said mobile phone was seized.
24. PW21 was the second IO who stated that he received further investigation of the matter and received 03 sealed pulandas from first IO which was deposited in malkhana. He had apprehended accused from Railway Station Sarai Rohilla. Hemraj produced phone which was seized. He had received scaled site plan. Exhibits of the case were sent to FSL. He had recorded statement of witnesses. FSL report was collected and filed in the Court.
25. Thereafter, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded. Accused denied his involvement in the incident in question and stated that at the relevant time he was not present on the spot and did not know about Gudia lying unconscious. However, he had taken her to the hospital at about 02:30 p.m. He admitted that on the previous night Shanti (PW4) had asked deceased to stay in her jhuggi and he kept beating the door, although for whole night, deceased remained in the said jhuggi and on the next day at about 09:0009:30 a.m. he took deceased to his own jhuggi. He admitted that he had seen photograph of Gudia with Hemraj on Hemraj's mobile but clarified that he had seen the mobile in the Police Station.
26. The allegations against the accused are that on 13/05/2014 between 11:30 a.m. to 01:30 p.m. he murdered his wife by strangulating her.
27. Relationship of accused with deceased and death of the deceased on the day of incident is not disputed.
28. There is no eye witness of the incident in question and prosecution has based its SC no.:107/14 Page 6/22 case on last seen, motive, circumstantial and other corroborative evidence against the accused.
29. PW4 is the main witness. PW4 stated that accused Raj Kumar and deceased Gudia were well known to her and were residing in the same locality. Deceased was belonging to her village and she regarded (deceased) Gudia as her sisterinlaw. Deceased was having two sons aged about 4 & 5 years. She came to know from her neighbourer that deceased was having illicit relations with one Hemraj also resident of their area. Hemraj and accused used to consume liquor together. On 12/05/2014 at about 08:0009:00 p.m. accused and Hemraj were quarreling. Hemraj showed photograph to accused on mobile wherein he and wife of accused were appearing together. Deceased on this fled away from the spot. She along with accused searched for the deceased and found her hiding behind a car parked near Naveen School. They brought her back. Accused took deceased with him but after 1015 mins. deceased crying came to her jhuggi and told her that accused was beating and quarreling with her. She asked deceased to stay in her jhuggi for the night and did not allow accused to take her despite the fact that accused continued to beat the door. On the next morning at about 09:0009:30 a.m. accused came to her jhuggi and by pacifying her (behla fusla kar) took Gudia with him. She visited jhuggi of accused at about 11:0012:00 noon and found deceased along with her children. She returned to her house. At about 01:30 p.m. Karan elder son of accused came to her jhuggi and told her that his mother was not getting up. She immediately went to accused's jhuggi and found deceased was lying unconscious on the floor. She informed the neighbourers. At this time accused came there and started weeping. They took deceased to the hospital where deceased was declared brought dead. Her statement Ex. PW4/A was recorded. She suspected that accused had killed his wife deceased. She stated accused was not arrested in her presence. On which she was allowed to SC no.:107/14 Page 7/22 be crossexamined. She admitted her signatures on arrest memo, personal search memo, etc. of the accused Ex. PW4/B to Ex. PW4/E. But stated she was not knowing what was written in the said documents. She was illiterate and could only write her name.
In crossexamination on behalf of accused she stated that her jhuggi was situated at a distance of about 15 jhuggi from jhuggi of accused. There was only one door and no window in the jhuggi of accused. Accused used to leave his house at about 09:0010:00 a.m. for selling Kachori and returned at about 09:0010:00 or 11:00 p.m. Deceased was also working as maid in nearby houses and normally returned to her house at 02:0002:30 p.m. and thereafter, used to remain at her jhuggi. The quarrel in question took place outside her jhuggi and many people from nearby jhuggi had collected at the said time. Karan was not studying in any school but could talk fluently, was mentally fit and identified her. The household articles of jhuggi of deceased were in scattered condition. She admitted that when she reached the house of accused, accused was not there and had come to his house of his own. She was given suggestions "it is correct that in front of neighbourers Hemraj disclosed that he had illicit relations with deceased and had shown the photograph of deceased with him in presence of all the neighbourers","it is correct that out of shame deceased had run away". She stated that it might be possible that deceased committed suicide due to shame but denied that accused did not beat deceased at any point of time. She clarified that accused on the day in question had taken deceased with him before she left for the work on the said day and came back at 11:0012:00 noon and had gone to their house in order to know the well being of Gudia and thereafter, went back.
30. Her version is corroborated by PW11 and PW7 to the extent that both had gone to the jhuggi of accused where they saw Gudia lying on the floor and was taken to hospital. SC no.:107/14 Page 8/22 PW11 stated that he had come to know that accused had been beating his wife/ deceased and in the morning of the day of incident he had talked with the accused to amend his ways and improve his conduct towards his wife. He left for Agra and had only reached Pratap Nagar when he received telephonic call from his wife (PW4) that accused Raj Kumar had killed his wife Gudia. He returned to the jhuggi and on insistance of PW7 took deceased to the hospital. He also admitted that accused used to quarrel and beat his wife in drunken condition. In crossexamination he stated that it might be possible that deceased committed suicide out of shame.
31. PW7 stated he went to the jhuggi of Raj Kumar and saw dead body of Gudia lying on the floor. There was no rope or chunni in the neck of Gudia. He had asked accused to take Gudia to the hospital.
32. These witnesses have proved that Hemraj showed photograph of deceased with him on his mobile on which accused became furious and beat her in the night, took her back in the morning. Deceased was alive till about noon time. But, at 01:0001:30 p.m. was found lying unconscious on the floor. Accused came to spot of his own and on asking of PW7, deceased was taken to hospital where Deceased was declared brought dead. Accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr. PC stated that he took deceased to the hospital at about 02:30 p.m. Consequently, presence of accused at the said time is also not disputed.
33. As per prosecution accused on knowing about the illicit relation of his wife with Hemraj, was looking for an opportunity to punish her and on finding such opportunity strangulated her ; whereas, the defence of the accused is that deceased out of shame of the community knowing of her illicit relationship committed suicide.
34. Thus, the foremost question to be decided is whether the death in question was SC no.:107/14 Page 9/22 homicide or suicide.
35. As per evidence on record deceased was found lying on the floor of her jhuggi in unconscious condition and was taken to hospital where ligature mark 'V' shape on the neck was found and was declared brought dead.
36. PW8 on 13/05/2014 at about 02:45p.m. had examined the deceased and on local examination found ligature mark around the neck extending in a 'V' shape to the nape of the neck. He prepared the MLC Ex. PW8/A and had declared deceased brought dead. In cross examination stated 'V' shape on the neck usually comes in case of hanging. He had not seen any external injury mark on the body of deceased.
37. Thereafter, as per PW9, dead body of deceased was preserved in mortuary and on 14/05/2014 was removed to mortuary Subzi Mandi where the postmortem was conducted and Doctor had handed over 04 sealed parcels containing viscera, blood in gauze, nail clippings and clothes of deceased with sample seal to SI Sanjay Kaushik PW20.
38. PW12 had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Gudia and found following injuries:
1. Ligature Mark A dry reddish brown, parchment type, ligature mark present around the neck is incomplete and oblique. In front it is 2cm broad and placed 4.6 cm below the tip of mandible. On left side it is 1.5 cm broad and placed 2 cm below angle of mandible and extent to mastoid area and merge in hair line. On right side it is 3 cm broad and placed 2.5 cm below angle of mandible and extent to right side back of neck up to midline and merge in hair line SC no.:107/14 Page 10/22
2. Reddish bruise 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm over left side chin placed 3 cm left to tip of chin and 1 cm above lower border of mandible.
3. Reddish bruise 0.8 cm x 0.4 cm on left side face over mandibular area place 1 cm posterior to injury no.2.
4. Reddish bruise 3 cm x 1.5 cm over left side face placed 1.2 cm posterior to injury no.3.
5. Nails mark 0.3 cm x 0.1 cm over left side upper lip placed 2.5 cm fro midline.
6. Reddish bruise 4 cm x 2 cm on right inner middle of arm.
7. Reddish bruise 1 cm x 0.5 cm over middle lateral of right forearm.
8. Reddish bruise 1 cm x 0.5 cm over lower middle outer of right arm.
(8A)Nails mark 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm over left lower lateral aspect of wrist(in inadvertently given the 8 serial number in PM).
9. Nail marks 0.4 cm x 0.1 cm over upper outer back of left forearm.
10. Reddish bruise 1 cm x 0.8 cm over lateral aspect of left elbow.
11. Reddish bruise 2.5 x 1.5 cm over lower outer and lateral of left arm.
12. Multiple reddish bruise in area of 5 x 3 cm varies incise from 1 x 0.8 cm to 1 x 0.3 cm over outer upper 1/3rd of left arm.
13. Multiple small scattered reddish bruise over right leg, varies incise from 2 x 1 cm to 0.5 x 0.4 cm.
14. Reddish bruise 2 in number 0.5 x 0.5 cm each over middle front SC no.:107/14 Page 11/22 of left leg.
As per his opinion the cause of death was asphyxia due to antermortem compression of neck by means of ligature which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were antermortem in nature and fresh in duration. Injury no. 1 was produced by ligature and injury no. 5, 8A, 9 were caused by nail and other injuries were caused by blunt force impact and possible in assault. The time since death was about 1824 hrs. On 16/05/2014 IO had produced 03 parcels referred to as Ex. 1, 2 & 3 containing belts and yellow colour nylon cloth piece respectively. Diagrammatic presentation and measurements were given at point A, B & C respectively on the postmortem report. He had opined that the possibility of homicidal death in the present csae could not be ruled out and the ligature mark on the neck was possible to be caused by Ex. 3 i.e. yellowish colour nylon cloth piece and was unlikely to be caused by Ex. 1 & 2. His opinion being Ex. PW12/B.
39. Thus, medical opinion has established homicidal death of deceased caused by yellowish colour cloth Ex. P10/3 recovered from the spot. However, if the defence of the accused is taken into consideration then as per facts and circumstances of the case two propositions be possible (1) either deceased hanged herself or (2) deceased strangulated herself using some article or her hands.
40. As per evidence available on record, deceased's body was found lying on the floor and the articles were scattered in the jhuggi. None of the witnesses had seen any article/rope/object on the neck of the deceased. There was also no other evidence to suggest that deceased might have hanged herself either from the roof or from any other place inside the jhuggi. As per site plan Ex. PW6/A the jhuggi in question was 190 x 420 cm. in area and the height was about 1.5 mtr. (about 5 feet) only. There was neither any window or any other SC no.:107/14 Page 12/22 portion except the door from which one could enter or come out of the jhuggi. As per PW4 also there was only one door in the jhuggi with no window and the roof of jhuggi was made of polythene. As per scene of crime report Ex. PW13/A place of occurrence was inside a small jhuggi with some pieces of clothes, utensils and other domestic articles found scattered on the floor. No suicide note or any other noticeable exhibits was found on the scene of crime. Thus, there is no evidence as per record to show that deceased might have used any portion of jhuggi for hanging herself. Further dead body was found lying on the ground and if deceased had hanged herself then there should be some explanation as to how the deceased's body came to the floor. The other possibility of suicide could be by self strangulation. It is however, medically accepted that strangulation by using ones own hand is very difficult as during the said process the person would be rendered semiconscious/unconscious and his grip would loosen before the desired result can be achieved. This proposition is also ruled out on the basis of medical evidence as per which there was 'V' shaped ligature mark on the neck which would normally not possible by hands. The other possibility could be that deceased might have used some object in the form of rope/cloth etc. for strangulating herself but the same is also ruled out for above stated reasons and also for the reason that none of the witnesses PW4, 7 or 11 had seen any rope or object on the neck of deceased at the said time. Further the injuries no. 2 to 14 of postmortem report Ex. PW12/A show deceased had received multiple nail and blunt force impact injuries on her hand, legs, face and other parts of the body which were possible in a assault.
41. As per FSL report Ex. PW21/B viscera containing stomach, piece of intestine, piece of liver, spleen, kidney and blood sample approximately 5 ml. of the deceased were sent for examination and as per the report viscera was found containing ethyl alcohol and the SC no.:107/14 Page 13/22 blood was found containing ethyl alcohol 65.5 ml./100 ml. of blood. This report establishes the fact that deceased was having high quantity of ethyl alcohol in her body at the time of her strangulation. There is no explanation by prosecution on this aspect of the case. But it appears that deceased might have had been asked/forced to consume liquor before she was strangulated. This also suggests that deceased was probably drowsy at the said time therefore, had not raised hue and cry to the extent audible to neighbourers and also explains the fact that none of the residents of the locality had heard cries of the deceased at the time of her strangulation.
42. As per the other FSL report Ex. PW21/C there was no foreign biological object or blood found from nail clippings of the deceased. This in conjunction with the postmortem report (Ex. PW12/A) clearly show that even though deceased had been badly assaulted prior to her strangulation but no foreign biological object or blood was found from the nail clippings of the deceased. This also suggests that the assailant would have strangulated the deceased from behind as the 'V' shape ligature mark on the neck was incomplete (on back of neck) and oblique and was extending to mastoid area/mandible merging with the hairline. All the above said facts and for the reasons stated above, it is established that death of deceased was homicidal death and possibility of suicidal death is ruled out.
43. The other evidence to connect the accused with the offence in question is based on (1) last seen (2) conduct of the accused immediately prior and after the incident in question (3) motive (4) description of spot and the articles found scattered on the spot (5) cloth used for strangulation recovered from the spot and other corroborative evidences showing previous conduct of the accused.
44. PW4 has proved that accused was furious with the deceased due to discovery of SC no.:107/14 Page 14/22 her illicit relations with PW3, had beaten her in the night. Deceased had remained in her jhuggi for the night to save herself from the accused but in the morning at about 09:30 a.m. accused had taken deceased from her jhuggi. Deceased was alive at 12:00 noon but at about 01:0001:30 p.m. was found lying unconscious on the floor and after sometime accused came to the spot and started crying. She had suspected that accused had killed the deceased. She also stated that normally accused use to leave his house for selling Kachori at about 09:0010:00 a.m. and would return after 09:00 p.m. Deceased was also working as maid in neighbouring areas and was normally returning by 02:30 p.m. But on the said day accused of his own come to the spot at about 01:30 p.m. and deceased was present at her house at noon time. PW7 & PW11 have corroborated the fact that deceased was found lying on the floor and they along with accused had taken deceased to the hospital at about 02:30 p.m. PW2 and PW5 proved that the previous conduct of the accused was also not proper, was a drunkard and used to beat the deceased. PW11 also proved that in the morning of the day of incident in question he had counseled accused to treat his wife (deceased) properly but while going back he received call from PW4 that accused had killed his wife. PW3 also corroborated the fact that there was quarrel with accused in the night and he had shown his photograph with deceased Ex. P3/1 to the accused on which he had got furious. Deceased had fled away from the spot and on the next day he came to know that deceased had died.
It is thus, proved on record that accused was the last person who had taken deceased with him in morning on the day of incident in question. Incident took place inside the jhuggi. Deceased was available in jhuggi at noon time and was found unconscious on the floor at about 01:0001:30 p.m. Accused had not gone for work and not followed his usual routine of work as he had come to the spot at the said time of his own and took the deceased to the hospital.
SC no.:107/14 Page 15/22
45. In regard to the motive. PW4 proved that accused was angry and wanted to teach deceased lesson as Hemraj was having illicit relation with her and had shown her photograph with him on his mobile phone to this effect.
46. PW3 Hemraj stated that he was knowing accused and the deceased. Deceased used to tell him about the beating given by the accused. He had taken photograph of the deceased with him on his mobile. Accused had taken loan of Rs. 900/ from him. One night he and accused had taken drinks together and had thereafter, gone to jhuggi of accused where his wife Gudia was present. There was quarrel between him and accused. He demanded his loan amount but accused started abusing and on being annoyed he showed photograph of Gudia with him from his mobile to the accused. On seeing the photograph accused got furious and stated he would not spare Gudia. On hearing this Gudia ran away. On the next day he came to know that Gudia had died. His mobile phone was seized by Police. He identified his phone Ex. P10/4 and the photograph of deceased with him taken by him on his mobile Ex. P3/1. In crossexamination he denied that he forcibly took photograph of Gudia with him or that he was blackmailing Gudia by showing the said photograph or was pressurizing her to develop physical relation with him. He denied that he had concocted a false story of loan. He also denied that he had intentionally with ill motive shown the photograph of deceased to her relative and in the locality or that due to said reason deceased had committed suicide.
47. The FSL report of the mobile phone and the photograph in question are Ex. P10/4, Ex. PW19/A, and the printout being Ex. PW9/B and Ex. P3/1. In the said photograph PW3 is appearing with the deceased having put his arm around her neck and both persons have their cheeks touching it each other and as per prosecution accused on seeing the said SC no.:107/14 Page 16/22 photograph got angry and was trying to find an opportunity to punish deceased for the same. This theory appears to be probable as any prudent man would get angry on knowing about illicit relations of his wife.
48. It is thus also proved on record that accused came to know about the illicit relation of his wife (deceased) with Hemraj and on seeing her photograph with Hemraj got furious and was looking for an opportunity to punish her for the same.
49. In respect of the investigation of the matter.
50. IO PW20 reached the hospital and collected MLC of the deceased who was declared brought dead. He left Const. Vijender to guard the dead body of the deceased in the hospital and went to the spot where he found many articles scattered on the spot. He called the Crime Team. Crime Team prepared its report Ex. PW13/A. Photographer took photographs. They took into possession two gents belts and cloth piece green white colour lying in the jhuggi. The articles were seized and sealed. On 14/05/2014 dead body was shifted to mortuary. Dead body was identified by Anil Kumar and Phoolan Devi. Postmortem was conducted and the report was collected on 16/05/2014. Dead body was handed over to Anil Kumar. He obtained report and opinion regarding cause of death and the possibility of homicidal death. He recorded statement of complainant. FIR was lodged. He handed over the postmortem report and subsequent opinion, sealed exhibits, inquest papers to second IO Devender Rathi. Accused was arrested from Sarai Rohilla Railway Station. Pointing out memo was prepared. Hemraj handed over his mobile phone which was seized and sealed.
In crossexamination stated that he received DD no. 18A at 03:0003:15 p.m. The distance between hospital and Police Station was 56 km. He reached on the spot at SC no.:107/14 Page 17/22 about 07:0007:30 p.m. He denied that all writing work was conducted in the Police Station.
51. PW21 second IO stated that he received investigation from first IO. He received 03 sealed pulandas from SI Sanjay and deposited the same in malkhana. He visited the spot and prepared site plan. On the instance of complainant, accused was arrested from Railway Station Sarai Rohilla. He recorded disclosure statement of accused. Accused identified place of occurrence. Hemraj produced mobile phone which was containing self photograph of him and deceased. Subsequently, drafsman prepared scaled site plan. Exhibits were sent to FSL. He recorded statement of witnesses. In crossexamination he stated that accused met them at 08:00 p.m. at Railway Station Sarai Rohilla. He denied that accused was not lifted from the hospital at 03:30 p.m. on the date of occurrence (the defence of the accused is that accused was arrested from the hospital at 03:30 p.m. therefore, the word 'not' appears to have been erroneously typed in the said suggestion). He denied that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the Police Station or that he had not fairly investigated the matter.
52. PW10 corroborated the said story that he had reached the spot where IO had come and 03 sealed pulandas containing belts and piece of cloth were prepared and he had signed on memo Ex. PW10/A. He was also witness to the arrest of the accused and seizure of the mobile phone of Hemraj.
53. PW15 was part of Crime Team and had taken photographs Ex. P1 to Ex. P5.
54. PW16 had taken copy of FIR along with original rukka and delivered to the IO on the spot.
55. PW17 had taken copy of FIR and delivered to concerned MM and Senior Officers on 16/05/2014 at about 05:40 p.m. and returned Police Station at 10:00 p.m.
56. On 13/05/2013 03 sealed pulandas of the case were deposited with PW18 and SC no.:107/14 Page 18/22 thereafter, 04 sealed pulandas containing seal of AAAGH were deposited vide Ex. PW18/A. On 16/05/2014 one more sealed pulanda containing mobile phone was deposited vide Ex. PW18/B. On 16/05/2014 the exhibits were handed over to SI Sanjay Kaushik for depositing the same with forensic medicines vide entry at point X. The sealed exhibits were sent through Const. Arvind to FSL and the entries at point Y, Z, X1, X2, X3 made in regard sending and receiving of the property and result.
57. PW19 have examined the mobile phone Mark MP1 which was containing one SIM Card. There was one image Ex. P3/1 on the mobile phone which was retrieved via bluetooth in CD. The repot was Ex. PW19/A and the detail of photo is Ex. PW19/B and photograph is Ex. P3/1. He identified the mobile phone Ex. P10/4 to be same which was examined by him.
58. PW1 recorded the FIR thereafter, handed over copy of the same for being sent to IO and the copies were also handed over to Const. Pradeep for sending it to Area MM and other Senior Officers. He recorded DDs Ex. PW1/D to Ex. PW1/G in respect of investigation of the case.
59. As per PW12 the piece of cloth parcel no. 3 could have been used for causing the ligature mark injury no. 1 to the deceased. The said injury was sufficient for causing death in ordinary course of nature.
60. As per prosecution, accused was arrested from Sarai Rohilla Railway Station at about 08:30 p.m. but as per accused he was arrested from hospital itself at 03:30 p.m. PW4 had denied that accused was arrested at her instance or in her presence but the said contradiction does not affect the merits of the case as neither the arrest on the day is disputed nor there was any further recovery at the instance of accused and PW7 has categorically SC no.:107/14 Page 19/22 stated that he asked accused to take deceased to the hospital.
61. Ld. Legal Aid Counsel argued that even though two minor children of the deceased were with her at the relevant time in question and Karan was stated to be speaking clearly and fluently but IO had neither involved him in investigation nor had recorded his statement and had also not produced them in the Court.
62. In this regard PW4 had clarified that both the children were very young i.e. about 35 years and also that Karan had only disclosed that his mother was not getting up. There was no statement made by Karan that he had either seen the incident or knew why deceased was lying on the floor. Karan with his limited understanding had explained to PW4 that his mother was not getting up. There is therefore, no infirmity or material irregularity on the part of the IO in not recording the statement of minor children.
63. The entire circumstances of the case thus, prove that on the previous night of the incident, accused on knowing about the illicit relations of his wife (deceased) got furious and wanted to teach her lesson. Deceased had run away but accused searched for her and brought her back, gave her beatings and deceased had to run away to save herself. She sought refuge with PW4 who allowed her to stay for the night. During this period accused continued to beat the door of PW4 but PW4 had not allowed him to take deceased with him. In the next morning accused tactfully (behla fusla kar) took deceased with him. Accused was involved in work of selling articles (kachori) on rehri during day time and was normally not present at his house during the day time. But on the said day at about 01:3002:00 p.m. he arrived on the spot of his own and did not explain any reason for discontinuing his normal routine for the said day. Minor son of deceased had informed PW4 that deceased was not waking up. PW4, PW7 & PW11 had gathered at the jhuggi of deceased. Accused had come SC no.:107/14 Page 20/22 to the place and started crying. Deceased had claimed he was not present at the spot at relevant time. No witness had noticed any untoward incident during this period and since deceased had died in her own jhuggi. It was for the accused to have explained as where he had been during this period. The possibility of suicide is also ruled out for the reason already discussed. Deceased was killed by strangulation using cloth which was recovered from the spot i.e. inside the accused's jhuggi. There were more than 13 bruises and nail injuries on the body of the deceased. As per medical evidence the said injuries were possible to be caused by assault. The jhuggi in question was a small jhuggi having only one entrance and no window. Nobody had seen any other person entering or leaving the jhuggi of the accused during the relevant period in question (between 12:00 noon to 01:0001:30 p.m.). As per FSL report deceased was found having large quantity of ethyl alcohol in her body. All the above said circumstances point to the fact that it was the accused only who could have committed the said offence in question. Accused has also not explained any other alternate theory for the death of the deceased. He did not claim involvement of any of the person. Accused not only had probable reason and motive but also the opportunity to commit the offence in question. Accused has not led any defence evidence. He has not explained or proved his alleged absence from the spot at the relevant time. On the contrary on the day of incident accused was present near the spot at day time when normally he would have been away for his work of selling Kachori. The conduct of accused immediately after the incident in question was that he started crying but neither tried to inquire as to what had happened or who had committed the offence in question. The entire chain of circumstances only point towards the guilt of accused. There is no other possible alternate theory for death of accused. The offence against the accused person is thus proved beyond reasonable doubt.
64. The offences U/s 302 IPC is proved against the accused person and the SC no.:107/14 Page 21/22 accused person is accordingly convicted under the said section.
Announced in the open court (DINESH BHATT)
on 14/10/2015 ASJ/Delhi/14/10/2015
SC no.:107/14 Page 22/22