Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Sudhir Kumar on 6 April, 2021
In The Court Of
Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam: Additional Sessions Judge-03:
East District: Karkardooma Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 577 of 2018
State Versus 1. Sudhir Kumar
S/o Sh. Dasai Ram
R/o B-45, Gali No.4,
Gazipur Dairy Farm, Delhi.
Per. Add. : Vill. Daudpur,
PS Shahpur, District Patna, Bihar.
2. Munni Devi
W/o Sh. Pramod Kumar
R/o H.No. B-1, Gali No.2,
Gazipur Dairy Farm, Delhi.
Per. Add. : Village Bhagraria,
PS Gangahata, District -
Sant Kabir Nagar, U.P.
FIR No. : 456/2017
Under Section : 364/302/201/497/34 IPC
Police Station : Gazipur
Chargesheet Filed On : 13.03.2018
Chargesheet Allocated On : 16.03.2018
Chargesheet received by this Court on: 20.03.2018
Judgment Reserved On : 30.03.2021
Judgment Announced On : 06.04.2021
SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 1 of 44
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts, as germane from the prosecution story, are that on 13.12.2017 at about 10.51 p.m. on receipt of DD No. 50-A regarding missing of a girl aged seven years, ASI Yashpal along with Ct. Rameshwar reached at the spot i.e. Gali No.2, B-1, Gazipur Dairy Farm, Delhi where complainant Pramod Kumar met them who stated that he has been residing at abovesaid house as tenant and is a rickshaw puller by profession. He stated that his minor daughter Kajal, aged about seven years, went to the house of his neighbour to watch TV along with his two sons and at about 8.30 pm, Kajal left the said house but did not return back till that time and they searched for her but in vain. He also gave physical description of his daughter to the police and also raised a suspicion on some unknown person who took his daughter away.
2. On the basis of said statement of complainant, a case under Section 363 IPC was registered. Insp. Amar Singh also reached at the spot and made inquiries from other tenants and neighbours and searched the missing girl with parents and landlord Ram Avtar Singh Yadav. During search, one Ajeet noticed the said girl on the roof of H.No. B-2, Gazipur Dairy Farm and informed the girl was lying there whose neck was SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 2 of 44 ruthlessly slaughted. On that, father of girl along with police reached there and identified the deadbody as of his said missing daughter Kajal. Crime team was called at the spot who reached the spot, inspected and photographed the spot. Exhibits were lifted from the spot. On 14.12.2017, postmortem on the deadbody was got conducted. Statements of witnesses were recorded. During investigation, CDR of mobile phone no. 8750793763 of mother of deceased Munni Devi was inspected in which it was found that she was in touch with one mobile no. 8368657668 from the period 05.12.2017 to 13.12.2017 and location of said mobile number was also of Gazipur Dairy Farm. Thereafter inquiry was made from Munni Devi, mother of deceased girl, who confessed her guilt stating that she along with her paramour - accused Sudhir Kumar murdered her daughter by cutting her neck because she has seen both of them in objectionable position. Thereafter, accused Munni Devi was arrested and her mobile phone and clothes worn by her at the time of incident were also taken into possession. At the pointing out of accused Munni Devi, accused Sudhir Kumar was inquired and was also arrested who also confessed his guilt and hand over his mobile phone make LAVA of silver colour and clothes worn by him at the time of incident were also seized. Accused Sudhir Kumar also got recovered one knife from the room of accused Munni Devi SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 3 of 44 which was also taken into possession after preparing its sketch. Postmortem report was obtained from the hospital. Exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini. Scaled site plan was got prepared. PCR form and CDRs of mobile phones of both accused persons were obtained. On the basis of entire investigation and statements of witnesses, Sections 302/201/34 IPC were also added.
On conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against both these accused persons before the court of ld. MM for their trial for the offences punishable under Sections 363/302/201/34 IPC.
3. After compliance of provisions of Sec. 207 CrPC by the court of Ld. MM, case was committed to the Court of Sessions as Sec. 302 IPC is exclusively triable by it.
4. Vide order dated 05.04.2018, Charge-I under Section 364/34 IPC & 302/34 IPC was framed against both accused persons; Charge-II under Section 497 IPC & 201 IPC was framed against accused Sudhir Kumar and Charge-III under Section 201 IPC was framed against accused Munni Devi. To the said charges, both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 4 of 44
5. The Prosecution in support of its case, examined 27 witnesses in all whose testimony are as under :
PW-1 Ajeet Kumar, neighbour of complainant namely Pramod (PW-2), stated that on 14.12.2017 at about 8/8.15 p.m., he was inside his house and on hearing some noise, he came out and came to know that one baby girl namely Kajal D/o Pramod, was missing. He also searched Kajal in nearby area. He further stated that during search, accused Munni Devi (mother of deceased) told him to search Kajal at the adjacent roof of his house and then he reached at roof and saw the deadbody of Kajal was lying there. Thereafter, he immediately informed said fact to the police.
PW-2 Pramod Kumar, complainant/father of deceased Kajal aged 7 years, (and also husband of accused Munni Devi) lodged complaint Ex.PW2/A to the police regarding missing of his daughter Kajal on 13.12.2017. He stated that police started search of his daughter in his house as well as in the house of neighbourers and at that time, his wife told neighbour Ajeet to search Kajal at the adjacent roof of his house.
Thereafter, Ajeet immediately reached at said roof and informed that Kajal was sleeping in the chhajja as there was dark. Thereafter, he and police SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 5 of 44 officials also reached there and found the body of Kajal, missing girl, on a mattress in dead condition and her throat was barbarically cut and blood was lying there. PW-2 proved the seizure memo of blood lifted from said place vide Ex.PW2/B, seizure memos of blood stained mattress and blood stained earth vide Ex.PW2/C & PW2/D, his statement regarding identification of deadbody vide Ex.PW2/E, seizure memo of blood in gauge Ex.PW2/F and seizure memo of earth control vide Ex.PW2/G. PW-3 Dr. Sumit Dixit, CMO, identified the signatures of Dr. Shalini, Junior Resident on MLC No. 17791 Ex.PW3/A and death certificate of Kajal, aged seven years, vide Ex.PW3/B. PW-4 Sh. Pratap Singh stated that accused Sudhir used to work as labour/helper in godown at B-37, Gazipur Dairy Farm and accused Munni Devi also used to work in another godown at main road, Gazipur Dairy Farm and both i.e. Munni Devi and Sudhir Kumar known to each other. He further stated that police along with accused Munni Devi came to his godown and arrested accused Sudhir in his presence.
PW-5 Dr. S. Lal, HOD & Specialist at Department of Forensic Medicines, conducted the postmortem on the deadbody of deceased Kajal, aged seven years, and proved the postmortem report Ex.PW5/A. SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 6 of 44 PW-6 Lal Mohan, neighbour of complainant Pramod, stated that house of Pramod was situated just adjacent in front of his house. He further stated that during night hours of 13.12.2017 at about 7.30/8 p.m., he was watching TV along with Baby Kajal, her brother and his nephew Ajeet and at about 8 p.m., Kajal left his house. He further stated that after about half an hour, accused Munni Devi came to his house and asked from her son about Kajal and they replied that she was watching TV just before and left the said room. Thereafter, she started search of Kajal and after about an hour, accused Munni Devi again came to his room in search of Kajal but she was not found there. Thereafter, she informed to the police through phone about missing of Kajal. PW-6 also deposed on the line of PW-1 Ajeet Kumar. PW-6 further stated that when he saw accused Sudhir Kumar in Police Station on 15.12.2014, he informed the police that he was the boy who came during night hours of 13.12.2017 at the room of Pramod Kumar and earlier also said boy used to visit there to meet Munni Devi.
PW-7 Ram Avtar Singh Yadav, landlord of Property no. B-1, Gali No.2, DDA Complex, Gazipur Dairy Farm, where complainant Pramod along with his family was residing at first floor of the said house as tenant, stated that on the day of incident at about 10 p.m., he received a telephone SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 7 of 44 call from Pramod who informed that his daughter was missing and thereafter, he again received another call on his mobile phone from Pramod who informed that his daughter was being killed by someone. Police also contacted him on phone and then at about 12.30 a.m. during night hours, he along with his son reached at the spot and in his presence, deadbody of deceased child was sent to hospital by the police. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by ld. Addl. P.P. for the State. PW-7 proved the disclosure statements of accused Munni Devi and Sudhir Kumar vide Ex.PW7/A & PW7/B, seizure memo of mobile phone make LAVA of accused Sudhir vide Ex.PW7/C, blood stained clothes of accused Sudhir vide Ex.PW7/D, sketch of knife Ex.PW7/E got recovered by accused Sudhir from the room of accused Munni Devi and its seizure memo Ex.PW7/F, seizure memo of mobile phone as recovered from the custody of accused Munni Devi vide Ex.PW7/G, blood stained clothes of accused Munni Devi vide Ex.PW7/H as well as pointing out memos of the place of incident pointed out by both accused persons vide Ex.PW7/I and PW7/J. PW-8 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer of Vodafone Idea Ltd., proved the call details and ownership proof of mobile phone no. 8750793763 which was in the name of Kishore Sahani, voter I-card SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 8 of 44 Ex.PW8/A, CAF Ex.PW8/B, CDR from 01.10.2017 to 15.12.2017 Ex.PW8/C (colly.) and Certificate under Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.PW8/D. PW-9 Sh. Kamal Kumar, Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd., proved the call details and ownership proof of mobile phone no. 8368657668 which was in the name of Sudhir Kumar, CAF Ex.PW9/A, CDR from 01.10.2017 to 15.12.2017 Ex.PW9/B (colly.), Cell ID Chart Ex.PW9/C (colly.) and Certificate under Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.PW9/D. PW-10 Sh. Kishore Sahani stated that he knew Lal Mohan as he was the resident of his neighbouring village. He stated that in the year 2006, he applied for SIM from a shop and same was issued to him on his ID. Said shopkeeper also issued another SIM card bearing no. 8750793763 on his ID and handedover the same to Pramod Yadav without his knowledge and he came to know said fact when he was called at Police Station Gazipur.
PW-11 SI Rajeev Kumar, Incharge of Mobile Crime Team, who on receipt of information from Control Room regarding present case, along with his staff including PW-16 ASI Manoj Kumar, Photographer and Ct. Jai Singh, Proficient reached and inspected the spot. This witness SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 9 of 44 proved the SOC Report Ex.PW11/A. PW-16 took 14 photographs of the spot and proved the positive of 14 photographs vide Ex.PW6/A1 to PW16/A14 and negatives Ex.PW16/B1 (colly.).
PW-12 SI Umed Singh issued the Certificate under Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act on 12.01.2018 regarding PCR form vide Ex.PW12/A. PW-13 Ct. Hardeep Singh recorded an information on 13.12.2017 regarding missing of a girl, aged seven years, at Gazipur Dairy Farm and proved the copy of PCR form Ex.PW13/A in this regard.
PW-14 Ct. Naveen stated that on instruction of IO, collected the exhibits from MHC(M) on 26.02.2018 and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini vide Road Certificate Ex.PW14/B and obtained the receipt for the same as Ex.PW14/A. PW-14A ASI Surender Singh (inadvertently mentioned as PW-14) is the DD Writer who recorded DD No.50A regarding missing of a girl, aged seven years, vide Ex.PW14/A. PW-15 Ct. Krishanveer Singh stated that on 26.02.2018, on the instruction of IO, he took the custody of accused Sudhir Kumar for his medical examination in LBS Hospital and after his medical, collected the MLC and doctor concerned also handedover sealed parcel containing SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 10 of 44 blood sample of accused Sudhir and then he handedover the same to Investigating Officer in the Police Station vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A. PW-15A Sh. Manoj Kumar (inadvertently mentioned as PW-
15) is proved the detailed report Ex.P15/A regarding exhibits of this case.
PW-17 HC Mukesh Kumar, MHC(M), proved entries Ex.PW17/A (colly.) he also sent the parcels to FSL, Rohini on 26.02.2017 through PW-14 Ct. Naveen Kumar and received the FSL result and relevant sealed parcels in the Malkhana through ASI Hari Prakash.
PW-18 Master Ramu, aged 12 years, brother of deceased Kajal (son of accused Munni Devi), stated that he along with his sister Kajal and Raja Babu went to the house of Lalman to watch TV at about 8/9 p.m. and when he asked from his mother about whereabouts of Kajal, he was informed by her that she (his mother) was not aware. Thereafter, they started searching Kajal nearby their house and one neighbour told them that Kajal was sleeping on the roof and then he came to know that she has died. This witness was declared hostile and during his cross-examination by ld. Addl. P.P., he stated that Sudhir uncle (accused) came to their house while they were leaving their house to watch the TV in house of Lalman uncle and sometimes before that also. He stated that he did not state to the police about the whereabouts of Kajal as his mother told that Kajal was SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 11 of 44 taken by the ghost.
PW-19 Sonu Singh, witness of arrest of both accused persons, proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Sudhir vide Ex.PW19/A and PW19/B. This witness also stated that exhibits were also recovered from possession of both accused persons in his presence.
PW-20 ASI Birpal Singh, Duty Officer, proved endorsement Ex.PW20/A on the rukka, copy of FIR Ex.PW20/B and Certificate under Sec 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW20/C. PW-22 SI Yashpal stated that on receipt of DD No. 50A at about 10.51 p.m., he along with PW-21 Ct. Rameshwar went to the spot and met with complainant and recorded his statement regarding missing of his daughter and made his endorsement Ex.PW22/A on it. He further stated that deadbody of Kajal was found on the roof of adjacent house in presence of both witnesses and then the same was sent to LBS hospital. PW-22 lifted the exhibits from the spot and seized vide different seizure memos and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred as IO) vide Ex.PW22/B. PW-23 W/Ct. Preeti is a witness of arrest of both accused persons. She has proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 12 of 44 accused Munni Devi vide Ex.PW23/A and PW23/B. She is also a witness of clothes as recovered from the possession of accused Munni Devi which she was wearing by her at the time of incident.
PW-24 Insp. Mahesh Kumar proved the scaled site plan Ex.PW24/A. PW-25 Insp. Amar Singh, Investigating Officer, has conducted the entire proceedings of present case. He also proved the various documents apart from statement of Deenanath regarding identification of deadbody vide Ex.PW25/A.
6. All the incriminating evidence brought on record has been put to both these accused persons during their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they denied the same. They pleaded their innocence and further pleaded their false implication.
7. Accused Sudhir further pleaded that he did not know the reason for his false implication in the present matter. He further pleaded that he was beaten by the police and police obtained his signatures on end number of blank papers and even he did not know either Kajal or co- accused Munni.
8. Accused Munni Devi further pleaded that she did not commit any crime as alleged at any point of time further pleading that she was SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 13 of 44 beaten by the police mercilessly and implicated falsely in this case.
9. Accused Munni did not opt to lead any evidence in her defence while accused Sudhir Kumar opted to lead evidence in his defence.
10. In support of contentions of defence, accused Sudhir Kumar examined his younger brother Ranjeet Kumar as DW-1. DW-1 stated that his brother Sudhir used to work in a plywood factory of one Pratap in Gali No.6, Gazipur Dairy Farm and on 13.12.2017, Sudhir came back from his work in the evening at around 7.35 pm and thereafter, they prepared their meals and after taking meal, main gate of the house was locked and Sudhir remained with him and did not go anywhere thereafter. Police official came to their house on 14.12.2017 in the afternoon at about 3/3.30 p.m. along with Sudhir. DW-1 proved his Election I card Ex.DW1/A.
11. Having heard learned Addl. PP for the State and ld. defence counsel and as well as also scrutinised the record in view of the law laid down.
12. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges through evidence of all material witnesses coupled with other material on record beyond all reasonable doubts. He also submitted that PW-1 Ajeet Kumar, who is neighbour of accused Munni SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 14 of 44 Devi, and not an interested to any party, clearly supported the prosecution case by stating that deceased girl Kajal was the daughter of complainant Pramod Kumar who is his neighbourer and on the day of incident, after knowing the fact of missing of the girl Kajal, he also searched Kajal in nearby area and during search, it was only accused Munni Devi (mother of Kajal/accused), who told him to search Kajal at the adjacent roof of his house and then he reached at the roof and saw the deadbody of Kajal lying there and all this circumstances shows the conduct of accused Munni Devi who committed the murder of her daughter with the connivance of co- accused Sudhir Kumar and thus, successfully proved the case of prosecution with other material on record including medical evidence. Ld. Addl. PP further submitting that defence taken by the accused - Sudhir - is of no value as no complaint was made about the lifting of accused Sudhir by the police and then his implication falsely in the present case. It is also contended that no ill-will, grudge or enmity has either been alleged or proved against any of the witness examined including any of the police officials and hence, there is no reason of false implication of the accused persons in the present matter for a murder of a minor girl who is daughter of accused Munni Devi. Besides the above, ld. Addl. PP submitted that CDRs brought on record is clear indication that both accused were in touch SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 15 of 44 with each and used to talk each other and even motive of murder has also been brought on record. Apart from that, ld. Addl. PP contended that if defence of the accused Sudhir is taken on record, for the sake of arguments, even then also there is no explanation as to how and by whom an innocent minor girl was murdered and there is no evidence as to why any of the prosecution witness would depose against the accused persons. Ld. Addl. PP, thus, prayed for conviction to both accused persons.
13. Per contra, ld. counsel for accused persons submitted that the case of the prosecution is full of contradictions and improvements which is a major blow on the prosecution case. He further submitted that the testimony of the witness of defence be also taken at par in view of the judgments reported as State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh, 2002 (1) JCC 385 (Supreme Court of India) and Anil Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand [2004 (3) RCR (Cri) 774] wherein it is observed that the evidence tendered by the accused persons can not always be termed to be a tainted one and defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of the prosecution and the issue of credibility and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed at par with that of the prosecution.
SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 16 of 44
14. Apart from that, ld. defence counsel further argued that there is much difference in age group of these accused persons as accused Munni Devi is more than thirty years having three-four kids while accused Sudhir Kumar is only young boy of twenty years and hence, story of their illicit relations is indigestible and makes the prosecution story as a heap of sand and is liable to be discredited.
15. Besides the above, ld. counsel further argued that it is very strange that accused Sudhir Kumar would got recovered the knife i.e. weapon of offence from the room of accused Munni Devi after his arrest and there is no reason to hide and got recovered the knife at the instance of accused Sudhir Kumar from the room of accused Munni Devi. Moreover, said knife i.e. alleged weapon of offence was never sent to FSL for examination and this all casts a doubt on the prosecution case and as such, both accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Thus, ld. counsel prayed for acquittal of the accused persons for the offences for which they have been charged with.
16. Having carefully gone through the entire material on record and the rival submissions of the parties, in the light of the law laid down in the judgments on the issue in question.
SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 17 of 44
17. First of all court will deal with the contention of defence witness. There is no denial to the law laid down in the judgments cited by ld. defence counsel on the point of defence witness. But it is also to be seen that whether defence witness(s) is/are reliable and truthful or not.
18. DW-1 Ranjeet Kumar is stated to be the brother of accused Sudhir Kumar. Admittedly, he is an interested witness and testimony of the interested witness is also to be taken on record but it is to be examined whether his testimony is trustworthy or not. DW-1 Ranjeet Kumar stated that he was residing with his elder brother Sudhir at a house in Gali No.4, Gazipur Dairy Farm and on the day of incident i.e. 13.12.2017, Sudhir came back from his work in the evening at around 7.35 pm and thereafter, they cooked and have their meals and main gate of house was locked and Sudhir remained with him and did not go anywhere and then on the next morning, Sudhir had gone to his factory. He stated that on 14.12.2017 at about 3/3.30 p.m., police officials came to his house along with Sudhir and after search of their house for about 10 minutes, they took Sudhir along with them on the pretext of some inquiry and thereafter Sudhir was implicated falsely in the present case by the police officials of Gazipur. SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 18 of 44
19. It is an admitted fact that no complaint is on record to be filed before any authority for false implication of accused Sudhir i.e. too in a murder case. Besides the above, it is also general practice that if police official comes to the house of any one, mohalla people gathered there and come to the help of said person. However, no neighbourer has come forward to depose on this aspect. In view of the above, the court is of the view that this defence witness is an interested witness being real younger brother of accused Sudhir Kumar and as such, his testimony is neither corroborative nor reliable and also do not inspire any confidence.
20. Now court shall analysis the testimony of prosecution witnesses on record to the effect as to whether prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts or not.
21. Accused persons have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 364/34 IPC; 302/34 IPC. Both accused persons have also been charged for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC individually and accused Sudhir Kumar has also been charged for the offence punishable under Sec. 497 IPC.
22. Court shall deal with the charges for which accused persons have been charged one by one. Firstly, evidence will be tested on stone for SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 19 of 44 the offene punishable under Sec. 302/34 IPC.
Qua offence punishable under Sec. 302/34 IPC:
23. As none of the prosecution witness is eye-witness to the murder committed in this case, the case is to be treated as based on circumstantial evidence. It is clearly observed in case reported as State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. (2007 III AD (S.C.) 349 as under:
Para 13 : The prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence and it is a well settled proposition of Law that when case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of 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.
SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 20 of 44
24. Besides the above, in another case reported as Sunder @ Sundarajab Vs. State by Inspt. of Police (2013) 2 scale 204 and also in judgment reported as Sharad Birdichand Sarda V. State of Maharastra (AIR 1984 SC 1662), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :
"A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' as was held by this court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharastra where the following observations were made:
Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, there is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 21 of 44 (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for this conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
153. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
25. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy & Another Vs. State of A.P [(2006) 10 SCC 172], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :
"It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must from such a chain of event as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only the basis of the circumstantial evidence".
SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 22 of 44
26. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P. [AIR 1952 SC 343], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
27. Now the court has to look into as to whether chain of circumstantial evidence is complete without any break and is trustworthy.
28. In a murder case, the trial court is charged with the supreme duty of making proper appreciation of evidence and of law before reaching the finding that the case proved is culpable homicide amounting to murder as defined in Sec. 300 IPC. This constitutional duty flows from Article 21 because conviction under Sec. 302 IPC is liable to expose the accused to the extreme penalty that of deprivation of life in regard to which the court SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 23 of 44 must follow reasonable procedure of due application of mind.
29. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished but he also preside to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both the public duties. The Court has to sift the evidence, separate the chaff from the grain unless the court thinks that both versions are not reliable, the short cut path to acquittal is not the legitimate path. [Ref.: Bijoy Kr. Agarwal V. State of Orissa, (1989) 2 Crimes 34 (Ker.)]
30. It is the duty of the court to all out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform. (Ref. State of UP vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998).
31. The case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of PW-1 Ajeet Kumar. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Munni Devi has committed the murder of her own daughter Kajal with knife with the help of co-accused Sudhir Kumar. PW-1 categorically testified that it was SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 24 of 44 accused Munni Devi who told him to search her daughter on the adjacent roof of her house and during search, he saw the deadbody of Kajal lying there whose neck was cut.
32. Prosecution has also examined PW-18 Master Ramu, brother of deceased (son of accused Munni Devi) who deposed as follows :
".... On the day of incident, I, Kajal and Raja Babu were gone to the house of Lalman to watch TV at about 8.00-9.00 pm. I asked from my mother for whereabouts of my sister Kajal and she told that she is not aware. Thereafter, we started searching Kajal nearby our house. Our neighbour told us that we made search of the Kajal on the roof as she was sleeping there. I did not go there but I came to know lateron that Kajal was died. Even though, I cannot tell how she was died. While watching the TV at house of Lalman, my sister Kajal had left the said house firstly and after half an hour, we also left from there. When we left for watching TV, I and my brother Raja Babu left in the house lastly and my mother was cooking the food and there was nobody else in our house and my mother was alone at that time. My mother Munni Devi is present in the docket. xxxxx However, during cross-examination conducted by ld. Addl. P.P., this witness stated that :
".....Sudhir uncle came to our house while we were about to watch the TV in house of Lalman uncle. I did not stated to the police on query about the whereabouts of Kajal that my mother Munni Devi told that Kajal was taken by the ghost. It is correct that sometime, Sudhir uncle came in our house at the time when we left for watching the TV at the house of Lalman and sometime before that....."
SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 25 of 44
33. There is no rule of law which states that evidence of a hostile witness is to be rejected enbloc. It is not to be washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross examination and contradiction, the witness has been altogether discredited or not. Perusal of the record is clear to the effect that being son of one of the accused earlier this witness tried to hide some material fact but during cross-examination, facts came on record and as such, testimony of this witness is to be read as a whole and not in piecemeal.
34. From the testimonies of the witnesses produced on record coupled with other material on record, it is made clear that these witnesses have narrated the events of incident in a very chronological order in a loud voice by putting a finger of guilt towards the accused persons. There is also no denial to the fact that PW-1 Ajeet Kumar is not relative or friend to the family of deceased in any manner except was residing in the same colony and also that have no grudge, enmity or ill-will against either of these accused persons Devi. At any stage accused Munni Devi did not come forward with the plea that PW-1 has any enmity, ill-will or grudge against her or her family in any manner. There is no reason for his false SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 26 of 44 deposition against the accused persons. It is undisputed fact and even witnesses have categorically deposed that accused Munni Devi is the real mother of deceased - Kajal.
35. Besides this, it is trite law that man may speak lie but circumstances cannot tell lie. PW-1 Ajeet Kumar stated that on asking of accused Munni Devi, he searched Kajal on the adjacent roof and after seeing the deadbody of deceased Kajal on the adjacent roof, he immediately informed to the police and other persons, about the said crime. Further, on the issue that man may lie but documents cannot, prosecution has produced on record the CDRs of mobile phone numbers - 87509793763 and 8368657668 - showing that users of the same were in touch with each other. It is undisputed fact that mobile phone number - 87509793763 was being used by accused Munni. PW-9 Kamal Kishore - Nodal Officer - proved the record/CDR for the mobile phone number - 8368657668 as Ex.PW9/A to C. No suggestion has been put to this witness that said number was not in the name of the accused - Sudhir Kumar or Sudhir never used the said mobile phone. It is very interesting to note that when the said incriminating evidence was put to accused -Sudhir during his statement recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC vide question no. 20 - he replied stating as - I do not remember now. This all draws an adverse SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 27 of 44 inference against the accused persons. In case reported as Laxman Yadav V State 2013 AD (Crl) DHC 112 - wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as - false explanation by accused - effect of - false explanation by accused to built up defence which is otherwise contrary to established version of prosecution leads to drawing of adverse inference against such accused.
36. Apart from that, it is also revealed from the record that DW-1- Ranjeet Kumar - brother of the accused - during his cross-examination conducted by ld. Add. PP replied to the question which is being reproduced as to facilitate the matter -
Q. It is suggest by ld. Addl PP that mobile number 8368657668 belongs to Sudhir. Whether it is correct or incorrect?
Ans.: It is incorrect.
37. CDRs of both mobile phone number - 87509793763 and 8368657668 - is clear to the effect that users of both these numbers were in touch with each other during the period of incident. No explanation has come on record as to why and for what reason they were in touch with each other. Though nothing has come on record by way of documentary proof that accused Sudhir was present in the house of the accused Munni SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 28 of 44 but oral evidence has come on record by way of deposition of prosecution witnesses. PW-6 Lal Mohan, neighbour of accused Munni during his examination conducted on 16.07.2018 clearly stated as - It is correct that I had stated to the police in my statement that when Kajal left from my house at about 8 p.m. at that time, one boy who used to come at the house of Munni Devi and was present at her house xxxx It is correct that I had stated to the police in my statement dated 15.12.2014 when I saw accused Sudhir Kumar in PS I told to the police that he was the boy who came in the night of 13.12.2017 at the room of Pramod Kumar and earlier he used to visit there to meet Munni Devi. This witness denied the suggestion put to him by ld. defence counsel that he had never seen accused Sudhir on 13.12.2017 while entering to the house of mother of deceased and meeting her or prior to the said incident and also that he had not met accused Sudhir in PS nor identified him. No reason has been assigned to this witness as to why he would depose falsely against the accused Sudhir to that effect, particularly when no enmity, ill-will or grudge has either been alleged or proved between them.
38. Apart from that, PW-4 Pratap Singh during his examination-in- chief recorded on 15.05.2018 clearly stated as - xx I have another godown at main road Gazipur Dairy Farm where accused Munni Devi used SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 29 of 44 to reside in front of my godown. Accused Sudhir Kumar used to work at both godowns and both Munnni Devi and Sudhir Kumar known to each other as I heard. During investigation, police officials including lady police officials came at my godown with accused Munni Ddevi and thereafter they arrested accused Sudhir Kumar from my godown. Subsequently, I came to know the fact that accused Sudhir Kumar committed murder of Kajal with the help of Munni Devi. Deceased Kajal was the daughter of accused Munni Devi."
39. There is no suggestion put to PW-4 Pratap Singh denied the above facts and during the statement of this witness nothing has come on record to the effect that accused Munni Devi was not known to accused Sudhir Kumar or police never came to his godown with accused Munni Devi or accused Sudhir Kumar was not arrested from said place. Thus, testimony of this witness goes unrebutted and unchallenged.
40. During cross-examination to PW-4 Pratap Singh, he stated that accused Sudhir Kumar was arrested from said place on 14.12.2017 at about 7.30/8 pm. Ex.PW19/A arrest memo of this accused also strengthen this fact wherein it is clearly mentioned that said accused Sudhir was arrested on 14.12.2017 at 8 p.m. Apart from this, accused simply denied his arrest and nothing has come on record for his implication SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 30 of 44 falsely in the present matter or place from where he was arrested.
41. One of the contentions of the ld. defence counsel is that there is much difference in the age group of both accused persons i.e. accused Munni Devi is more than 30 years having three-four kids while accused Sudhir Kumar was a young boy of 20 years only and hence, story of illicit relations between them is indigestible. Qua said contention, this court is of the view that for such type of relations age does not matter. It is choice of one's to find love/lust in the other. There is no hard and fast rule that love/illicit relations can be developed only between the same age group. There is no denial to the fact that since Satyug till Kaliyug, there are so many instances where love/illicit relations developed between parties irrespective of age group and even of class. Hence, qua contention of ld counsel that relations cannot be made between accused persons considering the difference of age group, has no substance and has no legs to stand.
42. One of the contention of the ld defence counsel is that weapon of offence has not been sent to FSL for examination, is also of no value. There is no suggestion to the effect that injuries caused to the deceased are not possible with the weapon of offence.
SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 31 of 44
43. Ld. defence counsel further contented that it is indigestible that co-accused Sudhir got recovered knife from the room of co-accused Munni Devi. When the commission of murder can be committed with common intention, is there any bar that weapon of offence cannot be hide at the house of one of the accused and that be anyone. It seems that ld counsel has raised the contentions only for the sake of arguments.
44. Post-mortem report vide Ex.PW5/A is clear that cause of death of deceased was - "shock and hamorrhagic shock due to cut throat injury and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries were antemortem in nature, fresh in duration and could be possible to cause by sharp edged weapon".
45. As per the post-mortem report, deceased was having following external injuries:
1) Multiple incised wound intermingling to each other resulting cut throat injury of size 15x7 cm x vertebrae deep over upper middle front of neck extend to both side of neck. The upper border of wound in middle placed 3.5 cm below the tip of chin and lower border is placed 5.5 cm above the suprasternal notch. The right angle of wound extend to right side mastoid area upto ear lobule and left angle of wound shows multiple tailing placed 2.5 cm below the angle of mandible. The would cut the soft tissues, muscles of neck at the level of upper boarder of thyroid cartilage to cut trachea, oeshophagus and also cut the vessels of both sides of neck.
SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 32 of 44
2) Multiple superficial incised wound (8 in number) present over neck just below the lower boarder of injury no.1. These wounds extend to both side of neck more on right side with varying in size from 15x0.2 x skin deep to 3.5x0.2 x skin deep.
46. Hence, it is proved that deceased died due to cut throat injury with a sharp edged weapon which resulted into her death on account of shock and hammorrhagic shock due to cut throat injury. It is nowhere suggestion that neck cut injury cannot be caused by the recovered knife.
47. Photographs placed on record depicting the photos of deceased Kajal are clear that her throat was cut and blood was present on her neck as well as on her clothes and mattress on which she was lying.
48. Photographs placed on record clearly show that deceased was having a deep cut in her neck and post-mortem report Ex.PW5/A clearly mentions the injuries on the body of deceased which tallied with the photographs and even corroborated with the disclosure statements made by both accused persons. This all shows that accused tried to evade the incriminating evidence brought and put against him. This all puts a stamp on the prosecution case. Chain of the evidence in all respect are complete/without any link missing therein.
49. Contention of the ld. defence counsel qua contradictions and improvements, it is also to mention that ld. defence counsel has failed to SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 33 of 44 mention or point out any major contradiction and/or improvement. It is well settled law that - only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness in the Court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution become doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to occur in the statements of truthful witnesses too, as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observations differ from person to person. The omissions in the same does not found to cause any dent in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Even if there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness. There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye-witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 34 of 44 acceptable evidence and for all this reference can be taken from case reported as Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Crl. A. 25-26/2000) decided by Hon'ble Apex Court, and as such, contention on the issue mentioned above has no value in the eyes of law.
50. Now turn to the issue of motive, it also cannot be denied that murder cannot be committed without motive. However, in the present case, motive of the murder is clear. As per the record, accused Munni Devi was having extra marital relations with Sudhir Kumar, co-accused. Sudhir Kumar used to visit the house of accused Munni Devi off and on. As already mentioned, though accused Sudhir Kumar denied the suggestion that he ever met Munni Devi and even his defence is that he did not know co-accused Munni Devi, but as mentioned above, it is clear from the record that they knew each other and having intimacy and when Kajal threatened them she would disclose the facts to her father, both accused got frightened and committed murder of said kid namely Kajal.
51. "Culpable homicide" is defined in Sec. 299 of the IPC, thus :
299 - Culpable homicide - Whoever caused death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide."
SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 35 of 44
52. Viewing the facts of the present case in the light of the definition of "culpable homicide" and "murder" as contained in Section 299 and 300 of the IPC, it is transpired the requisite "intention" and "knowledge" of the accused persons by cutting throat of deceased with ulterior motive to get rid from her as she has seen both accused persons in an objectionable position in the room of accused Munni Devi. Thus, the knife blow with violent force on the vital part of the body give rise to the presumption that intention of the accused persons was to take away the life of deceased Kajal. When cut throat injury was on the neck i.e. vital part of the body of the deceased who succumbed to the injuries from this fact alone, the accused persons had clear intentions to finish the life of the deceased and also get rid from her in future forever when they meet. Accused persons when giving the blows of deadly weapon to a minor victim with intention to kill her with knife, the intention to cause death is very much inferred. All this would amount to culpable homicide with intention to "murder".
53. A holistic appreciation of all the evidence referred to hereinabove can lead to no other conclusion except "murder" and that too at the hands of both accused persons who committed the barbaric act SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 36 of 44 jointly with the common intention. The fact of death of Kajal having died a homicidal death is not disputed. The case of both accused persons squarely falls under Sec. 300 of the IPC, clear case of murder.
54. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and judgments cited, it has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt that accused persons namely Munni Devi W/o Shri Pramod Kumar and Sudhir Kumar S/o Shri Dasai Ram have committed the murder of Kajal (daughter of accused Munni Devi and PW Pramod Kumar) and as such, are liable to be held guilty. Accordingly, accused Munni Devi W/o Pramod Kumar and Sudhir Kumar S/o Dasai Ram are held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
55. Now Court shall deal with the offence punishable under Section 364/34 IPC.
56. It is matter of record that deceased Kajal was real daughter of accused Munni Devi. Accused Sudhir Kumar was present with accused Munni Devi before the commission of alleged murder of Kajal.
57. Section 364 Indian Penal Code defines as - whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 37 of 44 be punished xxxxx
58. It has come on record through the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 Ajeet Kumar and PW-2 Pramod Kumar that either of these accused or any one of them at any point of time kidnap or abduct the deceased. Rather it has come on record that Kajal, the deceased, herself came in her house i.e. where both accused were present in objectionable position and on account of fear that she would disclose the matter to her father, both accused committed murder of Kajal after taking her to the roof top of the house. Even both accused persons during their disclosure statements disclosed this fact. As such, nothing has come on record which may even remotely suggest that this case falls within the ambit of Sec. 364 IPC. As such, this court is the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against either of these accused persons for the offence punishable under Sec. 364 IPC and as such, accused persons - Sudhir Kumar and Munni Devi are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 364/34 IPC for which they have been charged with. Qua for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC:
59. To facilitate the matter Section 201 IPC is being reproduced as under - Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 38 of 44 offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with intention gives any information respecting the offence he knows or believes to be false xxxxx
60. Hon'ble Apex Court om Roshanlal Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 1413 criticised Sec. 201 as somewhat clumsily drafted. It was observed: Section 201 is somewhat clumsily drafted, but the expression 'knowing or having reasons to believe' in the first paragraph and the expression 'knows or believes' in the second paragraph are used in the same sense. Take the case of an accused who has reason to believe that an offence has been committed. If the other conditions of the first paragraph are satisfied, he is guilty of an offence under Sec. 201 IPC. From the evidence and material on record, it is clear that body of the deceased was found on the roof only at the information of accused Munni Devi.
61. The true import of the word 'causes' in the collocation of the words 'causes any evidence of the commission of the offence to disappear' fell for consideration. It held that the dictionary meaning of the expression 'cause' clearly envisages some active step on the part of the doer of the act, and so in the matter of causing disappearance of evidence relevant to a particular offence, the person charged must be proved to have actively SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 39 of 44 participated in the matter of disappearance of the evidence and not mere sufferance by him or her of the removal of such evidence by others. Mere knowledge on the part of the accused of the removal of the deadbodies alone would not bring the case within the ambit of sec. 201 IPC. And that section's essential requirement is causing any evidence of commission of offence to disappear. Unless the prosecution could establish that the accused had caused any evidence to disappear, the charge under Sec. 201 IPC would not be sustainable [Ref. Sumitra Sherpani In ref 1975 CrlLJ 169 (Guh.)].
62. The ingredients of an offence under Sc. 201 IPC are four-fold. First, there must be some offence that had already been committed; secondly, it must be proved that the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of that offence; thirdly, he gave information relating to that offence which he then knew or believed to be false and fourthly, it should be shown that he did so with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. In a case, the husband with the assistance of another person murdered the wife. The father of the husband who lived in the same house with them despite belief and knowledge about murder, lodged the report of suicide with the police with the intentions to screen the offender. The father was held guilty of offence under Sec. 201 SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 40 of 44 IPC [Brijkishore Vs. State of UP (1989) Crl LJ 616].
63. Apart from that, Section 201 IPC lays down that it must be proved that an offence was committed. The accused must know or have reasons to believe that the offence has been committed. With such knowledgeor belief, he must either have caused any evidence of the commission of the offence to disappear or give any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false. So also, the accused must have acted with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.
64. With the above observations, it has come on record to the effect that both these accused knowing and/or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, caused the evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment and/or with intention gave any information respecting the offence knew or believed to be false.
65. From the above discussion and evidence of witnesses i.e. PW-1; PW-4; PW-6 and PW-18 material on record, court came to the conclusion that prosecution has able to bring home the guilt of both of these accused persons for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC. Accordingly, both accused persons namely - Sudhir Kumar and Munni SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 41 of 44 Devi - both - individualy -are held guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC.
Qua for the offence punishable under Sec. 497 IPC:
66. Section 497 IPC says as - Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is an and whom he knows or has reasons to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of offence of adultery, and shall be punished xxxxx
67. The cognizance of this offence is limited to adultery committed with a married woman, and the male offender alone has been made liable to punishment. Thus, under the Code, adultery is an offence committed by a third person against a husband in respect of his wife.
68. From the material on record and testimony of prosecution witnesses, it is crystal clear that nothing has come on record which may ever suggest that accused Sudhir Kumar while made sexual relations with accused Munni Devi. As per the prosecution case, deceased was the only eye witness of the illegal relationship of the accused persons. PW-2 Pramod Kumar, husband of accused Munni Devi, in his statement made before the court on 14.05.2018 clearly stated as - It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to police in my statement that I suspect about he SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 42 of 44 character of my wife xxxx It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to police in my statement that I suspect the illicit relations between my wife and Sudhir. No suggestion was put to this witness that he deposed these facts before the court on that date under pressure or coercion. Apart from that, if these are taken as gospel truth, even there there is only suspicion and no evidence was there to that effect that whether Sudhir and Munni Devi ever made any sexual relations. As such, ingredients of Section 497 IPC cannot be fulfilled from the facts and circumstances of the present case. As such, from the above discussion it is also clear that prosecution story on the count of Sec. 497 IPC falls flat. It is undisputed fact that prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequent to above, accused Sudhir Kumar is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 497 IPC.
69. Sum up of the above discussion and material on record is that;
(a) both accused persons namely Sudhir Kumar and Munni Devi are are acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 364/34 IPC;
(b) Accused persons namely Sudhir Kumar and Munni Dev are individually held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC;
(c) Accused Sudhir Kumar is acquitted for the offence punishable SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 43 of 44 under Sec. 497 IPC; while
(d) Both accused persons namely Sudhir Kumar and Munni Devi are held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC.
Announced in the open Court on 06th day of April, 2021 (Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam) Additional Sessions Judge-03 (East) :
Karkardooma Courts: Delhi.
SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 44 of 44