Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Rahul Dev on 29 August, 2014

IN THE COURT OF SH.AMIT BANSAL, ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE­04 
                    (NORTH­WEST DISTRICT) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI


IN THE MATTER OF :­

S.C. No.  35/11
FIR No. 303/09
U/S   302/201 IPC 
P.S.  Maurya Enclave
State Vs.   Rahul Dev 
Unique case ID No.  02404R0268202009


STATE        VERSUS                                                    Rahul Dev S/O Sh. Nepali Mehto,
                                                                       R/O 3533, Sector­12B, Bokaro 
                                                                        Steel City,Jharkhand.



Date of receipt of file in this Court:                                 28.01.2014
Date when arguments were heard:                                        29.08.2014
Date of judgment :                                                     29.08.2014



JUDGMENT

1. The above said accused has been charge sheeted by Police Station Maurya Enclave for commission of offences punishable U/S 302/201 IPC.

2. Copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused by the Ld. FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 1 of 56 Metropolitan Magistrate. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after complying with the provision of Section 207 CrPC committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence punishable U/S 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

3. The accused is facing trial on the allegations of the prosecution that on the intervening night of 22/23.06.2009 at about 12.30 a.m. at terrace/roof of H.No. 95­D, BP Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Maurya Enclave, he committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing death of Diwakar Chaudhary S/o Sh. Ram Deen and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 302 IPC. He is further facing trial on the allegations of the prosecution that on the aforesaid date, time and place, he knowing the commission of murder of Diwakar Chaudhary, cut his dead body into pieces and kept his head in a black bag and removed his body from the roof to conceal the dead body with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 201 IPC.

The charge was framed on 01.12.2009 and was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 2 of 56

Thereafter, the case was fixed for Prosecution Evidence.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused has examined total 24 witnesses and thereafter the Prosecution Evidence was closed.

5. Statement of accused Rahul Dev was recorded U/S 313 CrPC in which he denied all the material incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that he left the said premises in the year 2008 and came back one month prior to the date of incident in the year 2009. He stated that except Parkash, other two persons namely Rishabh and Umesh were residing with him in the said premises and even Ravi Kant was also living with them in the said premises. He stated that he did not give any telephonic call in the evening of 22.06.2009 to Diwakar Chaudhary (since deceased) to come to the above said house in the evening. He stated that as a matter of fact, Parkash brought the deceased and two other unknown persons with him, when Parkash came to the said house. He stated that the liquor bottle and eatables were brought by Parkash and deceased and not by him. He admitted that the deceased was known to him as Seema ( wife of deceased) used to work in the said rented FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 3 of 56 premises one year prior to the incident and she was removed by him from work. He stated that he was later on called by Parkash and deceased to join for drinks. He stated that the meat was prepared by Parkash and Ballu, Ballu was acquainted with him as a friend of Parkash but Ballu was not his friend. He stated that there was a quarrel between deceased and Parkash relating to Seema as Parkash was having illicit relationship with Seema. He stated that after drinking, he became unconscious and Parkash along with Ballu dropped him to his room and thereafter, he did not know as to what happened. He denied that on hearing the noise of 'dham ­dham', PW­1 Parkash Kumar @ Pinku, PW­5 Ravi Kant Dubey and PW­ 15 Rishabh went to the roof through the stairs where they saw that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood and he was standing there with a long knife type weapon in his hand . He stated that at that time he was not in his senses being drunk and lying in his room . He further denied that on hearing the noise of 'dham­dham' from the terrace, PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 went to the roof through the stairs, where they found that he was stabbing the deceased with a meat cutting knife. He stated that the blood was planted upon his clothes later on . He specifically stated that he was not present at the spot of murder as he was lying FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 4 of 56 unconscious in his room being drunk. He stated that till the time he remained conscious after drink, neither Ravi Kant nor Umesh joined them at the roof and further stated that as a matter of fact Ravi Kant Dubey (PW­5) was not even present at the spot. The accused did not know whether PW­10 Umesh Kumar was residing at 95­D, BP Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi as a tenant and on 23.06.2009 when he came back to his house from duty, then he found the said house bolted from inside. Accused denied that when PW­10 knocked the door of the said house then he opened the door and at that time he was wearing only a black color pants, was bare chested and there was blood on his chest and hands. He stated that Umesh was joined as a witness later on by the police to boost the present case. He stated that when he regained consciousness, there were two Constables in his house and Inspector Yashpal Singh along with three witnesses i.e. PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 were not present there. He denied that PW­24 Inspector Yashpal Singh knocked at the door of the said house for a long time after which he opened the door and at that time he had blood stains on his upper body ( without clothes) and he was wearing only a black color pants. He stated that PW­24 did not visit the spot on the intervening night of 22/23.06.2009. He denied that PW­1, PW­5 and FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 5 of 56 PW­15 entered in the room along with PW­24, PW­24 took the search of the house and found the body of the deceased in the kitchen and the head of the body was found inside a red and black rexine bag. He stated that the fact regarding the death of deceased came into his knowledge when they searched the house along with him. He stated that PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 never visited again the place of incident in front of him. He admitted that PW­24 also noticed that the body was lying in such a position that the legs of the body were inside the kitchen and the headless torso was lying towards the gate, inside the kitchen and the bag with the head was lying near the sink and one instrument, used to cut meat, was lying on the upper left side of the body and there were several cut marks on the left upper body and arm. He however, stated that he never touched deceased in his whole life. The accused did not know that PW­24 also noticed that the marks of blood were going towards the roof through the stair way and accordingly, PW­24 went to the roof and found that on roof of the house, blood was lying, one finger of hand was found lying, there was also one blanket, one empty liquor bottle make 'Signature' and its box, one empty meat box, two glasses and two pairs of chappal and one cream shirt were lying there. The accused stated that he did not know FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 6 of 56 since he was unconscious at that time. He stated that his disclosure statement was fabricated and forged while sitting in the police station and his signatures were later on obtained on it. He stated that the blood was sprinkled on him by the IO at the spot to connect him in the present case. He stated in reference to MLC Ex.PW14/A that there was tenderness in his left thumb as it came in the left door, while he was coming from the roof to his room. He stated that at the time when Seema (PW­8) used to work at their house, PW­15 Rishabh was not staying with them at the house. The accused denied that sometimes he used to make fun with PW­8 Seema to which she objected and stated that as a matter of fact PW­1 Prakash and PW­10 Umesh were having illicit relationship with her. The accused denied that the husband of PW­8 i.e the deceased used to doubt him and PW­8. He stated that the deceased used to complain about the illicit relationship of Seema with PW­1 and PW­10, due to which he removed PW­8 Seema from work. He denied that when Seema informed about his behaviour towards her to her husband i.e the deceased then hot words were exchanged between the accused and the deceased several times. He stated that his signatures were obtained forcibly by the police on some blank papers and printed proformas and later on, FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 7 of 56 those papers were converted into various memos against him. He stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case as PW1 Prakash and PW­10 Umesh were having illicit relationship with PW­8 Seema (wife of the deceased), PW­1 was unhappy with him as he removed PW­8 from work and asked her to never visit his house, on the day of incident, an altercation took place between PW­1 and deceased upon which they called him, he pacified the matter and thereafter, they all drank and he became unconscious there. The accused stated that later on he was removed to his room by PW­1 and Ballu and he was made to lye on his bed. He stated that PW­1 and PW­10 were not happy with him as he removed PW­8 from work as he had seen them in compromising state in the house. He specifically stated that as a matter of fact, PW­1 Prakash should be an accused in the present case but PW­1 took benefit of his unconsciousness and got him implicated in the present case in connivance with other witnesses and police. In his statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC, the accused preferred to lead defence evidence.

6. The accused has examined Shri Ashish Soy, Consultant Neuro Psychiatric, Compos Mentis, opposite Krishi Bhawan, First Floor, Gangotri Complex, Kanke Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand as DW­1 in FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 8 of 56 support of his case. He has not examined any other defence witness in support of his case. The certificate issued by DW­1 regarding medical treatment of accused from 4.2.2009 to 25.5.2009 has been proved as Ex.DW1/A.

7. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused and have carefully perused the record.

8. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that from the testimony of PW­1, PW­5, PW­10 and PW­15, out of whom PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 are the eye witnesses, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused committed murder of the deceased. He deposed that the motive of the crime has been proved by the prosecution witnesses including by PW­8 Seema. He submitted that the accused was having illicit relations with PW­8 Seema i.e. wife of the deceased . He further referred to the testimony of above said public witnesses and also that of PW­24 Inspector Yashpal Singh and argued that when PW­24 reached third floor of the said house, the door of the house was found locked from inside and only after knocking at the door, the accused with blood stains on his upper body upon which he was not wearing any cloth and was FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 9 of 56 wearing only pants, opened the door. He also referred to Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and argued that burden of proof is upon the accused in the given facts and circumferences of the case. He argued that the accused has not taken any defence of legal insanity while cross­ examining any prosecution witness and took the said defence only while examining DW­1. He also referred to the testimony of DW­1 and argued that his testimony is not at all reliable because the medical certificate Ex. DW 1/A dated 17.11.12 and the prescription dated 04.02.09 i.e. Ex. DW 1/PA were written together and that the DW­1 has admitted that the papers on which they have been written bear the same age . He further argued that DW­1 was not even maintaining separate case file of his patients but has deposed that he was maintaining a register and even did not bring that register in the court. He also argued that even otherwise the legal insanity is different from medical insanity . He referred to the cross­ examination of PW­15 and argued that as per the defence of the accused, PW­1 , PW­5, PW­15 and Umesh had illicit relations with PW­8 Seema and when the accused tried to tell about their illicit relations with PW­8 to the deceased, then PW­15 got the deceased murdered through Ballu. He argued that the accused has totally FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 10 of 56 failed to prove his said defence in this case. He argued that minor variations in the testimony of prosecution witnesses can creep up due to passage of time and are thus not fatal to the case of prosecution. He submitted that PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 specifically deposed that they saw the accused murdering the deceased with butcher's knife/dao/meat cutting chopper and further the presence of the accused in the house from where the dead body was recovered with weapon of offence show that the accused committed the murder of the deceased. He also argued that the non examination of Ballu as a prosecution witness is not fatal to the case of prosecution as he was a friend of the accused and Ballu had left the house before the case incident. He submitted that no blood could be detected on the wearing pants of the accused because the accused might have taken precautions in that regard and further submitted that due to presence of three eye witnesses, this fact will not dent the case of the prosecution. He also argued that as per the case of prosecution, PW­ 1, accused and deceased went to the roof of the house, put a blanket, sat there and started taking liquor. He submitted that it was found in the medical examination of the accused that he consumed no liquor. He contended that it was possible because the accused must have FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 11 of 56 taken active steps to ensure that he does not consume liquor, rather made the deceased to drink liquor, as the accused was nursing an evil intention to commit the murder of deceased. He argued that after committing the murder of the deceased the accused cut the dead body of deceased into pieces i.e. kept his head in a black bag and removed his body from the roof to conceal the dead body with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment. He thus argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed that the accused be convicted U/S 302/201 IPC.

9. Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused argued that PW­1 wanted to take revenge from the accused because the accused had disclosed to the deceased about the illicit relation of his wife i.e. PW­8 with PW­1 ( Prakash Kumar ) and PW­10( Umesh). She argued that the IO of the case did not investigate the matter properly as the IO did not make any public witness from the area or even from the third floor where the incident took place. She argued that the prosecution failed to prove as to who brought the weapon of offence in the house and the conduct of Ballu i.e. the person who brought raw mutton is very doubtful. She argued that the non examination of the said Ballu as a FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 12 of 56 witness is fatal to the case of prosecution. She argued that the IO did not investigate from other tenants of that floor i.e. Sh. Raj Kumar and the said Raj Kumar should have been a witness in this case. She argued that the motive of the case crime is also very doubtful. She argued that the accused was undergoing the treatment of Psychotic - Depression and epilepsy and on the date of incident consumed little bit alcohol, became unconscious and therefore, was not aware about the happenings in the house. She argued that the maid i.e. PW­8 Seema used to come at house only when PW­10 Umesh used to be present at the house and only at that time PW­1 also used to visit the house. She argued that as per the testimony of prosecution witnesses the distance between the police station and the place of incident was about 10­15 minutes and the time of incident is about 12.30 a.m. then why they reached at the police station at 3.30 p.m. She contended that the prosecution has failed to explain as to what PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 were doing for the said three long hours. She argued that the IO has not investigated the case properly and even no blood was found on the wearing pants of the accused as per the FSL report. She further argued that even no alcohol was detected from the body of the accused in medical examination which belies the story of FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 13 of 56 prosecution . She argued that the roof of the house is connected with the neighboring houses from where PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 ran away from the house leaving the accused in an unconscious state. She thus argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed that the accused be acquitted U/S 302/201 IPC.

10. As discussed above, the prosecution in support of its case has examined total 24 witnesses.

PW­1 Sh. Parkash Kumar @ Pinkoo is a material witness for the prosecution being the informant as well as one of the eye witness of the case incident. The statement of PW­1 dated 23.06.09 upon which the case FIR was registered has been proved as Ex. PW 1/A bearing the signatures of PW­1 in Hindi and English at point A and B respectively. The weapon of offence i.e. knife type weapon has been proved as Ex. P­1, one black color bag has been proved as Ex. P­2, two pairs of chappals i.e. one pair belonging to the accused having thin strips and one pair belonging to the deceased having white strips have been proved as Ex. P­3 and Ex. P­4 respectively, one blanket having brown stains i.e. the blanket which was put on the roof for party has been proved as Ex. P­5, one cream color shirt having brown FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 14 of 56 stains i.e. the shirt of the deceased has been proved as Ex. P­6, one black color pants of accused has been proved as Ex. P­7 and one jeans pants, one belt and one underwear having brown strips of the deceased have collectively been proved as Ex. P­8. The testimony of the said witness in detail will be discussed during the course of the judgment.

PW­2 HC Pawan Kumar was working as Duty Officer in the night of 22/23.06.2009 at P S Maurya Enclave with duty hours from 12 midnight to 8 a.m. and he deposed that on that day three boys came at the police station and in the meanwhile Inspector Yashpal Singh ( PW­24) also reached there. He deposed that he introduced the said boys to PW­24 who took them with him and at about 7.10 a.m., Ct. Govind came at the police station with a rukka and handedover the same to him on the basis of which a case FIR was registered, carbon copy of which has been proved as Ex. PW 2/A. The endorsement made by PW­2 on the rukka has been proved as Ex. PW 2/B. In cross­examination, PW­2 deposed that the complainant had not signed the FIR.

PW­3 Sh. Naresh Kumar is Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi . He deposed to the effect FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 15 of 56 that on 08.09.09 fourteen sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL, Rohini in this case. He deposed that parcels No. 1 to 10 were sealed with the seal of ' YPS' and parcels No. 11 to 13 and 15 were sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital, Delhi. PW­3 examined all the parcels and his detailed biological report has been proved as Ex. PW 3/A bearing his signatures at point A. The serological report of PW­3 has been proved as Ex. PW 3/B. PW­4 Ct. Dalbir Singh , on 23.06.09 was posted in Mobile Crime Team , North­ West as a photographer and on that day he along with SI Devender Singh ( PW­16), Incharge Crime Team went to the spot at VP­95 D, Pitam Pura, Delhi where he took photographs of the dead body and the blood from different angles and he handed over the positives to the IO. The photographs have been proved as Ex. PW­ 4/A­1 to PW 4/A­25 and their negatives as Ex. PW4/A­26 to Ex. PW 4/A­50. In cross­examination he deposed that he took photographs at the spot between 6.30 a.m. to 7.55 a.m. PW­5 Sh. Ravi Kant Dubey is also a material witness for the prosecution being an eye witness of the case incident. He identified the weapon of offence ( butcher's kinfe) as Ex P­1. He deposed that accused was wearing black colored pants at the time when he saw FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 16 of 56 him and that said pants has been proved as Ex. P­7. He deposed that he could not identify the clothes of deceased as he was so frightened on seeing the body of the deceased that he immediately rushed out of the house. The testimony of the said witness in detail will be discussed during the course of the judgment.

PW­6 Ct. Jai Bhagwan is a formal witness who on 23.06.2009 took the special report upon the instructions of Duty Officer to be delivered to Ld. MM and to Senior Police Officers.

PW­7 Dr. V.K.Jha, Medical Officer, BJRM Hospital, Delhi deposed that on 25.06.2009 he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that he observed the following external injuries on the body of the deceased:­

i) Incised wound left lower leg at lower end of sized 3 cms x 1.5 cms x muscle deep in its outer aspect.

ii) Amputation of finger from middle phalanges in middle finger of right hand.

Iii) Incised wound on palmar aspect of right hand of size 9 cms x 3 cms into bone deep and 8 cms x 2 cms x bone deep separated in a gap of one cm in the middle.

iv) Incised wound on left shoulder extending upto Axilla 12 cms x FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 17 of 56 7 cms x bone deep, skin muscles and vessels were exposed.

v) Skull stump: The cut stump attached to the head showed multiple irregular cut over front of neck and on the back muscles severed with bruising at cut ends of fifth vertebrae present in the cut stump separated head and parts of the neck attached to it also showed cut marks on its body which are partial. Spinal cord passing through it shows cut separation.

vi) Neck: The cut part of the neck attached to the trunk also showed multiple irregular cut in its whole circumference and the body of sixth Cervical vertebrae showed partial cut in the front, the spinal cord is cut in whole circumference and separated from the upper from the neck, blood clots were present over both severed part of the cut neck.

He deposed that when the separated head and neck were put in the alignment, then, they fit into each other matching the cut ends of decapitation anatomically. He deposed that upon internal examination of the neck, trachea was drawn in chest cavity . He further deposed that after postmortem examination, he opined the cause of death as combined effect of hemorrhagic shock and asphyxia as a result of antemortem cut throat injury, cut throat FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 18 of 56 injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and was inflicted by other party. He deposed that the weapon was heavy sharp cutting straight weapon. The postmortem report has been proved as Ex. PW 7/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW­ 7 deposed that in his cross­examination that as per the postmortem report, undigested egg pieces were found in the stomach of the deceased.

PW­8 Smt. Seema is the wife of the deceased. She is a material witness regarding motive of the case crime. In her examination she deposed that her husband used to doubt her and accused. The testimony of the said witness in detail will be discussed during the course of the judgment.

PW­9 Sh. Ram Dayal Chaudhary is a formal witness, who was the uncle of the deceased and identified the body of the deceased at BJRM Hospital Mortuary. The statement of PW­9 regarding identification of the body of the deceased has been proved as Ex. PW 9/A. PW­10 Sh. Umesh Kumar is also a material witness for the prosecution who was also living as a tenant at VP Block, 95 B, Pitam Pura, Delhi. He also proved the black color pants of the FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 19 of 56 accused as Ex.P­7. His testimony in detail will be discussed during the later part of the judgment.

PW­11 ASI Narender Singh was posted in Crime Investigation Team, North­ West District, P.S. Maurya Enclave. On 23.06.2009 he along with PW­16 SI Devender Singh and police photographer PW­4 Ct. Dalbir Singh reached at the spot there PW­ 24 Inspector Yashpal Singh met them. PW­11 examined the scene of crime. The scene of crime examination report dated 23.06.2009 has been proved as Ex. PW 11/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW­12 Ct. Surjeet Singh joined the investigation of the present case with PW­24 ( IO) on 23.06.2009 and accompanied him to the spot. From there, the IO deputed him along with the dead body for its preservation at mortuary of BJRM Hospital and he deposited the dead body in BJRM Hospital.

PW­13 Ct. Amar Nath accompanied the IO on 23.6.2009 for medical examination of the accused at BJRM hospital. He deposed that Dr. Pawan conducted medical examination of the accused, blood sample was collected from the chest of the accused and the pulanda containing blood sample was handed over to him, which he handed over to IO. The seizure memo of said FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 20 of 56 pulanda has been proved as Ex.PW13/A bearing signatures of PW­ 13 at point A. On 25.6.2009, PW­13 again joined the investigation of the case with IO and went to the mortuary of BJRM hospital where the dead body of deceased was lying and he received four pulandas containing blood samples etc of deceased along with one sample seal with the seal of FMT which he handed over to IO and which was seized by the IO through seizure memo Ex.PW13/B. PW­13 also received viscera of the deceased contained in a wooden box with the seal of FMT and handed over the same to IO who seized the same through seizure memo Ex.PW13/C. PW­14 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary has deposed regarding the MLC No.3253 dated 23.6.2009 of the accused. He deposed that as per the said MLC, clotted blood stains were found on the right forearm, chest and abdomen of upper surface of the skin, no fresh external injury at the time of medical examination was found, there was minimum tenderness on the side of left thumb and left index finger and all the movements were found present. He deposed that the swab of the clotted blood stains present on the body of accused was preserved, sealed and handed over to the IO. The MLC has been proved as Ex.PW14/A. FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 21 of 56 PW­15 Rishabh is also a material witness for the prosecution being an eye witness of the case incident. Meat cutting knife (weapon of offence ) has been proved as Ex.P­1. The pants of the accused has been proved as Ex.P­7. A jeans pant of the deceased has been proved as Ex.P­8. A pair of chappals of accused and a pair of chappals of deceased have been proved as Ex.P­3 and P­4 respectively. The testimony of the said witness in detail will be discussed during the course of the judgment.

PW­16 SI Devender Singh was posted in mobile crime team on 23.6.2009 and on that day he along with crime team reached at the spot where PW­24 met them. He deposed that on inspection of the spot, a headless body was found in the kitchen and the head was lying in a travel bag, blood was lying on the floor, blood was also found on the staircase leading to the terrace and a pool of blood was lying on the terrace. He deposed that a blood stained shirt, blanket having blood, half cut finger, empty whisky bottle of Signature, its carton and a plastic container having chicken pieces were lying on the terrace. He deposed that spot was photographed by crime team photographer Ct. Dalbir (PW­4) FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 22 of 56 and ASI Narender (PW­11), finger print expert, lifted three finger prints. The report of PW­16 has been proved as Ex.PW16/A. He deposed that the weapon of offence i.e chopper was also found at the spot and that it was found lying on the body as mentioned in report Ex.PW16/A. In cross­examination, he deposed that they reached the spot at 6.30am and left the spot at about 8.00am. He did not remember whether he saw egg shells at the spot.

PW­17 HC Bhagat Singh was working as MHC(M) at PS Maurya Enclave on 23.6.2009 and deposed regarding deposit of pulandas and articles at malkhana and sending the pulandas to FSL. The copy of the relevant entries in this regard have been proved as Ex.PW17/A to Ex.PW17/F. PW­18 SI Manohar Lal was working as a draftsman and on 14.7.2009 on the pointing out of PW­1, he took rough notes and measurement of the place of incident and later on, prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW18/A. PW­19 Shri Nirmal Babbar was the owner of the property No. 95 D, VP Block, Pitampura, Delhi and deposed that he had rented out two room set on the third floor of the said premises to the accused where the accused was living with other two boys FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 23 of 56 namely, Raj Kumar and Umesh (PW­10). He deposed that they were paying Rs.4,000/­ per month to him on time, they had lived in the premises for about two years and the friends of accused used to visit him in the said premises. The rent agreement in this regard has been proved as Ex.PW19/A, bearing signatures of PW­19 at point A and that of accused at point B. In his cross­examination, PW­19 deposed that PW­1 was not residing with the accused and a maid ie. PW8 used to visit the room of the accused for work and that there was no other tenant in the room.

PW­20 Ct. Ram Parkash is a formal witness who on 8.9.2009 took the pulandas in sealed condition from malkhana of PS Maurya Enclave and deposited them at FSL Rohini vide RC no.41/21/09 on the directions of the IO. He deposited the copy of RC acknowledgment at Malkhana and deposed that as long as the exhibits remained in his custody, no one tampered with or interfered with the same.

PW­21 HC Mukesh Kumar is also a formal witness who on 7.9.2009 took the exhibits of RC No. 38/21/09 and 39/21/09 from PW­17 and went at Chemistry Division of FSL Rohini. He deposed that the exhibits of RC No. 38/21/09 were deposited with the FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 24 of 56 Chemistry Division but the exhibits of RC No.39/21/09 were not accepted and he deposited the same along with the copy of receipt of RC No. 38/21/09 at malkhana. He deposed that as long as the exhibits remained in his custody, no one tampered with or interfered with the same.

PW­22 SI Ramesh Dutt joined the investigation of the present case with the IO PW­24. He inter alia deposed that in the kitchen of above said premises, a headless body of a male was lying and along the side of the body, the head of the body was lying in a bag. He deposed that over the body, one big 'Da' (instrument used for cutting wood) was lying, Crime team came at the spot and made inspection of the spot. The Crime team lifted the finger prints from the glass and liquor bottle lying on the roof, the body was sent to BJRM hospital mortuary through Ct. Surjeet (PW­12) and PW­24 inspected the roof. He deposed that the blood lying on the roof was lifted with the help of cotton and kept in a plastic container and a pulanda was prepared with the help of cloth which was sealed with the seal of YPS. The earth control and the blood earth were lifted by breaking the floor with a hammer, were kept in separate plastic containers and were sealed with the seal of YPS. The two glasses FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 25 of 56 lying on the roof were kept in a cloth pulanda and sealed with the seal of YPS. One empty liquor bottle bearing the lable of 'Signature' was also kept in a cloth pulanda and sealed with the seal of YPS.The carton of the bottle was also kept in a cloth pulanda and was sealed with the seal of YPS. One blanket having blood was kept in a cloth pulanda and sealed with the seal of YPS, two pairs of chappals having blood were also lifted from the roof and kept in a cloth pulanda and were sealed with the seal of YPS and one meat box was also kept in a cloth pulanda sealed with the seal of YPS. PW­22 deposed that the pulandas were seized vide memo Ex.PW22/A. PW­22 further deposed that the sharp edged 'Da' which was lying near the body was kept in a cloth pulanda and was sealed with the seal of YPS. The black color bag lying in the kitchen was kept in a cloth pulanda after removing the head from the bag and was sealed with the seal of YPS. The blood earth and earth control were lifted by breaking the floor with hammer which were kept in separate cloth pulandas and sealed with the seal of YPS. The blood lying in the kitchen was also lifted with the help of a cotton, was kept in a plastic container which was kept in a cloth pulanda and sealed with the seal of YPS. He deposed that a FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 26 of 56 mobile phone was recovered from the room. He deposed that one pants of the deceased having blood was kept in a cloth pulanda and was sealed with the seal of YPS. These pulandas were seized vide memo Ex.PW22/B. He deposed that the pulandas were given Serial No.1 to 16, the pulandas prepared at the roof were given serial no. 1 to 10 and the pulandas prepared from the kitchen and room were given serial no.11 to 16. The arrest memo and personal search memo of accused have been proved as Ex.PW22/C and Ex.PW22/D respectively. The disclosure statement of the accused has been proved as Ex.PW22/E. The rent agreement of the said premises as handed over by the landlord was seized vide memo Ex.PW22/F. The weapon of offence (Da) i.e a knife type weapon has been proved as Ex.P­1. The black color bag in which the head of deceased was lying has been proved as Ex.P­2. The pair of chappal of accused and pair of chappals of deceased have been proved as Ex.P­3 and Ex.P­4 respectively. The blanket having blood stains which was put on the roof for the party has been proved as Ex.P­5. A cream color shirt of the deceased having few blood stains has been proved as Ex.P­6. Black color pants of the accused has been proved as Ex.P­7. Mobile phone make Haier FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 27 of 56 has been proved as Ex.P­9. The cardboard cover of liquor bottle of 'Signature' has been proved as Ex.P­10 and the said bottle of Signature which was taken into possession by the IO in his presence from the spot i.e roof of the house has been proved as Ex.P­17. Plastic container having blood earth has been proved as Ex.P­12 and plastic container having earth control has been proved as Ex.P­13. Plastic container having earth control and plastic container having blood earth have been proved as Ex.P­14 and Ex.P­15 respectively. Plastic container having blood cotton has been proved as Ex.P­16. Two glasses, out of which one is intact and other broken into multiple pieces, as taken into possession by the IO inthe presence of PW­22 from the spot ie. roof of the house have been proved as Ex.P­18/1 (intact glass) and Ex.P­18/2 colly.(pieces of other broken glass). One plastic container generally used to pack eatables and mentioned as meat box which was taken into possession from the roof of the house has been proved as Ex.P­19.

PW­23 Sh. Amit Rawat, Senior Scientific Officer ( Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed to the effect that on 07.09.09 he received four parcels, one mark as No.1 sealed with FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 28 of 56 the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital, Delhi and remaining parcels marked as No.3,4 and 5 duly sealed with the seal of 'YPS' and the same were assigned to him for chemical examination. He deposed that on opening parcel No.1, it was found to contain three jars. First jar had stomach and pieces of small intestine. Second jar had pieces of liver, spleen and kidney and the third jar had blood sample. The said jars were Ex. 1­A, 1­B and 1­C respectively. On opening parcel No.3 it was found to contain two glass tumblers, one intact and one broken, each having few dirty deposits. These were exhibited as Ex. 3. He deposed that upon opening parcel No.4, it was found to contain one empty green color glass bottle labeled as Signature Rare Aged Whiskey. It was exhibited as Ex.4. On examination, it was found to contain ethyl alcohol. He deposed that on opening parcel No.5, it was found containing few pieces of bones, one playing card along with dirty deposits sticking inside plastic jar described as ' empty box meat'. It was exhibited as Ex.5. He deposed that no common poison i.e. metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could be detected in Ex. 1­A, 1­B and 1­C, 3 and 5 . The report of PW 23 in this regard has FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 29 of 56 been proved as Ex. PW 23/A. PW­24 Inspector Yashpal Singh is the IO of the case. He made endorsement on the statement of witness Prakash Kumar and sent it through Ct. Govind to P.S. Maurya Enclave for registration of the case. The endorsement has been proved as Ex. PW 24/A. The site plan prepared by PW­24 has been proved as Ex. PW 24/B. The identification statements of the relatives of the victim have been proved as Ex. PW 9/A and Ex. PW 24/C. The dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide memo Ex. PW 24/D. On 24.07.09, the IO also seized the articles of accused lying in the room in H.No. 95­D, third floor, VP Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi vide seizure memo proved as Ex. PW 24/E. He also seized a sum of Rs.30/­ found in the pocket of the deceased vide seizure memo Ex. PW 24/F. He also correctly identified the case property like PW­22 in his testimony.

11. As discussed above, the accused in support of his case has examined one Sh. Ashish Soy, consultant Neuropsychiatric as DW­1. He deposed to the effect that the accused was known to him and had been his patient since 2009 . He deposed that during the first visit he diagnosed the accused with epilepsy and Psychotic - Depression . FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 30 of 56 He deposed that upon diagnosis, he found accused having hallucination and was living in a world which was unreal. He deposed that at the time of his first diagnose, accused was sometimes able to recollect about the acts done by him during that period and sometimes he was not able to recollect as to what act were committed/ done during that period. He deposed that during his second diagnose, he found the accused having approximately 5­10 % relief in his mental status but his condition remained same till his last visit at his clinic. He deposed that as per his record, the accused was in severe stage of Psychotic - Depression. He deposed that in Psychotic - Depression the patient is not able to decide as to what is wrong and what is right as he is living in imaginary world. He proved the medical certificate dated 17.11.12 pertaining to medical treatment of accused from 04.02.09 to 25.05.09 as Ex. DW 1/A. In his cross­examination, he inter alia deposed that he had issued Ex. DW 1/A on the basis of prescription Ex. DW­1/PA (dated 04.02.09). He admitted that both Ex. DW 1/A and Ex. DW 1/PA are the letterheads which are print outs of letterheads instead of printed name, address etc. He further admitted during cross­examination that the paper on which the certificate on which Ex. DW 1/A is issued is of the same age as the paper on which FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 31 of 56 prescription on which Ex. DW 1/PA has been drawn up. He also deposed that he was not maintaining separate case files of his patients and used to maintain only a register . He further admitted during cross­examination that he was doing his senior residency and with senior residency one cannot have his own private practice.

12. The case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 22/23.06.09 at about 12.30 a.m. at the terrace of third floor of H. No. 95­D, VP Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi the accused committed murder of Mr. Diwakar Chaudhary (since deceased) by butcher's knife/dao/meat cutting chopper ( Ex.P­1) and thereafter knowing the commission of murder of deceased cut his body into pieces and kept the head of the deceased in a black color bag ( Ex.P­2) and removed the body from the roof to conceal the dead body with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment and thus committed the offences punishable U/S 302/201 IPC.

13. As mentioned above, the prosecution in support of its case has examined three eye witnesses to the case incident i.e. PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 .

PW­1 Sh. Prakash Kumar @ Pinku (informant) has deposed to the effect that on 22.06.09 he was residing in the above said rented FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 32 of 56 house along with Rishabh ( PW­15), accused and Umesh Kumar ( PW­10) . He identified the accused in the court and deposed that in the evening of 22.06.09 the accused telephoned him to tell that his friend (deceased) shall come at their house in the evening, they had planned a party, they were bringing goods for the party and also asked PW­1 to reach the house . PW­1 came back at the room. PW­1 deposed that accused and deceased also reached there along with a liquor bottle and eatables. PW­1 deposed that the deceased was known to him as Seema ( PW­8) i.e. wife of the deceased used to visit their house for cooking and cleaning. PW­1 further deposed that he, accused and deceased went to the roof of the house, put a blanket ( Ex. P­5), sat there, started taking liquor and Ballu, friend of accused, also came and joined them. He deposed that the said Ballu had brought raw meat and at the asking of accused he ( Ballu) cooked the meat and thereafter all four of them started drinking and eating. He deposed that arguments ensued between the accused and the deceased about PW­8 Seema i.e. wife of the deceased and after persuading them he ( PW­1) came down in the room where his friend Rishabh ( PW­15) and Ravi Kant Dubey( PW­5) were present . PW­1 deposed that Ballu also followed him to the room . He deposed that at FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 33 of 56 about 12.30­1:00 a.m. in the night he heard the noise of 'dham ­dham' from the roof and he thought that the accused and the deceased had again started quarreling. He also deposed that Ballu had left the house before they heard the noise of ' dham­dham' from the roof. He deposed that he along with PW­5 and PW­15 went to the roof through the stairs where they found deceased lying in a pool of blood and the accused was attacking him with a meat cutting chopper ( Ex.P­1) . He deposed that accused was wearing only a pants at that time, the accused was bare chested and there was blood on his chest . He further deposed that the accused signaled them with Ex. P­1 in his hand to leave from the spot, they ( PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15) got scared and came down, they were badly frightened, discussed with each other and then they all three went to the police station where Inspector Yashpal Singh ( PW­24/IO) met them and they told him about the entire incident. He further deposed that PW­24/ IO accompanied them to the spot, after knocking the door for a long time the accused opened the door, there was blood on the chest of the accused and they went in the kitchen where they saw the body of deceased lying cut. He deposed that the head of the body was lying in a bag , they were so frightened that they came out and his statement FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 34 of 56 Ex. PW 1/A was recorded by the police. He further deposed that he went to the roof along with police where two pairs of hawai chappals i.e. one belonging to the accused ( Ex. P­3) and one belonging to the deceased ( Ex. P­4) were lying . PW­1 also showed the cream color shirt of the deceased ( Ex. P­6) which he had hanged on the rope on the roof and also identified Ex. P­1 ( weapon of offence) lying on the body in the kitchen with which the accused had killed the deceased. PW­1 also identified the cut head of deceased which was taken out from the above said bag ( Ex.P­2) and the remaining portion of his body. He deposed that the accused was having illicit relations with PW­8 ( Seema) i.e. wife of the deceased and the deceased also knew this fact. He further deposed that on the day of incident PW­8 was not in Delhi, she had stopped coming for work at their house, accused used to tell him ( PW­1) that he ( accused) was not happy without meeting PW­8, that the deceased was coming in their way and that he ( accused) would set him ( deceased) right.

PW­5 Sh. Ravi Kant Dubey i.e. another eye witness has deposed to the effect that on 22.06.09 he came to the house of his cousin Rishabh ( PW­15) who was residing in a rented house at VP 95­D, Pitam Pura, Delhi with his friends and reached there at 9.30 FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 35 of 56 p.m. He deposed that PW­15 told him that PW­1, accused, deceased and Ballu were taking liquor on the terrace of the house and mutton was cooked in the house. He deposed that on his request, his cousin Rishabh ( PW­15) brought 'paranthas' from outside, they ate the ' paranthas' and after some time PW­1 came down from the terrace to the room and told them that the accused and deceased were quarreling in the name of a girl by the name Seema ( PW­8). He deposed that at about 12­ 12.30 in the night, he, PW­1 and PW­15 slept in the room after switching off the light when after about 10­15 minutes they heard the noise of ' dham­dham' from the room and upon hearing this sound PW­1 told that it appeared that the accused and deceased were quarreling. He deposed that he along with his cousin PW­15 and PW­1 went to terrace through the staircase where they saw that the accused, correctly identified by the witness, was beating Diwakar with the butcher's knife ( Ex. P­1) and the accused signaled them ( PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15) with Ex. P­1 to leave the place, they became frightened and nervous, they got down and after a while when they got composed, all three of them went to the police station where they met PW­24/IO and they narrated the entire incident to him. He further deposed that they came back at above said spot FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 36 of 56 with the police, after knocking the door for a long time it was opened by the accused, at that time the accused was only wearing a pants ( Ex. P­7) and was not wearing any top and the upper part of his body was smeared with blood. He deposed that they went inside and found the headless body of the deceased lying in the kitchen and Ex. P­1 ( weapon of offence) was lying over the body.

Similarly, PW­15 Rishabh i.e. another eye witness has deposed to the effect that on 22.06.09 he was residing in a rented house bearing No.VP­95 D, Pitam Pura, Delhi with the accused (correctly identified by the witness in the court ),PW­1 and PW­10 and was residing in the said house since November, 2008 . He deposed that on the night of 22.06.09 the accused along with his friends i.e. the deceased and Ballu came at the house and took PW­1 with them on the terrace of the house and started taking liquor. They also cooked mutton in the kitchen and took mutton on the terrace. He deposed that at about 9.30 p.m. his cousin Ravi Kant Dubey ( PW­5) also came at his room and asked about the other persons upon which he told him that PW­1, accused and his two friends ( deceased and Ballu) were taking liquor and mutton on the terrace. He deposed that PW­5 asked him to bring food from outside, he went out and brought FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 37 of 56 food and both of them took dinner. He further deposed that after some time PW­1 came down from the terrace and told them that the accused and the deceased were quarreling in the name of Seema ( PW­8) i.e. wife of the deceased and PW­1 also told them that Ballu has left. He deposed that PW­1 closed the door of the room and at about 12: 00 in the night, he, PW­1 and PW­5 went to sleep after switching off the light. He deposed that after 10­15 minutes, they heard the sound of ' dham­dham' from the terrace, PW­1 told that it appeared that the accused and the deceased were again quarreling with each other and they then rushed to the terrace where they found that accused was stabbing the deceased with a meat cutting knife ( Ex. P­1) and the accused signaled to them with Ex.P­1 to leave from there. He deposed that they became frightened, they came down, after discussing with each other they decided to go to the police station, they then reached the police station where they met PW­ 24/IO, they informed everything to him and they then came back at the spot with PW­24/IO. He deposed that the door of the room was bolted from inside, after knocking the door for a long time it was opened by the accused, accused was wearing black color pants ( Ex. P­7) and was topless and the upper part of his body was smeared FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 38 of 56 with blood. He deposed that when they went inside they found the body of the Diwakar lying in the kitchen .

14. Perusal of the testimony of the above mentioned material witnesses i.e. PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 shows that their testimonies are similar on material aspects of the case and corroborate each other . All the said three eye witnesses are natural and trustworthy witnesses being present at the scene of the offence and can be relied upon. Some variations in their testimonies are only minor in nature and do not discredit their testimonies which are otherwise reliable. Nothing material has also cropped up in their cross­examination to discredit their testimonies. The identification of the deceased as Diwakar Chaudhary stands fully established by the testimonies of these prosecution witnesses, which is also established by the testimony of PW­9 who being relative of the deceased Diwakar Chaudhary identified his dead body at BJRM Hospital mortuary vide Ex. PW 9/A . The time of case incident i.e. the death of the deceased has also been proved as about 12.30­ 1:00 a.m. on 23.06.09 which also stands proved by the postmortem report Ex. PW 7/A which was conducted on 25.06.09 at 2 p.m. and mentions the time since death as approximately 61 hours i.e. time of death of deceased was on FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 39 of 56 23.06.09 at 1:00 a.m. The place of incident i.e. H.No. 95­D, third floor, VP Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi has also been proved by the testimony of PW­1, PW­5, PW­10 , PW­15 and PW­24.

15. The presence of the eye witnesses i.e. PW­1, PW­5 , PW­15 and that of accused and deceased at the time of case incident at the spot of incident also stands proved beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15. Further, PW­10 Umesh Kumar, a tenant of the said premises, also deposed to the effect that on 23.06.09 in the night time he came back to his house from duty and the house was bolted from inside. He has deposed in his cross­ examination by Ld. Defence counsel that he reached the room at about 1: 00 a.m. in the intervening night of 22/23.06.09. He furter deposed that when he knocked the door, the accused ( correctly identified by the witness in the court) opened the door, he was wearing only a black color pants ( Ex. P­7), was bare chested and there was blood on his chest and hands. PW­10 deposed that the accused told him that 'maine Diwakar ka khoon kar diya hai, ab uski laash ko thikane lagana hai. Tu yahan se bhaag ja, nahi to tera bhi yahi haal hoga'. PW­10 deposed that he got terrified, walked towards his office and at about 4:00 a.m , he went to the police station where FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 40 of 56 he came to know that his other room mates had also come to report the incident to police and now they had gone to the room with Inspector Yashpal ( PW­24/IO). PW­24/IO has also deposed that on 23.06.09 he was posted as Inspector (investigation) at P S Maurya Enclave, on that day he had returned from patrolling and was present in the reporting room at about 4:00 a.m. when he met three boys i.e. PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 in the reporting room who told him that their associate i.e. the accused had murdered one person at H.No. 95­D, third floor, VP Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi and that he was inside the said house. He deposed that he made all the three boys to sit in the Govt. gypsy and proceeded to the spot and when he reached third floor of the said house, the door of the house was found locked from inside, he knocked at the door and after some time accused with blood stains on his upper body on which he was not wearing any clothes and was only wearing a pants ( opened the door) , he took search of the house and found a body in the kitchen and the head of the body was inside a red and black rexine bag ( Ex. P­2) . From the above said testimonies , the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of the eye witnesses i.e. PW­ 1, PW­5 and PW­15 along with accused and the deceased at the spot FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 41 of 56 of incident at the time of incident.

16. The accused in the cross­examination of PW­15 Rishabh has put forward his defence that PW­15, PW­10, PW­5 and PW­1 along with Ballu were having illicit relations with Seema (PW­8/ wife of the deceased) and when the accused tried to tell about their illicit relationship with PW­8 to the deceased, then PW­15 got the deceased murdered through the said Ballu. The accused has not proved his said defence beyond preponderance of probabilities and has not even led any defence evidence in that regard. To the contrary, the motive of case crime by the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by PW­1, PW­8 and PW­10. PW­1 has deposed to the effect that the accused was having illicit relations with Seema ( PW­8/wife of the deceased) and the deceased also knew that fact. He has further deposed that PW­8 Seema had stopped coming for work at their house, the accused used to tell him that he was not happy without meeting PW­8 Seema and that the deceased was coming in their way and had also told him that he ( accused) would set him ( deceased) right. PW­1 has also deposed to the effect that on the roof of the said house arguments ensued between the accused and the deceased about PW­8 Seema. PW­10 Umesh FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 42 of 56 Kumar deposed to the effect that he knew the deceased as his wife Seema ( PW­8) was working as part time maid at his room for household work . PW­10 further deposed that the accused and PW­8 Seema were having illicit relations and the deceased knew about that fact, the deceased used to blackmail the accused on account of that and used to extract money from him ( accused). He also deposed that the accused had told him that the deceased was blackmailing him. PW­8 Seema who is the wife of the deceased has deposed to the effect that she was doing the job of domestic maid at the house of the accused ( correctly identified in the court by the witness) and some times the accused used to make fun of her. She also deposed that she objected to the same and informed about the behavior of the accused towards her to her husband i.e. deceased and the accused also exchanged some hot words with her husband several times. She has further deposed that her husband used to doubt on her and accused. In cross­examination, PW­8 has deposed that sometimes the accused also caught her hand in the presence of PW­15 and Umesh and in the absence of PW­15 and Umesh, the accused made filthy remarks at her. She denied the suggestion of the Ld. Defence counsel that Ballu used to make filthy remarks at her or that Ballu had FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 43 of 56 proposed to marry her in front of everyone. It is pertinent to note that in the cross­examination of PW­8 no suggestion was given by the Ld. Defence counsel that PW­1, PW­5, PW­15 and Umesh were having illicit relations with PW­8 Seema i.e. the defence taken by the accused in the cross­examination of PW­15 was not put to PW­8 during her testimony. PW­8 Seema is the wife of deceased and she being an independent public witness had no occasion to falsely implicate the accused being the person who misbehaved with her . In these circumstances and testimony, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the motive of the case offence with the accused i.e. to the effect that he was having an evil eye upon PW­ 8 i.e. wife of the deceased, deceased was knowing this fact and the fight between the accused and deceased on the fateful day took place due to the relations or behavior of the accused with the wife ( PW­8) of the deceased.

17. As discussed above, PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 have inter alia deposed to the effect that at about 12:30­ 1:00 a.m. on 23.06.09 they heard the noise of ' dham­dham' from the roof and they thought that the accused and the deceased had again started quarreling . They have further deposed to the effect that when they went to the roof FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 44 of 56 through stairs then they saw that the deceased was lying in the pool of blood and the accused was beating / attacking the deceased with Ex. P­1 (weapon of offence) and the accused also signaled them with Ex. P­1 to leave the place . They have further deposed to the effect that the accused was bare chested with blood on his chest at that time and was only wearing pants ( EX.P­7). They have also deposed to the effect that they became frightened and after discussion went to the police station where PW­24 met them, who accompanied them back to the spot. They have also deposed to the effect that after knocking the door for a long time the accused opened the door, there was blood on his chest, they went in the kitchen where they saw that the body of the deceased was lying cut and his head was lying in a bag Ex. P­2. PW­10 has also deposed to the effect that on 23.06.09 (at 1:00 a.m.) when he came back to the above said house, then the house was bolted from inside and when he knocked the door then the accused who was bare chested having blood on his chest and hands and was wearing only a black color pants opened the door. He further deposed that the accused told him that 'maine Diwakar ka khoon kar diya hai, ab uski laash ko thikane lagana hai. Tu yahan se bhaag ja, nahi to tera bhi yahi haal hoga'. Similarly, PW­24/IO has also deposed to the FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 45 of 56 effect that on 23.06.09 when he reached the spot with PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 then he found it locked from inside, he knocked at the door and after some time the accused came with blood stains on his upper body on which he was not wearing any clothes, was only wearing a pants and he took search of the house and found a body in the kitchen. He deposed that the head of the body was inside the bag Ex. P­2 and one instrument which is used to cut meat ( Ex.P­1) was lying on the upper left side of the body and there were several cut marks on the left upper body and arm. He also deposed that marks of blood were going towards the roof through the stairway. Nothing material has appeared in the cross­examination or testimony of the said material witnesses to discredit their testimony on this score. They all corroborated each other on material aspects and are trustworthy witnesses. PW­7 Dr. V.K. Jha, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and gave the postmortem report Ex. PW 7/A also mentioned about the following external injuries on the body of the deceased:

i) Incised wound left lower leg at lower end of sized 3 cms x 1.5 cms x muscle deep in its outer aspect.

ii) Amputation of finger from middle phalanges in middle finger of FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 46 of 56 right hand.

Iii) Incised wound on palmar aspect of right hand of size 9 cms x 3 cms into bone deep and 8 cms x 2 cms x bone deep separated in a gap of one cm in the middle.

iv) Incised wound on left shoulder extending upto Axilla 12 cms x 7 cms x bone deep, skin muscles and vessels were exposed.

v) Skull stump: The cut stump attached to the head showed multiple irregular cut over front of neck and on the back muscles severed with bruising at cut ends of fifth vertebrae present in the cut stump separated head and parts of the neck attached to it also showed cut marks on its body which are partial. Spinal cord passing through it shows cut separation.

vi) Neck: The cut part of the neck attached to the trunk also showed multiple irregular cut in its whole circumference and the body of sixth Cervical vertebrae showed partial cut in the front, the spinal cord is cut in whole circumference and separated from the upper from the neck, blood clots were present over both severed part of the cut neck.

He further deposed that when the separated head and neck were put in the alignment, then, they fit into each other matching FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 47 of 56 the cut ends of decapitation anatomically. He deposed that upon internal examination of the neck, trachea was drawn in chest cavity. He further deposed that after postmortem examination, he opined the cause of death as combined effect of hemorrhagic shock and asphyxia as a result of antemortem cut throat injury, cut throat injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and was inflicted by other party. He deposed that the weapon was heavy sharp cutting straight weapon. Moreover, the accused was found alone in the above said house with blood on his body, the said house was bolted from inside and was only opened by the accused after knocking by PW­24/IO. PW­14 i.e. Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary who proved the MLC of accused as Ex.PW 14/A deposed that as per the said MLC the clotted blood stains were found on the right forearm, chest and abdomen of upper surface of the skin of the accused. From the above said testimonies, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 23.06.09 at about 12.30­ 1:00 a.m. at above said place he committed murder of the deceased Diwakar Chaudhary by giving him bodily injuries with the weapon of offence i.e. Ex. P­1 (butcher's knife/dao/meat cutting chopper) with the intention of causing his death and the FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 48 of 56 accused is thus liable for his conviction U/S 302 IPC.

18. As far as the contention of Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused to the effect that non examination of Ballu as a prosecution witness is fatal to the case of prosecution is concerned, the same is not tenable because the prosecution witnesses have specifically deposed to the effect that although he was present at the above said house prior to the case incident, however, he had left the house before the case incident took place. The other main contention of the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused was that although PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 left the spot for the police station at about 1:00 a.m. on 23.06.09, however, they reached the police station at about 4 p.m., whereas the time required to reach the police station from the spot was only about 5­10 minutes. The said argument shall also not help the defence because the said witnesses have deposed to the effect that after they saw the case incident they became badly frightened and only after discussion with each other they went to the police station. The said conduct of PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 in reaching the police station only after discussion after they watched the brutal murder of the deceased shows a natural conduct on part of a person to become frightened and to report to the police only after discussion with his FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 49 of 56 fellow friends and eye witnesses. The said circumstance is thus not sufficient to dent the case of prosecution. The Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused has also argued to the effect that no blood was found on the wearing pants of the accused as per the FSL report and even no alcohol was detected from the body of the accused in the medical examination. As far as the fact of non detection of blood from the wearing pants of the accused is concerned, the accused could have taken precaution in that regard while committing the offence and moreover, as per the MLC of the accused i.e. Ex. PW 14/A and the testimony of PW­14, clotted blood stains were found on the right forearm, chest and abdomen of upper surface of the skin and no fresh external injury was found on the body of the accused at the time of medical examination on 23.06.09. As far as the non detection of alcohol in the medical examination of the accused is concerned, there seems to be substance in the submissions of Ld. Addl. P.P. for State that it was possible that the accused took active steps to ensure that he did not consume liquor but on the other hand made the deceased to drink liquor as the accused was nursing an evil intention to commit the murder of the deceased. One other major contention of the defence was that the roof of the said house is connected with the FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 50 of 56 neighboring houses from where PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 ran away from the house leaving the accused in an unconscious state. No doubt that PW­1 has admitted in his cross­examination that it was easy to cross over the adjoining roof from the roof where the occurrence took place, however, this circumstance shall also not help the accused as PW­1, PW­5 , PW­10, PW­15 and PW­24/ IO have specifically deposed that upon knocking the door of the house by PW­ 24, which was bolted from inside, the accused opened the same. Moreover, as discussed above, PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 who are eye witnesses to the case offence are reliable and truthful witnesses.

19. As discussed above, the accused in his defence has examined one consultant neuropsychiatric as DW­1, who deposed to the effect that the accused was his patient since 2009, he diagnosed the accused during his first visit as suffering from epilepsy and Psychotic ­Depression and a person may or may not remember about the said acts committed by him or her during the said period of hallucination . He deposed that on diagnosis he found the accused to be having hallucination and was living in a world which unreal and at the time of first diagnose the accused was sometimes able to recollect about the acts done by him during that period and sometimes he was not able to FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 51 of 56 recollect as to what acts were committed/ done by that period .He deposed that during his second diagnose, he found the accused having approximately 5­10% relief in his mental status but his condition remained same till his last visit at his clinic. He deposed that as per his record, the accused was in severe stage of Psychotic - Depression. He deposed that in Psychotic - Depression the patient is not able to decide as to what is wrong and what is right as he is living in imaginary world. He proved the medical certificate dated 17.11.12 pertaining to medical treatment of accused from 04.02.09 to 25.05.09 as Ex. DW 1/A. In his cross­examination, he inter alia deposed that he had issued Ex. DW 1/A on the basis of prescription Ex. DW­1/PA (dated 04.02.09). He admitted that both Ex. DW 1/A and Ex. DW 1/PA are the letterheads which are print outs of letterheads instead of printed name, address etc. He further admitted during cross­ examination that the paper on which the certificate on which Ex. DW 1/A is issued is of the same age as the paper on which prescription on which Ex. DW 1/PA has been drawn up. He also deposed that he was not maintaining separate case files of his patients and used to maintain only a register . He further admitted during cross­examination that he was doing his senior residency and with senior residency one FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 52 of 56 cannot have his own private practice. It is thus evident from the testimony of DW­1 that he is absolutely not a reliable witness and no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. Firstly, he was not maintaining any separate case files of his patients and volunteered that he only used to maintain a register,however, he also did not bring or prove any such register showing the medical treatment of the accused . He also admitted that the register was a record of patient who came to him for consultation and not a record of his diagnosis and treatment. Secondly, he admitted that the paper on which medical certificate Ex. DW 1/A dated 17.11.12 was issued was of the same age as paper on which prescription Ex. DW 1/PA dated 04.02.09 was drawn up and deposed that he had issued Ex. DW 1/A on the basis of prescription Ex. DW 1/PA. The authenticity of both these documents thus becomes extremely doubtful and these documents cannot be relied upon to benefit the accused. Moreover, medical insanity is different from legal insanity and the accused has failed to prove by any proper evidence that he was legally of unsound mind within the ambit of Section 84 of IPC. In these circumstances, the testimony of DW­1 shall not help the accused.

20. As far as Section 201 IPC is concerned, in view of above said FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 53 of 56 discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the above said murder of the deceased was committed by the accused on the roof of above said house, however, PW­1, PW­5 and PW­15 have deposed to the effect that when they came back with PW­24/IO to the spot then after they went inside the house they found the headless body of the deceased lying the kitchen with weapon of offence i.e. Ex. P­1 lying over the body. It has further been deposed by the prosecution witnesses that the head of the body was lying in a bag Ex. P­2. PW­24 / IO has also deposed to the effect that after he reached at the spot he took search of the house and found the dead body of the deceased in the kitchen and the head of the body was inside a red and black color rexine bag ( Ex. P­2). He deposed that the body was lying in such a position that the legs of the body were inside the kitchen, the headless torso was lying towards the gate, inside the kitchen, the bag with the head was lying near the sink and Ex. P­1 was lying on the upper left side of the body and there were several cut marks on the left upper body and arm. He further deposed that the marks of blood were going towards the roof through the stairway. It is thus evident from the above said testimonies that after committing the murder of deceased at the roof of above said FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 54 of 56 house, the accused pulled the body in the kitchen from the stairway and cut the head of the body and put it in a bag Ex. P­2 for the purpose of disappearance of the evidence of the commission of the offence. The accused has also admitted in his statement U/S 313 CrPC that PW­24 also noticed that the body was lying in such a position that the legs of the body were inside the kitchen and the headless torso was lying towards the gate, inside the kitchen and the bag with the head was lying near the sink and one instrument, used to cut meat, was lying on the upper left side of the body and there were several cut marks on the left upper body and arm. In this regard PW­ 10 has also deposed that on the night ( about 1:00 a.m.) of 23.06.09 when he came back to his house and the accused opened the bolted house from inside then he told him that 'maine Diwakar ka khoon kar diya hai, ab uski laash ko thikane lagana hai. Tu yahan se bhaag ja, nahi to tera bhi yahi haal hoga'. In these circumstances and testimony, the prosecution has also proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place and after committing the murder of the deceased, the accused cut the head of the deceased, put it in a bag Ex. P­2 and pulled the dead body from the roof to the kitchen with the intention of causing the evidence of the commission of FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya Enclave S/V Rahul Dev Page 55 of 56 murder to disappear with the intention of screening him from legal punishment. In facts, the accused is also liable to be convicted U/S 201 IPC.

21. In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the above said charge against the accused Rahul Dev and hence, the accused Rahul Dev is convicted U/S 302/201 IPC.

Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence.

Announced  in the open court                                                         (Amit Bansal)
on 29th day of August, 2014                                            Addl Sessions Judge­04 ( N/W):
                                                                               Rohini Courts: Delhi 




FIR No. 303/09 , P S Maurya  Enclave             S/V Rahul Dev                                              Page 56 of 56