Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Guddi on 29 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSION
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 72/2013
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0596302007
State Vs. (1) Guddi
W/o Ram Chander
R/o Village Qutab Garh,
Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Bijender Singh
S/o Suraj Mal
R/o Teku Collony.
Village Qutab Garh, Delhi
(Acquitted)
FIR No.: 124/2007
Police Station: Kanjhawla
Under Sections: 364/302/201/34 IPC
Date of committal to session court: 17.3.2008
Date on which judgment was reserved: 2.8.2013
Date on which judgment pronounced: 12.8.2013
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations, on 1.7.2007 in the morning at about 11:00 AM from village Qutab Garh in furtherance of their common intention both the accused Guddi and Bijender Singh abducted Ram Chander to a St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 1 plot situated at Kharkhoda where they both committed the murder of Ram Chander. It has also been alleged that in furtherance of their common intention both the accused caused the dead body and other evidence connected with the offence to disappear including the disposal of the dead body in the said plot, with intention screen themselves from legal punishment.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 3.7.2007 one Guddi (accused) came to the Police Station Kanjhawla and lodged a missing report in respect of her husband Ram Chander vide DD No. 30A which DD was marked to ASI Jor Singh who sent wireless messages to all SSPs and DCPs and made efforts to trace Ram Chand but could not succeed. On 11.7.2007 Mahender Singh the brother of Ram Chander came to Police Station and handed over a written complaint to the SHO regarding missing of his brother Ram Chander. In his complaint to the police Mahender Singh raised a suspicion on the accused Guddi i.e. the wife of Ram Chander and one Bijender Singh since they were having illicit relations. Pursuant to the said complaint, the present FIR was registered under Section 364 IPC and during investigations ASI Jor Singh thoroughly interrogated Guddi wherein she confessed having committed the murder of her husband Ram Chander along with Bijender Singh and having buried his dead body in a house purchased St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 2 by her at Mathindu Road, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana.
Pursuant to her disclosure statement the accused Guddi pointed out the place where she had buried the dead body of her husband. Thereafter in the presence of local police, Niab Tehsildar and officials of Delhi Police and other respected persons of the area, at the instance of accused Guddi digging was started and after digging for about 2 ½ feet the dead body of Ram Chander was recovered. The entire proceedings were videographed. The accused Guddi also got recovered two half bricks pieces form the backside of the house which were used for causing injuries upon the deceased Ram Chander. She also got recovered one lady suit - salwar from the kitchen of the house as the clothes which she was wearing at the time of incident and also got recovered one Kassi (phawra) which was used for digging and concealing the dead body of Ram Chander.
(3) Thereafter on the same day at the instance of the accused Guddi the accused Bijender Singh was apprehended from Qutub Garh, Delhi and on thorough interrogation he disclosed his involvement in the commission of murder of Ram Chander after which the accused Bijender was arrested. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Bijender got recovered the motorcycle bearing No. DL 4SU 5036 belonging to deceased Ram Chander inside his house at village Majra Farmana, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana. Thereafter the accused Bijender got recovered another motorcycle bearing No. DL 4S NB1023 and his St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 3 mobile phone TATA Indicom of black colour with which he was in contact with accused Guddi. He also got recovered his KurtaPyajama which he was wearing at the time of incident and one stamp paper of Rs.10/ was recovered from the pocket of the Kurta. After completion of investigations, charge sheet was filed against the accused Guddi and Bijender Singh.
CHARGES:
(4) Charges under Sections 364 r/w 34 IPC, 302 r/w 34 IPC and 201 r/w 34 IPC were settled against both the accused Guddi and Bijender Singh to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
(5) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Twenty Four witnesses as under:
Public witnesses:
(6) PW1 Sh. Jagbir Singh is the Naib Tehsildar, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana who has deposed that on 11.07.2007, he received a direction from SDM, Sonipat on telephone whereby he was requested to accompany the Police Officials from Police Station Kanjhawala pursuant to which he alongwith the Police officials of Police Station Kanjhawala went to Harijan Basti, Kharkhoda.
According to the witness, one lady in custody of lady police was also St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 4 with the police officials of Police Station Kanjhawala and in his presence, a dead body was dug out at the pointing out of lady accused which the lady accused informed that the dead body was of her husband. He has further proved that videography was done in his presence at Harijan Basti, Kharkhoda, Haryana in the courtyard of house and the photographs were also taken. He has clarified that the name of lady accused was Guddi. This witness has not been able to identify the accused Guddi in the Court and has explained that since two years had passed hence he was not sure whether the accused present in the Court was the same lady or not. (This however, will not be fatal to the prosecution case since the video recording of the proceedings establishes the presence of both the accused Guddi and the witness Jagbir Singh).
(7) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that no written order was received by him from the SDM and visited the spot of recovery of dead body between 5 to 6 PM. According to the witness, many people gathered there on seeing the police including several ladies and children. He has admitted that the house which he visited had its door opened. The witness has further deposed that there was only one room in the said house and the Labour was called by the Police officials but he is not aware as to who paid the labours. He is also not aware of the name of the owner of the house. According to the witness, the name of road on which the said house St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 5 was located which is in abadi area is Matindu Road. He has explained that it is due to lapse of time he is not able to identify the lady accused. (8) PW2 Sh. Mahender Singh is the brother of the deceased Ram Chander. He has deposed that they are five brothers and he is the fourth one. According to the witness all his brothers were living separately and he is living in village Qutub Garh where he is running an Ayurvedic Dispensary whereas his brother Ram Chander was also an Ayurvedic Doctor and was running an Ayurvedic Dispensary in the nearby village Qutab Garh where he was staying alongwith his wife Guddi and children. He has testified that from 1.7.2007 his brother Ram Chander was missing. According to him, Guddi was not a lady of good character and was having illicit relations with one Bijender who lives in the same village and their family was earning bad name in the village due to this reason. He has testified that three to four months prior to this case, he had gone to the house of his brother Ram Chander where he found Guddi and Bijender inside the house and children were playing here and there. The witness has further deposed that he tried to make Guddi understand that family was earning bad reputation due to her illicit relations with Bijender but she paid no attention to the same on which he also had a talk with his brother Ram Chander in this regard. On this his brother also tried to make Guddi understand but Guddi did not mend her ways and called his brother "Sharabi" and also used to threaten his brother that she would get him killed. He has also St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 6 deposed that they searched for Ram Chander in relatives and friends but in vain. According to him, on 11.07.2007 he went to the Police Station and lodged his complaint which is Ex.PW2/A. He has testified that in the evening he was called in the Police Station by the Police and he was told that his brother had been murdered. He has proved that on 12.04.2007 he identified the dead body of Ram Chander in dead house of GH Hospital vide his identification statement which is Ex.PW2/B and after postmortem dead body was handed over to him vide receipt Ex.PW2/C. The witness has also proved that during the investigation he handed over the photocopy of RC photocopy of which is Ex.P1, sale letter Ex.P2, Pollution Certificate Ex.P3 and Insurance papers Ex.P4 of motorcycle no. DL 4SU 5036 which were seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D which motorcycle is Ex.P5. He has correctly identified both the accused Guddi and Bijender in the Court.
(9) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had not told Police officials in his complaint Ex.PW2/A that three to four months prior to this case he had gone to the house of his brother Ram Chander where he found Guddi and Bijender inside the house and children were playing here and there, when he tried to make Guddi understand that family was earning bad reputation due to her illicit relations with Bijender but she paid no St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 7 attention. The witness has admitted that the accused Guddi had already lodged missing report about Ram Chander prior to his complaint and has voluntarily explained that he came to now about it only in the Police Station. According to the witness, he had not mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW2/A that he came to know that his brother Ram Chander had been murdered. He has testified that he lodged report Ex.PW2/A at about 2:00 PM and came to know about murder of Ram Chander only at about 8:30 PM on that day. The witness has admitted that police officials did not visit their village from 2:00 PM to 8:30 PM on that day. The witness has further deposed that he has no documentary proof to show that accused Guddi was a characterless lady nor he and his family members had lodged any complaint about Guddi being characterless and has voluntarily explained that their family was earning a bad name due to Guddi. He has admitted that Guddi is having three children. He has also testified that accused Bijender belongs to village Majra, District Sonipat, Haryana and he had not given name of father of Bijendner in his complaint Ex.PW2/A and has voluntarily explained that he was not aware of the name of his father at that time. The witness has further deposed that Guddi was having illicit relations with Bijender for about four to five years prior to the incident. He is not aware whether deceased Ram Chander ever lodged any complaint against Guddi during his life time. He has admitted that he did not lodge any missing report about Ram Chander St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 8 from 01.07.2007 to 11.07.2007 and has voluntarily explained that they were searching for deceased in the houses of his relatives. The witness has also deposed that accused Guddi had given threats to his deceased brother Ram Chander to kill him in his presence but he never lodged any complaint to the Police in this regard. According to him, the distance between village Qutub Garh and Police Station Kanjhawala is about 1214 km. He has testified that he reached Police Station Kanjhawala on a motorcycle. He has explained that the distance between village Qutub Garh and village Kharkhoda is about 11 km. He has further deposed that Addl. SHO Inspector Surender Dev informed him about the murder of his brother after which he (witness) went to his house at village Qutub Garh. The witness has also deposed that he did not see his brother Ram Chander going from his house on 01.07.2007. He is also unable to tell who was there with him on that day when he left his home. He has admitted that accused Guddi is not resident of village Kanjhawala. He has denied the suggestion that accused Bijender does not reside in village Qutub Garh or that there was no relationship between accused Guddi and accused Bijender. According to him, the distance between village Qutub Garh and village Majra is about 25 kms. The witness has also deposed that it may be possible that there may other persons by the name of Bijender in their village. He has further deposed that he had not mentioned appearance of Bijender in his missing report Ex.PW2/A. The witness has St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 9 explained that he had spoken to accused Guddi as to whether she had lodged any missing report about Ram Chander but Guddi stated that she is not aware of it. He has also deposed that he did not join the investigation in this case during Test Identification Parade. He has denied the suggestion that accused Bijender is not running any dairy business. He has also denied the suggestion that accused Bijender was residing in Village Majra or that accused Bijender had no connection with village Qutub Garh. He has further denied the suggestion that he had gone to village Majra where father of accused Bijender was residing and there he had asked money or plot from the father of Bijender for not deposing against Bijender in Court. (10) PW4 Rajesh is the nephew of the deceased who has deposed that on 12.07.2007, he went to dead house of GH Sonipat where he identified the dead body of his uncle Ram Chander vide identification statement which is Ex.PW4/A and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to him vide receipt Ex.PW2/C. This witness was not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and his testimony has gone uncontrovered and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(11) PW5 Surinder Kumar has deposed that he is running a shop of photography by the name of Sheetal Photo Studio at Qutab Garh Main Stand. According to him, on 11.07.2007 he was called by the officials of Police Station Kanjhawala on which he reached at the plot St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 10 at Matindu Road, Village Kharkhoda where a dead body of a man was to be dug out. He has proved having prepared the Videography and still photography of the said dead body from various angles at the instance of the Investigating Officer. The witness has also deposed that he prepared eight positive photographs and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer which photographs are Ex.A1 to A8 and the CD is Ex.A9.
(12) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that his statement was not recorded by the Police. According to the witness, he had not stated to the Police in his statement that he would produce the negatives at the time of evidence. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW5/A the above fact was found so recorded. He has testified that from Police Station Kanjhawala to the place of recovery of dead body at Kharkhoda was travelled by him in Police vehicle. The witness has also deposed that he had charged for the said photographs and videography but he had not issued any receipt for the money received by him. According to him, a Beat Police Official of Qutub Garh had asked him to go to the said place but he does not remember his name. He has testified that he did not name any person as accused who got recovered the dead body nor is he able to tell the name of the deceased. He is also unable to tell as to whom the said plot belonged from where the dead body was recovered. He has denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 11 nor he had taken photographs nor prepared the videography. (13) PW6 Sonu has deposed that he is working as a Labour and about two years ago (from the date of his deposition) police officials of Delhi had come to their village (Kharkhoda, Haryana). According to the witness, the Pardhan of their village had asked him and his associate namely Manjeet to dig the courtyard of a plot on which he alongwith Manjeet dug that plot upto 22½ feet and found a dead body in a highly decomposed condition. He is not aware whose Plot they had dug nor is he able to tell whether the dead body was of male or female and states that they were given Rs.200/ each as their labour charges. (14) Leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has stated that he is not aware if on 11.7.2007 he along with Manjeet dug out on the plot of accused Guddi and dead body of Ram Chander R/o Qutab Garh was found from the area of courtyard under twothree feet. The witness was found resiling from his previous statement and was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has deposed that the officials of Delhi Police had recorded his statement. He has denied the suggestion that on 11.07.2007, he alongwith Manjeet dug out the courtyard of the plot of Guddi accused at the instance of Guddi and from underneath the said plot dead body of a man in the highly decomposed condition was recovered and the name of dead body was revealed as Ram Chander which fact he did not state so before Police. However, when confronted St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 12 with his statement Ex.PW6/A the fact was found so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in the Court being won over by accused persons. This witness was not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
(15) PW7 Manjeet is the another labour who has deposed that about two years ago (from the date of his examination), Police Officials of Delhi had come to their village (Kharkhoda Haryana). He has testified that the Pardhan of their village had asked him and his associate namely Manjeet to dug the courtyard of the plot on which he along with Sonu dug the plot upto 22½ feet and found a dead body in highly decomposed condition. He is not aware as to whose Plot they dug and is unable to tell whether the dead body was of male or female. He has deposed that they were given Rs.200/ each as their labour charges.
(16) Leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has stated that he is not aware if on 11.7.2007 he along with Sonu dug out the plot of accused Guddi and dead body of Ram Chander R/o Qutab Garh was found from the area of courtyard under twothree feet. The witness was found resiling from his previous statement and was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has deposed that the officials of Delhi Police had recorded his statement. He has denied the suggestion that on 11.07.2007, he alongwith Sonu dug out the courtyard of the plot of St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 13 Guddi accused at the instance of Guddi and from underneath the said plot dead body of a man in the highly decomposed condition was recovered and the name of dead body was revealed as Ram Chander which fact he did not state so before Police. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW7/A the fact was found so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in the Court being won over by accused persons. This witness was not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
(17) PW9 Sh. Raju has deposed that he resides at Matindu Road, Khatik Mohalla, Ward No. 12, Kharkhoda, Haryana and in the year, 2007 he was the Nagar Palika Parshad of Ward No. 11. According to him, about two and half years back (from the date of his deposition), it was summer season, he saw a crowd in his Mohalla and came to now that dead body was recovered from one house but he is not aware about the ownership of said house. The witness has further deposed that he was on the road outside the said house and foul smell was emanating from there. He has also deposed that in his presence dead body was not taken out of that house and even he had not seen the dead body and only heard about the dead body. He has further deposed that Police obtained his signatures on some documents but his statement was not recorded.
(18) Leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has deposed that the date may be St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 14 11.07.2007. According to him, police officials were present at the spot but he is not aware about the Naib Tehsildar, Kharkhoda as he was unknown to him. He has testified that the said plot from where the dead body was recovered had been sold about two months back but he is not aware who had purchased the said plot. He is not aware if the recovered dead body was that of one Ram Chander husband of Guddi. (19) Since the witness was initially not supporting his earlier version, he was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State with the permission of the Court wherein he has denied the suggestion that Naib Tehsildar, Kharkhoda was there and he was well aware about his presence at the spot as he was known to him and has voluntarily explained that he does not recognize the Naib Tehsilddar. He has further denied the suggestion that the dead body was recovered after digging the courtyard of the said house which was purchased by Guddi about two months back or that the dead body was of one Ram Chander or that the dead body was taken out in his presence or that he is deposing falsely in order to save the accused.
(20) He has admitted that the recovery of dead body was got photographed and videography of the same was got done by the Police. The CD of the proceedings which is Ex.A8 was played in the Court Room and shown to the witness who identified the way towards the place from where the dead body was recovered and the St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 15 witness also identified the lady depicted in the CD who is leading towards the place where the dead body was recovered. Witness has further confirmed the process of digging out and the recovery of the dead body and has admitted and explained that the filming of the said CD took place in his presence. He has further deposed that the lady leading to the place of recovery of dead body had come with the Police. He has pointed out towards the accused Guddi in the Court as the lady who led to the recovery of the dead body as depicted in CD Ex.A8.
(21) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by the Police. According to the witness, at the relevant time he was Municipal Counselor of Ward No.11 and the dead body was recovered from Ward No.10. He has admitted that nobody came to call him to go to the said place and has explained that since the public and police had gathered there, he himself went to the said place. He is not aware about the identity of the dead body and has stated that at the time of recovery of dead body, he was not knowing as to from which village the deceased hailed. He has testified that his statement was recorded by the Police on 11.07.2007. According to the witness, the road leading to the said village from where the dead body was recovered is known as Matindu Road and the said road touches some area of Ward No. 10, 11 and 12. St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 16 He has further deposed that he had not stated in his statement to the police regarding the identity of the accused Guddi or the recovery of dead body at her instance. He has explained that he had seen accused Guddi on the day of recovery of dead body only and he was not known to her prior to that nor he aware of the place from which the accused Guddi belonged and it was later on that he came to know that she hailed from Village Qutubgarh. The witness has also deposed that around 100 persons had gathered at the relevant time and the police was of Delhi and not of Kharkhoda. He has denied the suggestion that no recovery of the dead body took place in his presence. He has testified that he came to know only on the day of recovery of dead body that deceased was murdered but he is not aware as to when and how he was murdered. He has further denied the suggestion that no digging of the earth or recovery of a dead body took place in his presence. According to the witness, he may not have been depicted in the photographs or the CD, but the said incident (recovery of dead body) took place in his presence as he was present there. He does not recollect as to whether Police got his signatures on some papers or not. He has denied the suggestion that Police did not obtain his signatures on papers as he was not present at the spot or that he was not present at the spot and for this reason, he had not been depicted in the said CD.
(22) PW11 Sh. Ghamandi Lal deposed that he is working as a labourer and it was his brother who was the Pradhan of Ward No. 10, St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 17 Kharkhoda and Police might have wrongly mentioned the fact that he is Pradhan of Ward No.10. According to him, about four years back (from the date of his deposition) date he does not remember, in seventh month of the year, accused Guddi whom he has correctly identified in the Court, was present alongwith Delhi Police in her house which was purchased by her few months back. He has testified that a crowd of public persons was also present but he is unable to tell if any other senior official from Kharkhoda was also present there or not. The witness has further deposed that at the instance of accused Guddi, the digging work in her said house was done by the Police. According to him, since foul smell was coming from the said portion, he came from there. He has proved that photography and videography of the said scene was being got done by the Police. He has testified that he himself did not see what was recovered from the said digging but some garbage (adanga) with foul smell was there.
(23) Since the witness was found resiling from his previous statement to the police, hence he was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the witness has admitted that Police had made inquiries from him and has explained that his name was asked by the Police. He is unable to identify and tell if amongst the persons present there at the spot, Naib Tehsildar, Kharkhoda was also present. According to the witness, he had not stated to the Police that after digging, dead body of a male in decomposed condition was recovered St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 18 and later on he came to know that it was the dead body of Ram Chander, husband of accused Guddi. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW11/A the aforesaid fact was found so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he is intentionally not coming out with the true facts that dead body of a male was recovered as he had been won over by the accused. He has however, explained that since it was something in very decomposed condition and that is why, it was smelling very foul.
(24) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel the witness has deposed that he was not called by anyone. According to the witness, the house from the premises of which the dead body was recovered, was sold and purchased so many times and as such, he is unable to tell to whom the said house belonged. He has further stated that since foul smell was there, he left the said spot and went to his house and thereafter, did not go at the said place again. He is unable to tell the exact time when he was present at the said spot but states that it may be around 4:00 or 5:00 PM. The witness was unable to identify the accused Guddi in the Court.
(25) When the accused Guddi was specifically put to the witness in a Court Question the witness replied that the lady present in the Court as an accused (named Guddi) was not the lady who was present with the Police and has explained that the lady who was with the Police was of little bit dark complexion.
St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 19 (26) The witness Ghamandi Lal was recalled for reexamination on behalf of the State during which the DC Ex.A8 was shown to him. After seeing the CD the witness has admitted the filming of the said CD had taken place in his presence. He has identified the place of the recovery of the dead body of a male which is of their village/ Tehsil. He has then admitted that the lady depicted in the CD who was in the custody of the Police, was the same who was present in the Court as accused.
(27) In his further crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that his photo is not depicted in the CD from the beginning till end. According to the witness, his statement was recorded by the Police but he did not tell to the Police that in the CD, his photo is not depicted and has voluntarily explained that he had seen the CD for the first time in the Court. He has testified that the filming of the CD might have taken place at 11 or 12 in the afternoon and a large crowd of persons were present outside the boundary wall depicted in the CD and 45 public persons were present inside the boundary wall with the Police. He has explained that he reached late at the said place. He is not aware who had handed over the keys of the house to the officials of Delhi Police. He has denied the suggestion that that he did not visit the spot at any point of time. (28) PW12 Arjun has deposed that about four or four and a half years ago (from the date of his deposition in the Court), he had sold his St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 20 house in Ward No.10, Matindu Road, Khatikan Mohalla, Kharkhoda, to accused Guddi whom she has identified in the Court, for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/. According to the witness, at the time of purchase of said house, accused Bijender whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court was accompanying accused Guddi. He has testified that both the accused had come on motorcycle. The witness has further deposed that when he had sold the said plot, one room was constructed on it and has voluntarily explained that later on Guddi had raised construction of other twothree rooms on the said plot. He has clarified that the name of husband of Guddi was Ram Chander.
(29) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he himself did not see husband of Guddi namely Ram Chander. He does not recollect the exact date of selling the said plot to Guddi. According to the witness, the document of the house was not got registered and it was sold on an affidavit executed by him in favour of Guddi. He has testified that he had also purchased the said land on the affidavit from one Tare S/o Maichand. He is not aware the native village of Guddi. The witness has also deposed that the possession was given to the accused on the affidavit and no other documents were executed by him. He has denied the suggestion that the said land falls within the Lal Dora area.
St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 21 (30) PW13 Raj Kumar has deposed that he is running a mobile shop at village Qutubh Garh, Delhi and he knew Bijender Singh R/o Village of Qutub Garh as he had purchased a mobile phone of TATA Huawei C 2205 for a sum of Rs.2,100/ on 25.03.2007. He has proved the cash memo Ex.PW13/A issued by him.
(31) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel witness has deposed that address of accused Bijender in cash memo Ex.PW13/A. According to the witness, he only knew that Bijender was from village Qutub Garh however, he is unable to admit or deny if the accused Bijender was hailing and resident of village Mazra Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana. He has denied the suggestion that he had not sold the mobile phone to the accused Bijender present in the Court.
Witness of Medical Record:
(32) PW16 Dr. Jitender Kumar Jhakhar, Asstt Professor, Forensic Medicine, PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana has deposed that on 12.07.2007, he conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased Ram Chander S/o Hukam Chand, 37 years male, Caste Telli R/o Qutub Garh, Delhi. According to the witness, the dead body was brought by Constable Amit Kumar of Police Station Kharkhoda vide DD No.24 dated 11.07.2007 and the dead body was identified by Mr. Mahender Singh brother of deceased and Mr. Rajesh S/o Dilawar St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 22 Singh R/o Qutub Garh, Delhi. He has also deposed that the information furnished by the Police about the cause was infliction of brick injury on the head "sir main entoon dwara chot maarne ke karan". The witness has proved that on examination, he found that the length of the dead body was 172 cm, body was wrapped in a black polythene and a gunny sack. The dead body was wearing (1) a shirt of blue and red lines having front buttons from upside down, first, second and fifth buttons were opened, Shirt was torn at position of second button; (2) a crape bandage of light yellow colour tied around the left forearm lower third, clothes and body were smudged with sand. He has also proved that the body was emitting foul smell; scalp hair of 5 to 6 cm long 30% grey and rest were black; hairs were plucked with slight traction; Eyes were closed, eye balls were softened and putrefied; Mouth was closed, facial features were bloated and unidentifiable, Chest was tense; Body and axillary hairs were peeled off; Abdomen was distended; Pubic hair of size 4 to 5 cm black, penis and scrotum were distended; Epidermis was peeled off at places and Hands & feet were degloved. According to the witness, there were following injuries on the dead body:
1. A lacerated wound of size 2.5 x 1 cm present over the left temporal region situated 5 cm about the left external ear.
2. A lacerated wound of size 7 x 1 cm present over the left frontoparietal region situated 3 cm left lateral to antero posterior midline.St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 23
3. A lacerated wound of size 3 x 2 cm present on the left frontal region situated 3 cm posterior to left eyebrow and 7 cm lateral to midline.
4. A lacerated wound of size 2 x 1 cm present on the right temporal region situated 3 cm right to midline and 13 cm posterior to right eyebrow.
5. A lacerated wound of size 3 x 2 cm present on the left occipital region situated 2 cm lateral to antero posterior midline. On deep dissection underlying deep tissues of all above mentioned injuries were found ecchymosed.
6. A contusion of size 3 x 2 cm present on the left side of neck situated 4 cm below the angel of mandible and 5 cm left lateral to antero posterior midline. On dissection, underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.
7. A contusion of size 1 x 1 present on the anterior aspect of neck 4 cm below the chin. On dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.
8. A contusion of size 4 x 3 present on the right cheek at the level of angle of mandible. On dissection, underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.
9. A contusion of size 2 x 1 present on the right side of lower lip at the level of right canine tooth. On dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 24
10.A contusion of size 3 x 2 present on the upper lip just left lateral to nose. On dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.
(33) He has proved that the brain matter was liquefied and blood tinged; Liver, spleen and kidneys were softened and putrefied; Both lungs and heart was also softened and putrefied; the stomach contained mucoid material and mucosa of stomach was congested; the small intestine contained digested food material and large intestine contained fecal matter. The witness has testified that after examination, he opined that it was a dead body of a late young adult male individual, Cause of death in this case was injuries described (head injuries) which were antemortem, homicidal and consequent to blow by hard and blunt object with a small striking surface coupled with smothering, the probable time that elapsed between death and postmortem examination was 1014 days which was declared on the basis of signs of putrification on the body. The witness has further deposed that viscera has been preserved for chemical analysis and after postmortem examination, he handed over the Police the following items:
1. A well stitched dead body after autopsy.
2. Copy of postmortem report.
3. Police papers 12 in number duly signed by him.
St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 25
4. A sealed packet bearing 10 seals and containing viscera for chemical analysis.
5. A sealed envelope bearing 5 seals and containing a forwarding letter to Director FSL and a copy of postmortem report.
6. A sealed packet bearing 5 seals and containing clothes and belongings of the deceased.
7. A sealed jar bearing two seals containing a bone of DNA analysis, if required.
8. Samples of seals used.
(34) The witness has proved the postmortem report copy of which is Ex.PW16/A (running into four pages); sketch showing the injuries in the dead body which is Ex.PW16/A1 and twelve Police papers which are Ex.PW16/B1, Ex.PW15/BB, Ex.PW15/B1, Ex.PW16/B2, Ex.PW16/B3, Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW16/B4, Ex.PW16/B5, Ex.PW15/B2 and Ex. PW2/B. The Autopsy Surgeon has seen the chemical analysis report of FSL which is Ex.PX in respect of viscera of the deceased which shows that ethyl alcohol was present in the viscera preserved for the same.
(35) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that in a putrefied body they cannot generalise the feature found in smothering because eye balls first protrude then St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 26 softened and putrefied in the process of putrefication. He has explained that in a fresh body in smothering cases, mouth remains closed but in putrefied body, every aperture of the body such as mouth, rectum etc. are found open and distended. According to him, in the present case the lacerated wounds were not caused by any sharp edged weapon when sharp edge is the inflicting edge of that weapon. He has clarified that by small striking surface he meant surface of the hammer or edge of the brick or any weapon having the small striking surface which small striking surface may include the edge of the butt of a gun. The witness has testified that no weapon was shown to him by the Police at the time of Autopsy for his opinion and he had given the opinion on the said injuries on the basis of his observations of the injuries on the dead body. He is unable to comment if the time since death as given by him may vary upto two days on both the ends and states that it is a probable time.
Police / officials witnesses:
(36) PW3 HC Ram Singh is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has deposed that on 11.07.2007 at about 2:15 PM Inspector Surinder Dev, Addl. SHO handed over one rukka to him in the Duty Officer Room on the basis of which rukka he recorded FIR No. 124/07 under Section 364/34 IPC correctly, computer generated copy of which is Ex.PW3/A. He has proved his endorsement on the rukka which is St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 27 Ex.PW3/B. According to the witness, he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to ASI Zohar Singh for investigation purposes.
(37) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he sent the copies of the FIR through dak for further transmission to the Higher Authorities.
(38) PW8 HC Surat Singh has deposed that on 03.07.2007, at about 5:30 PM one lady namely Guddi arrived at Duty Officer Room and informed regarding the missing of her husband Sh. Ram Chander since 01.07.2007. According to the witness, Guddi informed that on 01.07.2007 her husband left the house at about 11:00 AM on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing no. DL 1L 5036 and at that time he was having Rs.2.5 lacs with him. He has proved that the said information was recorded vide DD No.30A dated 03.07.2007 copy of which DD is Ex.PW8/A. He has proved that the said DD was marked to ASI Johar Singh for further necessary action.
(39) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he is not aware as what action was taken by ASI Johar Singh. He is not aware about the result of the investigation or that the information given by Guddi was true or false. The witness has deposed that he had informed PCR about Ram Chander being missing. According to him, Guddi put her thumb impression on the original DD No. 30A and during his duty hours no matter was reported by Mahender Singh.
St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 28 (40) PW10 ASI Jor Singh has deposed that on 03.07.2007 he was posted at Police Station Kanjhawala and on that day DD No. 30A Ex.PW8/A was marked to him for further investigations which DD was a missing report made by accused Guddi of her husband Ram Chand. According to the witness, he had given wireless message to all SSPs and all DCPs of India through mentioning it in the particulars of the missing man Ram Chander, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW10/A. He had also proved having filled up the missing person form and send the same to missing persons squad at Kotwali through SHO, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW10/B. He has testified that he had tried to search for the missing person Ram Chander but all his efforts were in vain. (41) In his further examinationinchief dated 23/11/2011 the witness has deposed that on 11.07.2007 Mahender Singh brother of the deceased came in the Police Station Kanjhawala and handed over a written complaint Ex.PW2/A to the SHO who got the FIR registered after which the investigation was handed over to him. He has further deposed that during investigation, he alongwith Constable Kuldeep and Constable Ramesh went to village Qutub Garh at the village of Ram Chander where accused Guddi was found present. According to the witness, Guddi was interrogated who confessed about her guilt after which she was arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/A but her personal search could not be conducted as no lady Constable was available at that time. St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 29 He has proved that the accused Guddi made her disclosure statement which is Ex.PW10/B and thereafter he narrated the entire facts to the SHO who directed him to reach at Kharkhoda District Sonipat and he also reached there with the staff. The witness has testified that they went to Matindu Road, Kharkhoda where the Local Police was informed as well as the SDM was also informed and asked to reach there. He has further deposed that SI Ramesh with staff of the local Police Station and Naib Tehsildar who was deputed by the SDM reached there. Thereafter the accused Guddi led them to her plot where she pointed out the place where she buried the dead body of her husband Ram Chander with her coaccused Bijender. According to the witness, the SHO called two private labours and in the presence of public persons the dead body of Ram Chander was recovered after digging the said plot 22½ feet. He has proved the pointing out memo and recovery memo of the dead body which is Ex. PW10/C. He has further deposed that accused Guddi admitted that it was the dead body of her husband Ram Chander. According to him, two blood stained half bricks were also got recovered by accused Guddi from the room of the said plot which were kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of SB and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/D. He has proved that the Investigating Officer lifted earth control, blood stained earth control from the spot and walls of the said room and said plot which were kept in polythene and were sealed in a pullanda and sealed with St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 30 the seal of SB and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/E. According to the witness, the accused Guddi also got recovered her blood stained clothes from the kitchen of the said house on the said plot which were also kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of SB and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/F. He has further testified that one pant which was found lying under the dead body at the time of recovery of the said body was also taken into possession after sealing the same with the seal of SB and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/G; one spade got recovered by the accused Guddi from the said plot was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW10/H. The witness has also deposed that the dead body was handed over to ASI Ramesh of Police Station Kharkhoda for initiating proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C. after which the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of dead body and recorded the statement of witnesses present at the spot. According to him, after completion of investigation at Kharkhoda they went to village Qutub Garh from where accused Bijender was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/J, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/K and accused Bijender made his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW10/L. He has testified that the accused Bijender had also pointed out the place of recovery of dead body vide pointing out memo Ex.PW10/M. He has proved that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and the case St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 31 property was deposited with the MHC(M).
(42) The witness has correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one ladies shirt and salwar belonging to accused Guddi which are Ex.P1 & Ex.P2; two half bricks got recovered by the accused Guddi which are collectively Ex.P3; pant found near the dead body which is Ex.P4 and a shovel was recovered from the spot which is Ex.P5. (43) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he could not tell the native village to which accused Bijender belong. According to him, village Kanjhawala is situated at a distance of about two and a half Kms from village Qutub Garh. He does not remember whether the complainant was having his shop in village Sahoti, District Sonipat. He has testified that messengers were sent to Kotwali etc. for missing squad. He has admitted that Ram Chander deceased was not traceable and no report was lodged in the Police Station regarding the murder of Ram Chander. According to the witness, on 11.07.2007 the complainant brother of deceased lodged a complaint in Police Station Kanjhawala regarding kidnapping of his brother Ram Chander in which complaint accused Guddi as well as Bijender were named. He has admitted that accused Bijender Singh is a resident of village Mazra situated in Haryana. According to him, he left the investigation of this case before the St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 32 videography etc. was got done by the Investigating Officer. He has also admitted that the case was registered on 11.07.2007 and accused Guddi was interrogated by him on the same day. He has denied the suggestion that village Kanjhawala is situated at a distance of about 10 Kms from village Qutub Garh. He has testified that he received the investigation at about 2:15 PM on 11.07.2007. The witness has also deposed that accused Bijender was arrested from bus stand Qutub Garh and has denied the suggestion that accused Bijender was called from village Mazra Haryana and later on falsely implicated in the present case. According to the witness, till that time he left the investigation there was no recovery from the possession of accused Bijender. He has denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated both the accused persons in this case.
(44) PW14 Constable Jai Karan has deposed that on 13.07.2007, he was posted as Constable in Police Station Kanjhawala and on that day, he alongwith Constable Kanwar Singh, Driver Sachidanand, Investigating Officer Inspector Sandeep Bayala remained in the investigation of the present case. He has testified that accused Bijender whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court was taken out from the Police lock up of Police Station Sultan Puri and reached at village Farmana Mazara (Village of accused Bijender) from where the accused Bijender got recovered one motorcycle no. DL 4SU 5036 Hero Honda Splendor black colour from his house which was St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 33 seized vide memo Ex.PW14/A. According to him, thereafter, they came back to Qutab Garh, Delhi from where the accused recovered another motorcycle whose complete number he does not remember but the initial letter of the number was DL 4SN and it was a TVS Victor. He does not remember the colour of the motorcycle. He has proved that the motorcycle was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/B. The witness has further testified that the accused Bijender had also got recovered one mobile phone from the almirah but he does not remember the make of the mobile phone which mobile phone was seized vide memo Ex.PW14/C. He has also deposed that accused Bijender got recovered one pant and shirt which were blood stained which were lying below the almirah and one stamp paper was also recovered from the table. He has proved that the clothes and papers were seized vide memo Ex.PW14/D and the clothes were sealed at the spot and after putting the same into pullanda.
(45) The witness has correctly identified the case property i.e. motorcycle bearing No. DL 4S NB 1023 from photographs Ex.M1 and Ex.M2 and motorcycle bearing No. DL 4SU 5036 from photographs Ex.M3 and Ex.M3; the document got recovered by accused Vijender which is Ex.PX; one gents kurta and pajama of white colour with dark brown stains as the same were got recovered by the accused Vijender which Kurta is Ex.PY and payjama is Ex.PZ.
St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 34 (46) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that they had proceeded to the place of recovery in the official vehicle of the SHO but he does not remember its number. He has admitted that the SHO had only one official vehicle allotted to him. According to the witness, after coming from the place of recovery, the log book was signed by the SHO and was filled up by the driver. He has further deposed that the lock up register was filled up when accused Bijender was taken out from the lock up. He has explained that they took the route from Bawana, then went to Kharkhoda and then to Village Farmana Majra which falls in the vicinity of Police Station - Gohana but did not go to the Police Station - Gohana to record their presence within their vicinity. According to him, they did not call any Sarpanch, Panch, Nambardar or Chowkidar from the village in order to search the house of the accused. He is unable to tell in which Paana did the house of accused fall and has explained that the house of accused Bijender was single storey having a boundary wall but he is not aware how many rooms were there in the house. He has also deposed that no one was present in the house of the accused when they had gone to effect the recovery. The witness has further testified that the accused Bijender opened the door of the house as he was carrying the key of the house with him which key was handed over to the wife of the accused and was not taken into possession. According to him, the RC and the driving licence of the motorcycle recovered from village Farmana was St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 35 taken into possession and the memo to that effect was also prepared which was signed by him. He has admitted that Ex.PW14/A does not find mention of any RC or driving licence having been taken into possession. He has denied the suggestion that he had never gone to Village Farmana to get effected the recovery or that no recovery was effected at the instance of accused Bijender from Village Farmana. The witness has also deposed that they did not call any public person to effect the recovery of motorcycle at Village Farmana. He has further deposed that they did not inform the Police Station - Gohana about their proceedings conducted at Village Farmana. The witness has testified that they found the wife of accused Bijender and his children at their house in Village Qutub Garh but they did not meet the wife of accused Bijender at Village Farmana. According to him, the house of the accused at Qutub Garh is about 1½ storey and states that they did not join any public person before effecting recoveries at Qutub Garh. He has clarified that first of all motorcycle was recovered, thereafter the clothes of accused Bijender and thereafter a mobile was recovered whose number he does not remember. The witness has further deposed that they did not take into possession the original papers of the mobile recovered from the house of accused Bijender. He has also deposed that the memos were prepared at the spot by the Investigating Officer and no interpolation or cutting was done in the memos prepared at the spot. He has admitted that the number mentioned as 9211484604 St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 36 CETNBL number 1682510344, make Tata Indicom Barang Kala is in a different handwriting than the other writing on the memo Ex.PW14/C. According to the witness, the documents were signed one by one as soon as they same were prepared. He does not remember if any public person was joined in the investigation after the recovery was effected. He has admitted that there is no memo prepared of any RC or other papers taken into possession of the motorcycle recovered at Village Qutub Garh. He has denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected at the instance of accused Bijender at Village Qutub Garh or that he had signed the memos while sitting at the Police Station when the fake evidence of clothes, mobile and motorcycle was being foisted on accused Bijender.
(47) PW15 ASI Ramesh Kumar from Haryana Police has deposed that on 11.07.2007, he was posted at Police Station Kharkhoda and on that day, on receipt of DD No. 24 which is Ex.PW15/A he alongwith Delhi Police Staff ASI Jor Singh and other Police officials reached at Matindu Road, Kharkhoda at the plot of accused Guddi W/o Ram Chander whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court. The witness has further deposed that SHO of Police Station Kanjhawala was present with accused Guddi at the spot where the accused Guddi pointed out the place in the veranda of her house where she had buried the dead body of Ram Chander. According to the witness, he accordingly informed the Naib Tehsildar of the area on telephone, on St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 37 which Sh. Jagbir Singh, Naib Tehsildar reached the spot in whose presence SHO got dug the said place pointed out by the accused and at the same time, videography of the said proceedings was done. He has further deposed that after digging upto a depth of 22½ feet, a dead body of a male was recovered and the accused Guddi identified the dead body as that of her husband namely Ram Chander. The witness has also deposed that the SHO marked the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to be conducted by him which are Ex.PW15/B1 and Ex.PW15/B2, Ex. 2/B, Ex. PW4/A. He has proved that on 12.07.2007, he moved an application for conducting autopsy on the dead body of the said male which application is Ex.PW15/B3 and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide receipt Ex.PW2/C. He has also proved that after the autopsy, the Autopsy Surgeon handed over viscera of the deceased which was handed over to the Malkhana Mohrar of Police Station. This witness has not been crossexamined by the accused persons despite opportunity in this regard and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(48) PW17 ASI Naresh Kumar from Police Station Kharkhoda, Haryana has brought the summoned RC Register and has proved the RC No. 339 dated 14/07/2007 in two pages copy of which is collectively Ex.PW17/A. St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 38 (49) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the case nor the said entry is in his hand nor was he posted at Police Station Kharkhoda at the relevant time.
(50) PW18 Constable Kuldeep has deposed that on 11.10.2007, he was posted at Police Station Kanjhawala and on that day, he alongwith ASI Johar Singh and Constable Ramesh went to village Qutub Garh at the house of Ram Chander and Guddi for the investigation of the present case where ASI interrogated Guddi and arrested her vide her arrest memo Ex.PW10/A and her disclosure statement Ex.PW10/B was recorded after which they along with the accused Guddi went to Matindu Road, Kharkhoda on the instructions of the SHO. He has also deposed that it was a colony where accused Guddi lead them to a house having pucca construction and the SHO with staff also reached there and Kharkhoda Police was also called. He has further deposed that Tehsildar of the area was also informed to reach there and in the presence of all the persons, accused pointed out the place i.e. veranda of the said house where she had buried the dead body of her husband Ram Chander vide pointing out memo Ex.PW10/M. According to the witness, threefour labours form the public persons were called for digging the said land in the veranda and the videographer and photographer were also called who took the videography of the entire scene. He has proved that after digging the St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 39 land upto 2 or 2½ feet, a male dead body in a highly decomposed condition was recovered about which, accused Guddi told that it was the dead body of her husband Ram Chander. He has further proved that recovery memo of the said dead body was prepared vide Ex.PW10/C. The witness has also testified that accused Guddi got recovered one spade and two half bricks having blood stains on it which were kept in pullsndas and were sealed with the seal of SB and seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW10/D and Ex.PW10/H. According to him, the accused Guddi got recovered her blood stained clothes which she was wearing at the time of incident from the room of the said house at Kharkhoda, which clothes were kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of SB and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/F. He has further testified that the accused Guddi got recovered clothes of her deceased husband from pit near the dead body which were taken into possession and sealed with the said seal and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/G. (51) According to the witness, thereafter, they came back to Qutub Garh from where the accused Bijender was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/J, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/K and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW10/L. The witness has further deposed that the accused Bijender took them to Kharkhoda and pointed out the place of St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 40 occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW10/M. (52) He has correctly identified both the accused Guddi and Bijender in the Court and has also identified the case property i.e. ladies shirt and salwar of accused Guddi which are Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 respectively; two half bricks which are collectively Ex.P3; pant which was found near the dead body of the deceased which is Ex.P4 and a spade recovered from the spot which is Ex.P5.
(53) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that they left from the Police Station to village Qutub Garh by bus and they had called the public persons but none agreed to join the investigation but the names of those persons were not recorded by the Investigating Officer. According to the witness, the accused Guddi was brought from her house to the main bus stand on foot and from there, they went to Kharkhoda in the Gypsy of SHO Inspector Sandeep Bayala bearing No. 3202 which was the official vehicle of the SHO. He has testified that SHO also accompanied them to Kharkhoda and he himself, ASI Jor Singh and Constable Ramesh brought Guddi from her house to the bus stand. The witness has also deposed that her arrest memo was prepared at her residence at Qutub Garh and one lady Constable Manju from HomeGuard was also accompanied by them to Kharkhoda who came in the Gypsy of SHO. He has testified that Constable Manju had probably signed on all the St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 41 papers on which, he had signed. He has explained that they went to Kharkhoda via Ochandi Border and they took the Police vehicle alongwith accused Guddi to Police Station Kharkhoda. According to him, the paper work regarding the presence of the Police officials of Police Station Kanjhawala alongwith accused Guddi was got registered at Police Station Kharkhoda and thereafter, the Police officials of Police Station Kharkhoda accompanied them to the house of Guddi at Kharkhoda. He does not recollect as to who had opened the lock of the door of the main gate of the said house. He has testified that the house had a boundary wall and there was a small gate about 45 feet in height. According to him, he did not notice if the main house was locked or not and has voluntarily explained that as he was at the back side and there were many persons in the crowd ahead of him, at the time of entering the said house. The witness has also deposed that about 2530 public persons had gathered at the spot when they reached at the house of Guddi at Kharkhoda. He has further testified that SHO asked the public persons to help in digging the spot but he does not remember the names of the said public persons. He has further deposed that the photographer Surender was belonging to village Sohti and the statement of the said photographer and the labours might have been recorded by the SHO. He does not remember whether the above mentioned statements were recorded by the SHO prior to or after recording his statement. According to him, the SDM/Tehsildar came at St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 42 the spot prior to digging of the spot. He has testified that all the documents prepared at the spot were not handed over to the Naib Tehsildar but remained with the Investigating Officer. He is unable to tell whether the statement of Tehsildar was recorded at the spot by the Investigating Officer or not. He is not aware if the Investigating Officer seized any documents prepared by the Tehsildar. He has further deposed that Nigam Parshad of the area was called at the time of the said proceedings and all the doors of the house were got opened by the Police. The witness has testified that he was quite behind when the doors were got opened by the Police officials of Police Station Kharkhoda and ASI Ramesh was one of the officials of Police Station Kharkhoda. He has further deposed that it took about three and half hours in completing the entire proceedings at the said house of Guddi at Kharkhoda and Crime Team was called by Kharkhoda Police to lift the chance prints and other evidence from the spot. He does not recollect if he had entered the said house after inspection by the crime team nor does he recollect the name of any official from the said crime team. The witness has further deposed that he himself did not go alongwith the dead body to the mortuary. He is unable to tell if all of them came back to Delhi or any of them remained in the said mortuary to guard the dead body. According to him, the shovel and the bricks were found lying in the room of the said house. He is unable to tell whether the rooms of the house were locked or not before they entered St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 43 to effect the recovery of the articles. The witness has explained that first the body was recovered, then the shovel and bricks and clothes of accused Guddi were recovered and the articles were then collected together outside and the paper work was done together at the spot. He has also deposed that Tehsildar was present when the articles were taken into possession but he is not aware if signatures of Tehsildar were also taken on the recovery memos which were collectively prepared. He has admitted that the bricks and the shovel are easily available in the village and in the market. The witness has further testified that the blood stains were found present on the walls of the house also. He has also deposed that he was present inside when the Videography was being done and the videographer was covering all the public persons as well as the place where the digging was done including the Police officials. He is unable to tell if the police officials were also covered in the videography or not. He has testified that from the spot, they visited the Police Station Kharkhoda from where they came back to Qutub Garh. He has stated that Tehsildar, the SHO and the Police officials of Police Station Kharkhoda were present in Police Station Kharkhoda at that time. According to him, no public person was joined at the time of arrest of accused Bijender and has explained that they were called but they refused and the Investigating Officer did not note down their names and addresses nor any notices were served upon them. He has also deposed that thereafter accused Bijender was brought to the Police St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 44 Station and he had got conducted his medical examination. He is nto aware if any paper work was got done from accused Bijender at Police Station Kharkhoda or not. According to the witness, he was posted at Police Station Kanjhawla for about one year prior to the incident and the mobile number of the SHO at that time was 9891790709. He has denied the suggestion that he never went to Kharkhoda or Qutub Garh, for the said purpose as deposed by him above or that accused Guddi was never arrested in his presence nor she got recovered anything in his presence.
(54) PW19 Constable Rohtas has deposed that on 29.08.2007, he took the sealed exhibits from MHC(M) and deposited the same with FSL, Madhuban, Karnal vide RC No. 42/21/07 and after depositing the same, he came back with the copy of RC and receipt from FSL and handed it over to MHC(M), Kanjhawala. He has proved that till the exhibits remained in his custody, same were not tampered with. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of both accused despite opportunity given and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (55) PW20 HC Kanwar Singh has deposed that on 13.07.2007, he alongwith SHO Inspector Sandeep Yadav and Constable Jai Karan and Constable Sachidanand, driver went in Government vehicle Gypsy to Police Station Sultan Puri and took the accused Bijender, whom the witness has identified in the Court, from the lock up of the said Police Station and went to village Mazra, Farmana, Haryana where a Splendor St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 45 of black colour, number of which he does not recollect was got recovered from the house of the accused at the said village. He has proved that the said motorcycle was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/A and the accused disclosed that the motorcycle was used in the occurrence. According to the witness, thereafter, they came back at village Qutub Garh, Kanjhawala at the house of accused Bijender from where he got recovered one TVS motorcycle number of which he does not recollect. The witness has also proved that the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/B and about this motorcycle, the accused disclosed that the said motorcycle was used in the commission of the offence. He has further testified that thereafter, the accused took out a polythene lying in a steel almirah which polythene contained clothes having blood stains on it which clothes were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/D and one stamp paper was also got recovered by the accused. The witness has also deposed that one mobile phone number and make of which he does not remember due to lapse of time, was also got recovered by the accused from the side of almirah which was kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of SB and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/C after which they came back at Police Station.
(56) The witness has identified the case property i.e. motorcycles bearing no. DL 4SU 5036 make Hero Honda Splendor of black colour and DL 4S NB 1023 TVS Star of black and blue colour St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 46 which are Ex.M1 and M2 from their photographs which are Ex.M3 and M4; the document got recovered by accused Bijender which is Ex.PX; one gents kurta which is Ex.PY and pajama which is Ex.PZ of white colour with dark brown stains which were got recovered by accused Bijender.
(57) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the Gypsy was allotted to SHO number of which he does not recollect but the name of the driver was Constable Sachidanand. He has stated that they went to village Farmana via Kharkhoda and probably SHO had stopped the vehicle at the Delhi Haryana border and had informed the officials of the border but he is not aware if any entry in writing was made by him or not. He does not recollect if the concerned Police Station of village Farmana was informed or any Police official was called to join the investigation. According to him, the SHO made a departure entry while starting from Police Station for village Farmana and no public person or any Sarpanch or Panch was joined in the investigation before or after the recovery of articles mentioned above. He also does not recollect if anyone else was present in the house or not. He has also deposed that the motorcycle was put inside another vehicle, make colour or number of said vehicle he does not remember. He is not aware who had called the said vehicle or whether the vehicle belongs to the village or was from outside. He has further deposed that the vehicle alongwith the St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 47 motorcycle was with them when they reached village Qutubgarh. He has admitted that no neighbour or public person from the adjoining house was joined in investigation while effecting the recovery from accused at Qutub Garh. He has also deposed that the recoveries memos of the articles mentioned above were make separately at the spot and the motorcycle recovered from Qutub Garh was also kept in the same vehicle in which, there was already a motorcycle which was recovered from village Farmana. He has testified that the photographs of the motorcycle were taken at the Police Station and it took about 40 minutes during investigation at village Qutub Garh. He does not recollect how much total time was taken in the investigation from village Farmana to Qutub Garh. He has admitted that the Investigating Officer prepared the site plans of the place of recovery at village Qutub Garh and village Farmana and had obtained his signatures on the same. He has testified that the same motorcycle and the other articles were not deposited while they came back to the Police Station. He has denied the suggestion that he never went to village Farmana or to village Qutub Garh to get the recoveries effected or that no recovery was effected from accused from village Farmana or at village Qutub Garh.
(58) PW21 SI Shiv Narain has deposed that on 14.07.2007, he brought exhibits, Postmortem Report and inquest papers of the present case from Police Station Kharkhoda, Haryana vide RC No. 339 dated St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 48 14.07.2007 and deposited the same with the MHC(M) of Police Station Kanjhawala whereas the Postmortem Report and inquest papers were handed over to the Investigating Officer. He has proved that till the exhibits remained in his custody, same were not tampered with. (59) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that there was no motorcycle in the exhibits brought by him from MHC(M) of Police Station Kharkhoda.
(60) PW22 HC Surender Kumar has deposed that on 11.07.2007, Inspector Sandeep Bayala deposited four sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of 'SB' stated to be containing blood stained earth, earth control, the cemented pieces of the wall having blood stains and one parcel sealed with the seal of 'SB stated to be containing brick bat, one spade; another parcel sealed with the seal of 'SB' stated to be containing pant of the deceased and one parcel sealed with the seal of 'SB' stated to be containing suit, salwar which he deposited in the malkhana vide entry no.1479, copy of which is Ex.PW22/A. He has further proved that on 13.07.2007, Inspector Sandeep Bayala deposited one motorcycle no. DL 4SU 5036 and another motorcycle no. DL4S NB 1023 and some documents regarding a plot and one mobile phone which he deposited in the malkhana vide entry no. 1481 copy of which is Ex.PW22/B. The witness has also proved that on 14.07.2007, ASI Shiv Narain brought certain articles vide RC No. 339/07 and deposited two parcels sealed with the seal of the concerned hospital and one St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 49 viscera box sealed with the seal of said hospital and one sealed envelope which he deposited in the malkhana vide entry no. 1484 copy of which is Ex.PW22/C. According to the witness, on 30.08.2007, vide RC No. 42/21/07 dated 29/08/2007, ten sealed pullandas were sent to FSL Madhuban, Karnal through Constable Rohtas and result of the same was received on 25.02.2008 through Constable Rohtas alongwith the ten parcels and entry to that effect at point 'X' in Ex.PW22/A. (61) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the sign of cross shown against any entry in the register depicts that the said entry has been cancelled and below every entry, there is an underline before beginning the new entry. He has denied the suggestion that the register and relevant entries were kept blank to be subsequently filled up at the instance of higher officers and for this reason, there is no line below the said entries. He has admitted that on 12.07.2007, there is no entry of any deposit in the malkhana. He has denied the suggestion that he had manipulated the entries at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (62) PW23 Sh. Sandeep Bayala, ACP Rohini Jail is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has deposed that on 11.07.2007 he was posted at Police Station Kanjhawla as SHO and on that day ASI Jor Singh informed him that accused Guddi confessed about the murder of her husband Ram Chander on which thereafter he along with ASI Shiv Narain, HC Suraj Singh and other staff reached at St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 50 Kharkoda, District Sonipat, Haryana at about 33:30 PM where ASI Jor Singh along with accused Guddi and other staff met him. The witness has further deposed that he also formally inquired about the facts from accused Guddi after which he made application to the SDM, Sonipat Haryana regarding digging for the recovery of the dead body vide Ex.PW23/A and the same was sent through Ct. Sunil. According to the witness, ASI Jor Singh was also sent to nearby Police Station to call the local police pursuant to which ASI Ramesh of Police Station Kharkhoda and Naib Tehsildar Jagbir from the SDM office reached at the spot and in the the presence of the above said officials and other respected persons of the area, digging was started and videographer also prepared the video film of the proceedings. The witness has testified that after digging for about 2 ½ feet one human male dead body was recovered with the blue coloured pant on which he prepared the pointing out memo and the recovery memo of the dead body at the instance of Guddi vide Ex.PW10/C and took possession of the pant recovered with the dead body and sealed the same in a cloth pullanda with the seal of 'SB' and seized the same vide Ex.PW10/G. He has also deposed that thereafter at the instance of accused Guddi, two half bricks pieces were recovered form the backside of the house of Guddi and she (Guddi) disclosed that those brick pieces were used by her and Bijender for causing injuries upon the deceased Ram Chander. The witness has proved having sealed the both brick pieces in a cloth St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 51 pullanda with the seal of SB and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW10/D. He has also proved having lifted blood stained earth from the backside room of the house and kept the same in a polythene and sealed the same with the seal of 'SB'; having lifted earth control from the said room and kept the same in a polythene and sealed the same with the seal of 'SB'; having lifted blood stained wall pieces after breaking the same with the help of hammer and kept the same in a polythene and sealed the same with the seal of 'SB'; having lifted earth control from the wall after breaking the same with the help of hammer and kept the same in a polythene and sealed the same with the seal of 'SB'. He has also deposed that he gave serial numbers 1 to 4 to these pullandas and seized these pullandas vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/E. According to him, at the instance of the accused Guddi one lady suit - salwar were recovered from the kitchen of the house and Guddi disclosed that she was wearing these clothes at the time of incident after which he also sealed the suit and salwar in a cloth pullanda with the seal of 'SB' and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/F. He has further deposed that at the instance of accused Guddi one Kassi (phawra) was recovered from the courtyard of the house and she disclosed that the said kassi was used for digging and concealing the dead body of Ram Chander pursuant to which he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/H. The witness has also testified that thereafter he handed over the dead body to ASI Ramesh of Police St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 52 Station Kharkhoda for proceedings U/s 174 Cr.P.C. after which he along with his staff and accused Guddi went to Qutub Garh, Delhi where at the instance of the accused Guddi at bus stand, coaccused Bijender was apprehended by them. He has further deposed that the accused Bijender was interrogated who disclosed his involvement in the commission of murder of Ram Chander after which the accused Bijender was arrested vide Ex.PW10/J, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW10/K and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW10/L. According to him, thereafter, accused Guddi was sent to the Police Station through ASI Shiv Narayan and DHG Manju. He has proved that the accused Bijender pointed out the place of incident at Kharkhoda vide pointing out memo Ex.PW10/M after which they returned back to Police Station where he deposited all the seized articles in the Malkhana and recorded the statement of witnesses. He has testified that on 12.07.2007 both accused Guddi and Bijender were produced before the Court and one day Police Custody Remand of accused Bijender was obtained. The witness has also deposed that on 13.07.2007 he along with Ct. Jai Karan, Ct. Kanwar Singh with accused Bijender reached at Majra Farmana, Distt. Sonipat where at the instance of accused Bijender one motorcycle bearing No. DL 4SU 5036 was recovered from inside the house of the accused Bijender and the accused disclosed that the motorcycle belongs to deceased Ram Chander. He has proved having seized the said St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 53 motorcycle vide memo Ex.PW14/A after which they reached at Village Qutub Garh, Delhi where at the instance of the accused Bijender his motorcycle bearing No. DL 4S NB1023 was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/B. The witness has further testified that at the instance of the accused, his mobile phone TATA Indicom of black colour was recovered from the shelf of the wall of the house and he disclosed that he was in contact with accused Guddi with the same mobile phone. According to him, the mobile phone was sealed by him in a cloth pulanda with the seal of SB and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/C. He has further deposed that at the instance of accused Bijender, his Kurta Pyajama were recovered from under the Almirah in the house and one stamp paper of Rs.10/ was also recovered from the pocket of the Kurta, which Kurta Pyajama were sealed by him in a cloth pulanda with the seal of SB and the same was seized the said pulanda and stamp paper vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/D. According to the witness, he kept the stamp paper with his file which is Ex.PX after which they returned back at Police Station and all the seized articles were deposited in the Malkhana and recorded the statements of the witnesses after which the accused Bijender was produced before the Court and was sent to Judicial Custody. He has testified that on 14.07.2011, he along with ASI Shiv Narayan reached at Police Station Kharkhoda and collected all the exhibits, forwarding letter for FSL, Madhuban and deposited all the seized articles in St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 54 Malkhana of Police Station Kanjhawala.
(63) The Investigating Officer has proved that during his investigation, he also collected the CD from Surender and sealed the same in cloth pulanda with the seal of SB and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/B. He has also proved having collected the documents of motorcycle No. DL 4SU 5036 vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. According to the witness, on 11.07.2007, he prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW23/C and also collected the cash receipt of Mobile Phone purchased by Bijender Singh which is Ex.PW13/A. He has proved having collected the call details of the mobile phone No. 9211484604 from the TATA Indicom which call details are Ex.PW23/D running into 5 pages. The witness has further deposed that he sent the exhibits to FSL, Madhuban for expert opinion through Ct. Rohtash and thereafter, he recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against accused Guddi and Bijender. The witness has also proved having collected the FSL result which are Ex.PW23/E to Ex.PW23/H and got prepared the scaled site plan through SI Manohar Lal, who handed over the same to him. He has testified that he thereafter submitted the FSL result and scaled site plan before the Court.
(64) He has correctly identified the accused Guddi and Bijender in the Court and has also identified the case property i.e. one suit and St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 55 salwar which were recovered at the instance of accused Guddi which are Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 respectively; two bricks pieces which were recovered at the instance of accused Guddi which are collectively Ex.P3; one blue colour pant which was recovered with the dead body of deceased Ram Chander which is Ex.P4; one Kassi (Fawra) recovered at the instance of accused Guddi which is Ex.P5; Kurta and Pyajama which were recovered at the instance of accused Bijender which Kurta is Ex.PY and Pyajama is Ex.PZ; one mobile phone of TATA Indicom of black colour which was recovered at the instance of accused Bijender which mobile phone is Ex.P6; motorcycle bearing No. DL 4SNB 1023 through the photographs which are Ex.M1 and Ex.M2 and the motorcycle bearing No. DL 4SU 5036 from the photographs which are Ex.M3 and Ex.M4.
(65) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that the nodal officer of Tata Indicom has not been cited as witness in the charge sheet but has denied the suggestion that he had himself incorporated the call details in order to enhance the evidence against the accused. He has also admitted that Ex.PW23/D can be projected from a computer as it is a simple print out. He has further admitted that no pointing out memo was prepared by him when accused Guddi pointed out towards Bijender. The witness has also admitted that in the documents prepared thereafter, he had not St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 56 mentioned about this fact and that in all the proceedings which were conducted at Kharkhoda, Sonipat which included recovery of the dead body and the recovery of the clothes of Guddi and bricks, kashi, which include documents Ex.PW10/C, Ex.PW10/D, Ex.PW10/E, Ex.PW10/F, Ex.PW10/N, Ex.PW10/H and Ex.PW10/G, does not bear the signatures of any independent public witnesses or the Government official including the Tehsildar and others who were present at the spot. He has however denied that these documents were prepared later on at the Police Station. According to the witness, he had left the Police Station for investigation in his official vehicle bearing no. DL 1CJ 3202 and was carrying his own mobile whose number he does not remember. He has denied the suggestion that he is intentionally not disclosing the number of his mobile. He does not recollect to which service provider the SIM which he was using at the relevant time belonged to. He has explained that they had gone to Kharkhoda via Qutub Garh and at Kharkhoda left for the Police Station at about 7:00 PM in the evening. According to the witness, he had recorded the disclosure statement of accused Bijender on 11.07.2007 but the accused Bijender did not make any other disclosure statement other than the disclosure on 11.07.2007. He has also deposed that prior to recording of disclosure of Bijender they had effected recovery at Kharkhoda which included suit of Guddi, blood stained earth, bricks, kassi etc. The witness has further deposed that the main gate of the place where St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 57 dead body of Ram Chander was found was open when they reached alongwith Guddi at Kharkhoda. According to him, the boundary wall was about eight to ten feet from where the dead body of Ram Chander was recovered. He has further testified that the house from where the suit of Guddi and bricks and kassi were recovered was also wide open. He has admitted that they did not call the Local Police when they searched the place Farmana at Sonipat nor informed any of the PCRs of the Police Station within the jurisdiction of Farmana when they were going to effect the recovery from the house of Bijender at Farmana. According to the witness, the house of Bijender was opened by someone when they reached his house but he does not remember who opened the door and he did not make that person as a witness in this case. He has also deposed that it took about twenty minutes to complete the proceedings at the house of Bijender at Farmana from where the recovery of motorcycle was done. The witness has testified that it took them about one and a half hours to complete proceedings at Qutub Garh. He has further deposed that he had used his official vehicle while effecting recoveries from both the houses of Bijender. The witness has admitted that Guddi had given an information that her husband was missing on 03.07.2007 and it was in his knowledge that Ram Chander was missing from 03.07.2007 to 11.07.2007. He has also deposed that he had not corroborated the facts stated by the brother of Ram Chander (complainant) regarding the character of Guddi and St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 58 Bijender. He has denied the suggestion that no recoveries were effected at the instance of Bijender and Guddi or that Bijender and Guddi did not make any disclosure statement. He has also denied the suggestion that the same was recorded by him of his own or that he had falsely implicated the accused Bijender and Guddi in this case. (66) PW24 SI Manohar (Draftsman) has deposed that on 30.01.2008 he was called by Investigating Officer Inspector Sandeep Bayala at Police Station Kanjhawala, from where he alongwith Investigating Officer reached the spot i.e. house of Guddi W/o Ram Chander, Matindu Road, Village Kharkhoda, District Sonipat where on the pointing out of the Investigating Officer, he prepared rough notes and took measurement. He has proved that on the basis of the rough notes he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW24/A. (67) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. at the spot itself. He is unable to tell if the Investigating Officer had informed the local Police Station about their arrival and investigations. He has denied that he had not visited the spot.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED / DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(68) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of both the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 59 the incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied.
The accused Guddi has stated that she is innocent and her brotherin law Mahender Singh was having eyes on their property and was not having good relations with her husband. She has further stated that although her husband was a habitual drinker and used to beat her, she was having good relations with him. According to her, she has been falsely implicated at the behest of her brother in law Mahender Singh. She has denied having made any disclosure statement. (69) The accused Bijender has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, he has no relations with the coaccused Guddi nor is he related to the deceased in any manner. (70) Though both the accused stated that wanted to lead evidence in their defence yet they have not examined any witness despite opportunity in this regard.
FINDINGS:
(71) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Defence Counsel and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses so examined by the prosecution individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 60
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
Public Witnesses/ victim/ complainant
1. Jagbir Singh He is the Naib Tehsildar, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat,
(PW1) Haryana who had joined the investigations in official
capacity on directions of SDM and has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 11.07.2007, he received a direction from SDM, Sonipat on telephone whereby he was requested to accompany the Police Officials from Police Station Kanjhawala pursuant to which he alongwith the Police officials of Police Station Kanjhawala went to Harijan Basti, Kharkhoda.
2. According to the witness, one lady in custody of lady police was also with the police officials of Police Station Kanjhawala and in his presence, a dead body was dug out at the pointing out of lady accused which the lady accused informed that the dead body was of her husband.
3. That videography was done in his presence at Harijan Basti, Kharkhoda, Haryana in the courtyard of the house and the photographs were also taken.
4. That the name of lady accused was Guddi. This witness has not been able to identify the accused Guddi in the Court and has explained that since two years had passed hence he was not sure whether the accused present in the Court was the same lady or not. (This however, will not be fatal to the prosecution case since this Court has noted that the video recording of the proceedings establish the presence of both the accused Guddi and the witness Jagbir Singh).
2. Mahender Singh He is the brother of the deceased Ram Chander and has (PW2) deposed on the following aspects:St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 61
1. That they are five brothers and he is the fourth one and all his brothers were living separately.
2. That he is living in village Qutub Garh where he is running an Ayurvedic Dispensary whereas his brother Ram Chander was also an Ayurvedic Doctor and was running an Ayurvedic Dispensary in the nearby village Qutab Garh where he was staying alongwith his wife Guddi and children.
3. That from 1.7.2007 his brother Ram Chander was missing.
4. That Guddi was not a lady of good character and was having illicit relations with one Bijender who lives in the same village and their family was earning bad name in the village due to this reason.
5. That three to four months prior to this case, he had gone to the house of his brother Ram Chander where he found Guddi and Bijender inside the house and children were playing here and there.
6. That he tried to make Guddi understand that family was earning bad reputation due to her illicit relations with Bijender but she paid no attention to the same on which he also had a talk with his brother Ram Chander in this regard.
7. That his brother also tried to make Guddi understand but Guddi did not mend her ways and called his brother "Sharabi" and also used to threaten his brother that she would get him killed.
8. That they searched for Ram Chander in relatives and friends but in vain.
9. That on 11.07.2007 he went to the Police Station and lodged his complaint which is Ex.PW2/A.
10. That in the evening he was called in the Police Station by the Police and he was told that his brother had been murdered.St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 62
11. That on 12.04.2007 he identified the dead body of Ram Chander in dead house of GH Hospital vide his identification statement which is Ex.PW2/B and after postmortem dead body was handed over to him vide receipt Ex.PW2/C.
12. That during the investigation he handed over the photocopy of RC photocopy of which is Ex.P1, sale letter Ex.P2, Pollution Certificate Ex.P3 and Insurance papers Ex.P4 of motorcycle no.
DL 4SU 5036 which were seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D which motorcycle is Ex.P5.
3. Rajesh (PW4) He is the nephew of the deceased who has proved that on 12.07.2007, he went to dead house of GH Sonipat where he identified the dead body of his uncle Ram Chander vide identification statement which is Ex.PW4/A and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to him vide receipt Ex.PW2/C.
4. Surinder Kumar He is the private photographer who has deposed as (PW5) under:
1. That he is running a shop of photography by the name of Sheetal Photo Studio at Qutab Garh Main Stand.
2. That on 11.07.2007 he was called by the officials of Police Station Kanjhawala on which he reached at the plot at Matindu Road, Village Kharkhoda where a dead body of a man was to be dug out.
3. That he prepared the Videography and still photography of the said dead body from various angles at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
4. That he prepared eight positive photographs and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer which photographs are Ex.A1 to A8 and the CD is Ex.A9.St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 63
5. Sonu (PW6) This witness was working as a Labour and has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That at about two years ago (from the date of his deposition) police officials of Delhi had come to their village (Kharkhoda, Haryana).
2. That the Pardhan of their village had asked him and his associate namely Manjeet to dig the courtyard of a plot on which he alongwith Manjeet dug that plot upto 22½ feet and found a dead body in a highly decomposed condition.
3. That they were given Rs.200/ each as their labour charges.
6. Manjeet (PW7) He is another labour who has deposed as under:
1. That about two years ago (from the date of his examination), Police Officials of Delhi had come to their village (Kharkhoda Haryana).
2. That the Pardhan of their village had asked him and his associate namely Manjeet to dug the courtyard of the plot on which he along with Sonu dug the plot upto 22½ feet and found a dead body in highly decomposed condition.
3. That they were given Rs.200/ each as their labour charges.
7. Raju (PW9) He is a witness of recovery of the dead body of deceased. He has deposed as under:
1. That he resides at Matindu Road, Khatik Mohalla, Ward No. 12, Kharkhoda, Haryana and in the year, 2007 he was the Nagar Palika Parshad of Ward No.11.
2. That about two and half years back (from the date of his deposition), it was summer season, he saw a crowd in his Mohalla and came to now that dead body was recovered from one house but he is not aware about the ownership of said house.
3. That he was on the road outside the said house and foul smell was emanating from there.
He has admitted that the recovery of dead body was got St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 64 photographed and videography of the same was got done by the Police. The CD of the proceedings which is Ex.A8 was played in the Court Room and shown to the witness who identified the way towards the place from where the dead body was recovered and the witness also identified the lady depicted in the CD who is leading towards the place where the dead body was recovered. Witness has further confirmed the process of digging out and the recovery of the dead body and has admitted and explained that the filming of the said CD took place in his presence. He has further deposed that the lady leading to the place of recovery of dead body had come with the Police. He has pointed out towards the accused Guddi in the Court as the lady who led to the recovery of the dead body as depicted in CD Ex.A8.
8. Ghamandi Lal He is the brother of Pradhan of Ward No. 10, (PW11) Kharkhoda and has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That about four years back (from the date of his deposition) date he does not remember, in seventh month of the year, accused Guddi whom he has correctly identified in the Court, was present alongwith Delhi Police in her house which was purchased by her few months back.
2. That a crowd of public persons was also present but he is unable to tell if any other senior official from Kharkhoda was also present there or not.
3. That at the instance of accused Guddi, the digging work in her said house was done by the Police.
4. That since foul smell was coming from the said portion, he came from there.
5. That photography and videography of the said scene was being got done by the Police.
After seeing the CD Ex.A8 the witness has admitted that the filming of the said CD had taken place in his presence. He has identified the place of the recovery of the dead body of a male which place is their village/ St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 65 Tehsil. He has then admitted that the lady depicted in the CD who was in the custody of the Police, was the same who was present in the Court as accused (Guddi).
9. Arjun (PW12) This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That about four or four and a half years ago (from the date of his deposition in the Court), he had sold his house in Ward No.10, Matindu Road, Khatikan Mohalla, Kharkhoda, to accused Guddi whom she has identified in the Court, for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/.
2. That at the time of purchase of said house, accused Bijender whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court was accompanying accused Guddi and both the accused had come on motorcycle.
3. That when he had sold the said plot, one room was constructed on it and later on Guddi had raised construction of other twothree rooms on the said plot.
4. He has clarified that the name of husband of Guddi was Ram Chander.
10. Raj Kumar He has proved that he is running a mobile shop at (PW13) village Qutubh Garh, Delhi and he knew Bijender Singh R/o Village of Qutub Garh as he had purchased a mobile phone of TATA Huawei C 2205 for a sum of Rs.
2,100/ on 25.03.2007. He has proved the cash memo Ex.PW13/A issued by him.
Medical witness
11. Dr. Jitender This witness has proved that on 12.07.2007, he Kumar Jhakhar conducted postmortem examination on the body of (PW16) Asstt deceased Ram Chander S/o Hukam Chand vide Professor, postmortem report Ex.PW16/A and there were Forensic Medicine, following injuries on the dead body:
PGIMS, Rohtak, 1. A lacerated wound of size 2.5 x 1 cm present Haryana over the left temporal region situated 5 cm about the left external ear.St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 66
2. A lacerated wound of size 7 x 1 cm present over the left frontoparietal region situated 3 cm left lateral to antero posterior midline.
3. A lacerated wound of size 3 x 2 cm present on the left frontal region situated 3 cm posterior to left eyebrow and 7 cm lateral to midline.
4. A lacerated wound of size 2 x 1 cm present on the right temporal region situated 3 cm right to midline and 13 cm posterior to right eyebrow.
5. A lacerated wound of size 3 x 2 cm present on the left occipital region situated 2 cm lateral to antero posterior midline. On deep dissection underlying deep tissues of all above mentioned injuries were found ecchymosed.
6. A contusion of size 3 x 2 cm present on the left side of neck situated 4 cm below the angel of mandible and 5 cm left lateral to antero posterior midline. On dissection, underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.
7. A contusion of size 1 x 1 present on the anterior aspect of neck 4 cm below the chin. On dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.
8. A contusion of size 4 x 3 present on the right cheek at the level of angle of mandible. On dissection, underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.
9. A contusion of size 2 x 1 present on the right side of lower lip at the level of right canine tooth. On dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.
10. A contusion of size 3 x 2 present on the upper lip just left lateral to nose. On dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.
He has proved that the brain matter was liquefied and blood tinged; Liver, spleen and kidneys were softened and putrefied; Both lungs and heart was also softened and putrefied; the stomach contained mucoid material and mucosa of stomach was congested; St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 67 the small intestine contained digested food material and large intestine contained fecal matter. He has also proved having opined that it was a dead body of a late young adult male individual, Cause of death in this case was injuries described (head injuries) which were antemortem, homicidal and consequent to blow by hard and blunt object with a small striking surface coupled with smothering, the probable time that elapsed between death and postmortem examination was 1014 days which was declared on the basis of signs of putrification on the body.
He has further proved the sketch showing the injuries in the dead body which is Ex.PW16/A1 and twelve Police papers which are Ex.PW16/B1, Ex.PW15/BB, PW15/B1, PW16/B2, PW16/B3, PW15/A, PW16/B4, PW16/B5, PW15/B2 and Ex.PW2/B. Police / Official witnesses:
12. HC Ram Singh He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has (PW3) deposed that on 11.07.2007 at about 2:15 PM Inspector Surinder Dev, Addl. SHO handed over one rukka to him in the Duty Officer Room on the basis of which rukka he recorded FIR No. 124/07 under Section 364/34 IPC correctly, computer generated copy of which is Ex.PW3/A and his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW3/B.
13. HC Surat Singh He is a formal witness who has proved that on (PW8) 03.07.2007, at about 5:30 PM Guddi lodged a missig report in respect of her husband Sh. Ram Chander vide DD No.30A copy of which DD is Ex.PW8/A which DD was marked to ASI Jor Singh for further necessary action.
14. ASI Jor Singh He is the initial Investigating Officer who has deposed (PW10) as under:
1. That on 03.07.2007 DD No. 30A Ex.PW8/A was marked to him for further investigations which DD was a missing report made by accused St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 68 Guddi of her husband Ram Chand.
2. That he had given wireless message to all SSPs and all DCPs of India through mentioning it in the particulars of the missing man Ram Chander, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW10/A.
3. That he filled up the missing person form and send the same to missing persons squad at Kotwali through SHO, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW10/B.
4. That he had tried to search for the missing person Ram Chander but all his efforts were in vain.
5. That on 11.07.2007 Mahender Singh brother of the deceased came in the Police Station Kanjhawala and handed over a written complaint Ex.PW2/A to the SHO who got the FIR registered after which the investigation was handed over to him.
6. That during investigation, he alongwith Constable Kuldeep and Constable Ramesh went to village Qutub Garh at the village of Ram Chander where accused Guddi was found present.
7. That Guddi was interrogated who confessed about her guilt after which she was arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/A but her personal search could not be conducted as no lady Constable was available at that time.
8. That the accused Guddi made her disclosure statement which is Ex.PW10/B and thereafter he narrated the entire facts to the SHO who directed him to reach at Kharkhoda District Sonipat and he also reached there with the staff.
9. That they went to Matindu Road, Kharkhoda where the Local Police was informed as well as the SDM was also informed and asked to reach there.
10. That SI Ramesh with staff of the local Police Station and Naib Tehsildar who was deputed by St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 69 the SDM reached there.
11. That the accused Guddi led them to her plot where she pointed out the place where she buried the dead body of her husband Ram Chander with her coaccused Bijender.
12. That the SHO called two private labours and in the presence of public persons the dead body of Ram Chander was recovered after digging the said plot 22½ feet.
13. That the pointing out memo and recovery memo of the dead body was prepared which is Ex.
PW10/C.
14. That accused Guddi disclosed that it was the dead body of her husband Ram Chander.
15. That two blood stained half bricks (collectively Ex.P3) were also got recovered by accused Guddi from the room of the said plot which were kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of SB and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/D.
16. That the Investigating Officer lifted earth control, blood stained earth control from the spot and walls of the said room and said plot which were kept in polythene and were sealed in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of SB and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/E.
17. That the accused Guddi also got recovered her blood stained clothes from the kitchen of the said house (FSL report Ex.PW23/E confirms presence of blood) on the said plot which were also kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of SB and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/F.
18. That one pant which was found lying under the dead body at the time of recovery of the said body was also taken into possession after sealing the same with the seal of SB and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/G.
19. That one spade got recovered by the accused Guddi from the said plot was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW10/H. St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 70
20. That the dead body was handed over to ASI Ramesh of Police Station Kharkhoda for initiating proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C.
after which the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of dead body and recorded the statement of witnesses present at the spot.
21. That after completion of investigation at Kharkhoda they went to village Qutub Garh from where accused Bijender was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/J, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/K and accused Bijender made his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW10/L.
22. That the accused Bijender had also pointed out the place of recovery of dead body vide pointing out memo Ex.PW10/M.
15. Ct. Jai Karan This witness has joined the investigation with the (PW14) Investigating Officer Inspector Sandeep Bayala and has proved the following aspects:
1. That on 13.07.2007 the accused Bijender was taken out from the Police lock up of Police Station Sultan Puri and reached at village Farmana Mazara (Village of accused Bijender) from where the accused Bijender got recovered one motorcycle no. DL 4SU 5036 Hero Honda Splendor black colour from his house which was seized vide memo Ex.PW14/A.
2. That thereafter they came back to Qutab Garh, Delhi from where the accused recovered another motorcycle whose complete number he does not remember but the initial letter of the number was DL 4SN and it was a TVS Victor.
3. That the motorcycle was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/B.
4. That the accused Bijender had also got recovered one mobile phone from the almirah but he does not remember the make of the St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 71 mobile phone which mobile phone was seized vide memo Ex.PW14/C.
5. That accused Bijender got recovered one pant and shirt which were blood stained which were lying below the almirah and one stamp paper was also recovered from the table, which clothes and papers were seized vide memo Ex.PW14/D.
16. ASI Ramesh He is an official from Haryana Police who has deposed Kumar (PW15) on the following aspects:
1. That on 11.07.2007, he was posted at Police Station Kharkhoda and on that day, on receipt of DD No. 24 which is Ex.PW15/A he alongwith Delhi Police Staff ASI Jor Singh and other Police officials reached at Matindu Road, Kharkhoda at the plot of accused Guddi W/o Ram Chander whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court.
2. That SHO of Police Station Kanjhawala was present with accused Guddi at the spot where the accused Guddi pointed out the place in the veranda of her house where she had buried the dead body of Ram Chander.
3. That he accordingly informed the Naib Tehsildar of the area on telephone, on which Sh. Jagbir Singh, Naib Tehsildar reached the spot in whose presence SHO got dug the said place pointed out by the accused and at the same time, videography of the said proceedings was done.
4. That after digging upto a depth of 22½ feet, a dead body of a male was recovered and the accused Guddi identified the dead body as that of her husband namely Ram Chander.
5. That the SHO marked the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to be conducted by him which are Ex.PW15/B1 and Ex.PW15/B2, Ex.
2/B, Ex.PW4/A.
6. That on 12.07.2007, he moved an application for conducting autopsy on the dead body of the said St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 72 male which application is Ex.PW15/B3 and after identification of body and postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide receipt Ex.PW2/C.
7. That after the autopsy, the Autopsy Surgeon handed over viscera of the deceased which was handed over to the Malkhana Mohrar of Police Station.
17. ASI Naresh He is a formal witness from Police Station Kharkhoda, Kumar (PW17) Haryana who has proved the RC No.339 dated 14.07.2007 in two pages copy of which is collectively Ex.PW17/A.
18. Ct. Kuldeep This witness has joined investigations along with initial (PW18) Investigating Officer ASI Jor Singh and has proved the various documents as under:
Ex.PW10/A Arrest memo of accused Guddi
Ex.PW10/B Disclosure statement of accused Guddi
Ex.PW10/C Recovery memo of the dead body
Ex.PW10/D Seizure memo of two blood stained half
bricks (collectively Ex.P3)
Ex.PW10/F Seizure memo of the clothes of the
accused Guddi (i.e. salwar and suit
which are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2).
Ex.PW10/G Seizure memo of clothes of deceased
Ex.PW10/H Seizure memo of spade / Kassi (Ex.P5).
Ex.PW10/J Arrest memo of accused Bijender Singh
Ex.PW10/K Personal search memo of accused
Bijender Singh
Ex.PW10/L Disclosure statement of accused Bijender
Ex.PW10/M Pointing out memo
19. Ct. Rohtas (PW19) He is a formal witness who has proved that on 29.08.2007, he took the sealed exhibits from MHC(M) and deposited the same with FSL, Madhuban, Karnal St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 73 vide RC No. 42/21/07 and after depositing the same, he came back with the copy of RC and receipt from FSL and handed it over to MHC(M), Kanjhawala.
20. HC Kanwar Singh This witness has joined investigations with Investigating (PW20) Officer Inspector Sandeep Bayala and Ct. Jai Karan (PW14) and has proved the various investigation proceedings.
21. SI Shiv Narain He is a formal witness who has proved that on (PW21) 14.07.2007, he brought exhibits, Postmortem Report and inquest papers of the present case from Police Station Kharkhoda, Haryana vide RC No. 339 dated 14.07.2007 and deposited the same with the MHC(M) of Police Station Kanjhawala whereas the Postmortem Report and inquest papers were handed over to the Investigating Officer.
22. HC Surender He is a formal witness being the MHCM of Police Kumar (PW22) Station Kanjhawla and has proved entry no.1479 in Register No. 19 copy of which is Ex.PW22/A; entry no. 1481 copy of which is Ex.PW22/B; entry no. 1484 copy of which is Ex.PW22/C.
23. ACP Sh. Sandeep He is the Investigating Officer of the present case and Bayala (PW23) has proved the various proceedings. He has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW23/A Application to the SDM, Sonipat
Haryana regarding digging for the
recovery of the dead body.
Ex.PW10/C Recovery memo of the dead body
Ex.PW10/D Seizure memo of two blood stained half
bricks (collectively Ex.P3)
Ex.PW10/E Seizure memo of earth control and blood
stained earth control
Ex.PW10/F Seizure memo of the clothes of the
accused Guddi (i.e. salwar and suit
which are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2).
St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 74
Ex.PW10/G Seizure memo of clothes of deceased
Ex.PW10/H Seizure memo of spade / Kassi (Ex.P5).
Ex.PW10/J Arrest memo of accused Bijender Singh
Ex.PW10/K Personal search memo of accused
Bijender Singh
Ex.PW10/L Disclosure statement of accused Bijender
Ex.PW10/M Pointing out memo
Ex.PW14/A Seizure memo of motorcycle bearing No.
DL 4SU 5036 belonging to the deceased
Ex.PW14/B Seizure memo of motorcycle bearing No.
DL 4S NB1023
Ex.PW14/C Seizure memo of mobile phone of the
accused
Ex.PW14/D Seizure memo of kurta and payjama of
the accused Bijender along with Stamp
Paper (Ex.PX)
Ex.PW23/B Seizure memo of CD from videographer
Surender
Ex.PW23/C Site Plan
Ex.PW23/D Call details of mobile No. 9211484604
Ex.PW23/E FSL Results (admissible in evidence to under Section 293 Cr.P.C.) Ex.PW23/H
24. SI Manohar Lal He is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has (PW24) proved having prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW24/A. (72) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence against the accused.
St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 75 Motive of the Crime:
(73) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Guddi and Bijender Singh were in love with each other and hence pursuance to a conspiracy they purchased a plot at Village & Post Office Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana. Guddi constructed two room in the said plot and later on pursuance to the conspiracy on the pretext of showing the plot to Ram Chander, she took her to the said house at Kharkhoda where she along with Bijender Singh killed him and buried him inside the same house in the veranda.
(74) Before coming to the evidence on merits, I may observe that motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evident should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 76 crime fits in which the alleged motive.
(75) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
(76) Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to Courts while analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused.
[Ref.: IV (2012) SLT 257].
(77) Moreover, in a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of a crime, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused is guilty of the offence charged with. However, at the same time the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime [Ref.: State of U.P. Vs. Bahu Ram reported in 2000 (4) SCC 515 and St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 77 Ujjagal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2007 (14) SCALE 428]. (78) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that in order to prove the motive the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Mahender Singh (PW2) the brother of the deceased Ram Chander. According to Mahender Singh, his brother Ram Chander was an Ayurvedic Doctor who was running an Ayurvedic Dispensary in the nearby village and went missing from 1.7.2007. As per the testimony of Mahender Singh, the accused Guddi was having illicit relations with accused Bijender a resident of the same area on account of which their family was earning bad reputation. According to him, about threefour months prior to the incident he had seen the accused Bijender and Guddi inside their house while the children playing here and there on which he tried to make Guddi understand that their family was earning bad reputation due to her illicit relations with Bijender but she did not pay any attention. He then spoke to his brother Ram Chander in this regard who even tried to make Guddi understand but she did not mend her ways and called his brother 'Sharabi' and threatened him that she would get him killed. According to Mahender Singh he tried to search for Ram Chander and it was on 11.7.2007 that he lodged his complaint vide Ex.PW2/A wherein he expressed his suspicion on Guddi.
(79) I may observe that it was only pursuant to the complaint Ex.PW2/A wherein Mahender Singh expressed his suspicion on Guddi St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 78 whom he claimed was having illicit relations with Bijender, that immediately without any wasting of time the police after registration of the case, went to the house of Guddi at village Qutub Garh and made inquiries from her and on thorough interrogation, the accused Guddi broke down and confessed about the filling of her husband and concealing / disposed off his body in the newly purchased plot as Kharkhoda. Vide Ex.PW10/B she disclosed that she along with Bijender Singh had killed her husband Ram Chander and buried his dead body in the house at village Kharkhoda and in pursuance to the above disclosure got recovered the dead body of her husband from the said house which was dug out from the earth and the entire proceedings which took place in the presence of the official representative i.e. Niab Tehsildar of the area and other respectable of the area, were got recorded. The dead body has been duly identified by Mahender Singh the brother of the deceased. When the entire incriminating material regarding her having illicit relations with coaccused Bijender was put to the accused Guddi, she has denied the same and made counter allegations that it was her brother in law Mahender Singh who was having an evil eye on their property and it is for this reason that he has falsely implicated her in this case, which defence does not cut much ice in view of the fact that Arjun (PW12) has proved that it was the accused Guddi who had come to the village with Bijender for purchasing the above property which he had sold to her. Guddi dies not explain why St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 79 she went to village Kharkhoda with Bijender to purchase this plot and from where she, a housewife) was able to arrange for funds for the said transaction. This coupled with the recovery of the dead body of deceased Ram Chander at the instance of the accused Guddi from this house purchased by her at village Kharkhoda establishes that the motive of the crime was the love affair of the accused Guddi with accused Bijender Singh and Guddi wanted to remove her husband Ram Chander from her way as he was objected to her relationship after he came to know of the same.
Medical Evidence:
(80) Dr. Jitender Kumar Jhakhar (PW16), Asstt Professor, Forensic Medicine, PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana has proved having conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased Ram Chander S/o Hukam Chand on 12.07.2007 and his report Ex.PW16/A according to which there were following injuries on the dead body:
1. A lacerated wound of size 2.5 x 1 cm present over the left temporal region situated 5 cm about the left external ear.
2. A lacerated wound of size 7 x 1 cm present over the left frontoparietal region situated 3 cm left lateral to antero posterior midline.St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 80
3. A lacerated wound of size 3 x 2 cm present on the left frontal region situated 3 cm posterior to left eyebrow and 7 cm lateral to midline.
4. A lacerated wound of size 2 x 1 cm present on the right temporal region situated 3 cm right to midline and 13 cm posterior to right eyebrow.
5. A lacerated wound of size 3 x 2 cm present on the left occipital region situated 2 cm lateral to antero posterior midline. On deep dissection underlying deep tissues of all above mentioned injuries were found ecchymosed.
6. A contusion of size 3 x 2 cm present on the left side of neck situated 4 cm below the angel of mandible and 5 cm left lateral to antero posterior midline. On dissection, underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.
7. A contusion of size 1 x 1 present on the anterior aspect of neck 4 cm below the chin. On dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.
8. A contusion of size 4 x 3 present on the right cheek at the level of angle of mandible. On dissection, underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.
9. A contusion of size 2 x 1 present on the right side of lower lip at the level of right canine tooth. On dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 81
10.A contusion of size 3 x 2 present on the upper lip just left lateral to nose. On dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.
(81) He has further proved his opinion to the effect that Cause of death was injuries described (head injuries) which were antemortem, homicidal and consequent to blow by hard and blunt object with a small striking surface coupled with smothering. He has further proved that the probable time that elapsed between death and postmortem examination was 1014 days which was declared on the basis of signs of putrification on the body. He has also proved that viscera was preserved for chemical analysis and the sketch showing the injuries on the dead body which is Ex.PW16/A1. (82) I may observe that the death in the present case was both on account of the head injuries (i.e. injuries No. 1 to 5) and manual strangulation as evident from the injuries No. 6 and 7 [i.e. contusion of size 3 x 2 cm present on the left side of neck situated 4 cm below the angel of mandible and 5 cm left lateral to antero posterior midline on dissection, underlying tissues were found ecchymosed and contusion of size 1 x 1 present on the anterior aspect of neck 4 cm below the chin on dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed]. (83) The fact that the striking surface was small and the nature St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 82 of the corresponding injuries show that they are not as deep indicating that this force which was used while inflicting such injuries was by a person who is not physically strong and it is this which leads me to infer that it was the work of a lady (Guddi). The nature of injuries are compatible to the explanation which finds reflected in disclosure of accused Guddi that after giving repeated brick blows with bricks collectively Ex.P3 she then strangulated the deceased before burring him in the pit which she had dug. The report of the Autopsy Surgeon confirm the strangulation and also smothering indicating that at the time the deceased was buried, he was still alive thereby confirming the ultimate cause of death as smothering.
(84) I may observe also that though the Autopsy Surgeon has not opined as to which injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and in this regard I may observe that the above head injuries alone could not have caused the death of the deceased and it is writ large that it is the head injuries coupled with smothering which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. (85) This being the background, I hereby hold that the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution version that first the deceased Ram Chander who was under the influence of liquor was given brick blows on his head after which he was manually strangulated and thereafter buried thereby resulting into smothering. St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 83 Forensic Evidence:
(86) The viscera report Ex.PW23/G which has not been disputed by the accused (otherwise admissible in evidence under Section 293 Cr.P.C.) establishes that ethyl alcohol was present in the body of the deceased. It confirms that at the time of the incident the deceased was intoxicated which is compatible to the prosecution case that the deceased Ram Chander who was the husband of the accused Guddi was a habitual alcoholic and was first given brick blows on head (which bricks are Ex.P3 collectively and the FSL Report Ex.PW23/E confirm the presence of blood on the same) and then manually strangulated and thereafter buried in a pit.
Circumstantial Evidence:
(87) The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence in the form of recovery of the dead body of the deceased Ram Chander at the instance of the accused Guddi and the weapon of offence i.e. bricks, the medical and forensic evidence. The strongest evidence in the hands of the prosecution is the video recording of the investigations which took place after the disclosure made by the accused Guddi which investigations were conducted in the presence of public persons including the official witness the Tehsildar of the area Jagbir Singh (who had been duly nominated by the SDM Kharkhoda), Ghamandi Lal (brother of Pradhan of Ward No. 10), Raju St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 84 (Nagar Palika Parshad of Ward No.11) and other public witnesses including the labours who had dug the earth. The CD had been prepared by a private photographer Surender (PW5) who has proved the said video recording. The video CD Ex.A9 has been played in the Court which video is a 23 minutes and 15 seconds recording and clearly shows the presence of the accused Guddi leading the Investigating Officer to the spot where she pointed out the exact place where she had buried the deceased Ram Chander and on digging of the same the dead body was recovered. The visuals specifically reflect the demeanor and body language of the accused Guddi and confirm that she was not under any kind of fear or pressure when she was leading the police and had voluntarily led the police to the spot and pointed out the place where she had buried the body of her husband Ram Chander which she did within the sight of public persons. Further, the presence of witness Jagbir Singh (PW1) and Ghamandi Lal (PW11) are seen in the visuals of the CD at 1:42 along with many other public persons.
The video CD also shows the presence of labours Sonu (PW6) and Manjeet (PW7) from 3:03 till the end i.e. 23:15. At 8:20 some portion of the dead body is depicted and it was ultimately at 21:54 that the dead body was completely recovered. The various public witnesses who are residents of the area are also seen in the CD. From the visuals of this video CD Ex.A9 it is noticed by the Court that the earth is firm and the body of Ram Chander was recovered from depth of about 2 2 ½ St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 85 feet. The dead body was recovered from the specific place as pointed out by the accused Guddi (specific pointing out is seen in the visuals). The authenticity of this CD of the video recording has not only been specifically proved by the photographer Surender but also by the various public and police witnesses who were present there in whose presence it was done as they are themselves visible in the same. When this incriminating material was put to the accused Guddi she vaguely denied the same as incorrect but preferred not to lead any evidence in defence nor give any explanation as to how she has been seen in the visuals of the same. This video CD of the recovery proceedings corroborates and confirms the oral testimonies of the witnesses Jagbir Singh (PW1), Sonu (PW6), Manjeet (PW7), Raju (PW9), Ghamandi Lal (PW11), ASI Jor Singh (PW10), ASI Ramesh Kumar from Haryana Police (PW15), Ct. Kuldeep (PW18) and ACP Sh. Sandeep Bayala (PW23).
(88) This CD Ex. A9 is the best evidence led by the prosecution which not only confirms the identity of the accused Guddi but also her mental and psychological state at the relevant time confirming that she was not under pressure or fear of any kind. The video CD also confirms that the place was a constructed plot which was in the possession and control of the accused Guddi. When this incriminating evidence was put to the accused Guddi she vaguely denied the same as incorrect but gave no explanation as to how the dead body of her St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 86 husband Ram Chander reached this plot at Kharkhoda, Haryana which plot has been purchased by her, an aspect duly proved by Arjun (PW12). It was within her special knowledge and it was for her to explained the same (as per the provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act) which she has failed to do. Under the given circumstances, these visuals of the CD Ex.A9 prepared at the time of recovery are very strong evidence against the accused Guddi which corroborates the oral testimonies of the witnesses Jagbir Singh (PW1), Sonu (PW6), Manjeet (PW7), Raju (PW9), Ghamandi Lal (PW11), ASI Jor Singh (PW10), ASI Ramesh Kumar from Haryana Police (PW15), Ct. Kuldeep (PW18) and ACP Sh. Sandeep Bayala (PW23) and strongly point out towards the guilt of accused Guddi.
Arrest of the accused Guddi and recovery of the dead body of deceased pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Guddi:
(89) The case of the prosecution is that Ram Chander was missing since 1.7.2007 and his brother Mahender Singh tried to search for him in the various relations and friends but ultimately after ten days i.e. on 11.7.2007 he went to Police Station Kanjhawla and made a complaint and got the FIR registered wherein he expressed his suspicion on Guddi the wife of Ram Chander, which was confirmed because it was Guddi who ultimately led the Investigating Officer to the place where the dead body of Ram Chander was buried and disposed St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 87 off after his killing.
(90) Here, it is necessary to mention that even Guddi has made a missing report to the police on 3.1.2007 which according to her disclosure she made under the pressure of her children when they alarmed that their father had not returned home. However, in the Court she states that she was not taken seriously by the police. However, pursuant to the registration of FIR when ASI Jor Singh (PW10) along with Ct. Ramesh and Ct. Kuldeep (PW18) reached the house of Guddi at village Qutub Garh and on thorough interrogations she confessed her guilty and made her disclosure statement to the police vide Ex.PW10/B. In her disclosure the accused Guddi informed the police that she was in love with accused Bijender Singh due to which reason she was started hating Ram Chander. She further told the police that about two months ago they had sold a house at Qutub Garh and purchased a plot at Kharkhoda where she and Bijender used to frequently visit. Her husband Ram Chander came to know of her affair after which she decided to remove him from her ways and made a plan on 30.6.2007 pursuant to which on 1.7.2007 at about 11:00 AM she took her husband Ram Chander to the said house at Kharkhoda on the pretext of showing the same to him and there she along with Bijender Singh committed the murder of Ram Chander first by giving repeated brick blows on his head and thereafter manually strangulated him and she then dug a ditch in the verandah where she buried Ram Chander St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 88 and put salt on his body and covered the same with mud. Thereafter since the children were worried for their father who had not returned, hence on their asking she made a missing report on 3.7.2007.
(91) ASI Jor Singh the first Investigating Officer then informed about this disclosure to the SHO Inspector Sandeep Bayala on which the investigations were transferred to Inspector Sandeep Bayala.
Pursuant to the aforesaid disclosure statement, on 11.7.2007 the accused Guddi led the police party to her house at village Kharkhoda and pointed out the place where she had buried the dead body of Ram Chander. Thereafter at the instance of the accused Guddi the dead body of the deceased was recovered. The entire proceedings regarding the recovery of the dead body of the missing Ram Chander on the pointing out of Guddi were videographed a fact which has been proved by Surender Kumar (PW5) who had done the videography. The accused Guddi also got recovered the two pieces of blood stained bricks which are collectively Ex.P3 from the backside portion of her house at those with which she had inflicted injuries on the deceased (which presence of blood on the bricks stands confirmed from the FSL reports Ex.PW23/E and the postmortem report confirmed the injuries No. 1 to 5 to be possible with the brick blows).
(92) Before analyzing the evidence on merits, it is necessary to observe that as per the provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 89 it is relevant, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer. (93) Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the meaning of the word Fact. It provides that a fact means and includes:
1. Anything, state of things, or relation of things, or capable of being perceived by the senses,
2. Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
(94) It further provides five illustrations as to what would constitute a fact which are as under:
1. That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact
2. That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
3. That a man said certain words, is a fact.
4. That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
5. That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 90
(95) A cojoint reading of Section 3 and Section 27 of Evidence Act would apply that as much of the statement as would relate to the discovery of fact connected with the accused would be admissible in evidence. The discovery of the fact is not only the discovery of the articles but also the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by a particular accused at a particular place because in principle there is no difference between the statement made by the accused to the effect that "I will show you the person to whom I have given the articles" and the statement that "I will show you the place where I have kept the articles".
(96) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 had exhaustively discussed the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had considered the question as to whether the statement of the accused to the effect that "he had hidden them (the ornaments)"
and "would point out the place", where they were, is wholly admissible in evidence under S. 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. In the above case the Ld. Sessions Judge had relied upon the judgment of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. KingEmperor reported in 74 Ind App 65: AIR 1947 PC 67 where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 91 was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. It was observed by My Lords of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the above case (Pulukuri Kotayya) the Judicial Committee considered S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as under: "Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person, accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved......"
".... this section is an exception to Ss. 25 and 26 which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police "whether it amounts to a confession or not" which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under S. 27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of the information given by the accused to the police would be admissible under S. 27 and laid stress on the words "so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" in that connection. It held that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that "the fact discovered embraces the place from which St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 92 the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact...."
"........Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee by observing that the information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If, however, to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant......"
(97) After considering the settled principles the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"......If we may respectfully say so, this case clearly brings out what part of the statement is admissible under S. 27. It is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible; but if any part of the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible wholly and the court cannot say that it will excise one part of the statement because it is of a confessional nature. Section 27 makes that part of the statement which is distinctly related to the discovery admissible as a whole, whether it be in the nature of confession or not. Now the statement in this case is said to be that St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 93 the appellant stated that he would show the place where he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge has held that part of this statement which is to the effect "where he had hidden them" is not admissible. It is clear that if that part of the statement is excised the remaining statement (namely, that he would show the place) would be completely meaningless. The whole of this statement in our opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of ornaments and is admissible under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The words "where he had hidden them" are not on a par with the words "with which I stabbed the deceased" in the example given in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. These words (namely, where he had hidden them) have nothing to do with the past history of the crime and are distinctly related to the actual discovery that took place by virtue of that statement. It is however urged that in a case where the offence consists of possession even the words "where he had hidden them" would be inadmissible as they would amount to an admission by the accused that he was in possession. There are in our opinion two answers to this argument. In the first place S. 27 itself says that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. In the second place, these words by themselves though they may show possession of the appellant would not prove the offence, for after the articles have been recovered the prosecution has still to show that the articles recovered are connected with the crime, i.e., in this case, the prosecution will have to show that they St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 94 are stolen property. We are, therefore, of opinion that the entire statement of the appellant (as well as of the other accused who stated that he had given the ornament to Bada Sab and would have it recovered from him) would be admissible in evidence and the Sessions Judge was wrong in ruling out part of it. Therefore, as relevant and admissible evidence was ruled out by the Sessions Judge, this is a fit case where the High Court would be entitled to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision though it is unfortunate that the High Court did not confine itself only to this point and went on to make rather strong remarks about other parts of the evidence....."
(98) Later in the year 1969 the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Zaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1969 (2) SCC 872 while dealing with the applicability of the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evident Act relied upon the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. observed as under:
"....in order that the Section may apply the prosecution must establish the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused.
The essential ingredient of the Section is that the St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 95 information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information; secondly only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused and thirdly the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence..."
(99) In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to explain that "..... In a case where the accused is charged with theft of articles or receiving stolen articles states to the police "I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them" and the articles were actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of a fact that is keeping of the articles by the accused at the place mentioned. However, the discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. It was observed that in principle, there is no difference between the above statement and that made by the accused in the case which in effect is that "I will show you the person whom I have given the diamonds exceeding 200 in number". The only difference between the two statements is that a "named person" is substituted for "the place" where the articles are kept. In neither case are the articles of the diamonds, in fact discovered. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the accused would be St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 96 admissible in evidence......"
(100) In the recent past the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu with Shaukat Hussain Guru Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820 reinforced the above view when it observed that "discovery of fact" should be read with the definition of "fact" as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which defines the "fact" as meaning and including anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses and also includes any mental condition of which any person is conscious (emphasis supplied). It was held that the provisions of Section 27 would apply whenever there is discovery which discovery amounts to be confirmatory in character guaranteeing the truth of the information given to which facts the police officer had no access earlier which also includes recovery of material object. The Hon'ble Court further observed that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. (101) Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the labours Sonu (PW6) and Manjeet (PW7) who had done the digging work and recovered the dead body of deceased Ram Chander, have supported the prosecution case to the extent that they had been called to the spot for digging work and after the dead body was recovered, Rs.200/ each was given to them as labour charges. In the St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 97 Court they were unable to identify the accused Guddi in the Court but the video CD Ex.A9 confirms the presence of both Sonu and Manjeet doing the work of digging the earth and taking out the dead body of the deceased on the pointing out of the accused Guddi who is clearly seen in the video proceedings. This video recording also confirms the presence of witness Jagbir Singh (PW1) the Niab Tehsildar of the area and Ghamandi Lal (PW11) in whose presence the dead body was recovered. Further, Raju (PW9) who is the Pradhan of the area (adjoining ward) who had come to the spot on seeing the large number of persons and in whose presence the photography and videography regarding the recovery of the dead body was done, has also in his testimony confirmed the same. Initially Raju (PW9) he did not identify the accused Guddi in the Court but later, after seeing the video CD in the Court he identified the lady depicted in the CD as the accused Guddi. He has also admitted that the recovery proceedings of dead body was got photographed and videography of the same was got done and also admitted that the lady depicted in the CD who is leading towards the place where the dead body was recovered is the accused Guddi. In his crossexamination Raju has explained that at the relevant point of time he was the Municipal Counselor of Ward No.11 whereas the dead body was recovered from Ward No.10. He has however explained that nobody came to call him to go to the said place but since he had seen a large number of persons therefore out of curiosity he St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 98 himself went to the place where the said proceedings were being conducted where he had seen the accused Guddi. In fact this CD Ex.A9 which has been placed on record Firstly establishes the presence of the accused Guddi leading the police to the spot from where the dead body was recovered. It also shows the demeanor and body language of the accused Guddi confirming that she was not under fear or pressure of any kind and she had voluntarily led the police and pointed out the place where she had buried the body of her husband Ram Chander which she did within the sight of public persons (clearly visible in the CD Ex.A9).
(102) Secondly it also establishes the presence of witness Jagbir Singh (PW1) and Ghamandi Lal (PW11) at 1:42 along with many other public persons. Here, I may observe that initially the witness Ghamandi Lal has not been able to identify the accused Guddi in the Court on the pretext that the lady who was with the Police was of little bit dark complexion but after seeing the CD he has identified the accused Guddi as the same lady who is depicted in the CD who was in the custody of the Police. I may note that at the time of the incident the accused Guddi was thin statured and having shallow complexion but now after fivesix years of the incident she is much healthier and there is definitely a change in her complexion too which is slightly lighter than what it was and it is this which explains the confusion of these public witnesses who were not able to identify her at the first instance. St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 99 (103) Lastly the presence of labours Sonu and Manjeet also stand established from the CD from 3:03 till the end i.e. 23:15. At 8:20 some portion of the dead body is depicted and it was ultimately at 21:54 that the dead body was recovered. The various public witnesses who are resident of the area are also been seen in the CD and they (Jagbir Singh, Ghamandi Lal and Raju) have admitted their presence there.
(104) Further, Arjun (PW17) who had sold the said plot to the accused Guddi for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/ on an affidavit, has identified the accused Guddi in the Court as the lady who had come along with Bijender Singh on a motorcycle and to whom he had sold the plot on which one room was already constructed and later on Guddi raised construction of other twothree rooms on the said plot. In his cross examination Arjun (PW17) has explained that the possession was given to the accused Guddi on affidavit and no other document was executed by him. I have carefully examined this document i.e. Affidavit Ex.PX and the thumb impressions on it under a magnifying glass and compared the thumb impression on the same (alleged RTI of purchaser Guddi W/o Ram Chander) with the thumb impressions of the accused Guddi on the judicial file (her statement under Sections 313 Cr.P.C.) and find that they are the thumb impression of the same person (i.e. accused Guddi). When this fact i.e. purchase of this plot at Kharkhoda St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 100 was put to the accused Guddi, she only gave a vague response to it stating that it was incorrect.
(105) Ld. Defence Counsel has raised an argument that the said plot could not have been sold to the accused Guddi being within the Lal Dora area and that Arjun has been introduced by the police only to connect the accused Guddi with the place of incident. I have considered the submissions made before me and I may observe that the aspect whether the place in question falls in Lal Dora and could not have been sold to the accused Guddi being within the Lal Dora and the manner of its sale, is something which is totally irrelevant to the proceedings before this Court, since neither the question of title of a plot in question is a fact in issue in the present case not this Court is competent to decide this issue in the present proceedings. The short question and fact in issue is regarding the killing of Ram Chander and recovery of dead body from the said constructed plot allegedly in possession of the accused Guddi. Assuming for a moment that the manner in which the transfer of property / plot was done was totally illegal, the question which then arises is whether this would mitigate the offence committed by the accused Guddi? The answer, of course, is NO. The fact that Arjun has no connection with either Guddi or her family and has confirmed having handed over the possession of the land to Guddi (whether legal or illegal) stands established and it was only thereafter that Guddi had been able to raise construction over the St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 101 said land and it is this which explains how the dead body of Ram Chander could reach to this plot. No one else could have had an access over this constructed plot allegedly purchased by Guddi where she had also constructed some additional rooms.
(106) It is writ large that the Investigating Agency was not aware of the whereabouts of Ram Chander in respect of whom two missing reports had been lodged i.e. one by Guddi herself and another by Mahender Singh the brother of Ram Chander. It was only after her sustained interrogation that Guddi broke down and this fact that Ram Chander had been murdered came to be known on which the investigations were transferred from ASI Jor Singh to the SHO Inspector Sandeep Bayala. It is this which is a disclosure of fact. Further, the place of incident and the manner in which Ram Chander had been killed, were also not within the knowledge of Investigating Agency. In this regard the accused Guddi disclosed that she took her husband Ram Chander to a plot at Kharkhoda, Haryana where she inflicted injuries on Ram Chander with the help of brick and gave blows on his head while he was in a state of intoxication and thereafter buried his dead body. This aspect of giving brick blows on the head of the deceased which brick pieces Ex.P3 (collectively) were got recovered by the accused Guddi from the back portion of same house and were found to contain blood stains, is again disclosure of fact and finds independent confirmation from the postmortem report (according St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 102 to which report the striking surface of injuries No. 1 to 5 was small and could be on account of brick pieces). Further, the fact that the deceased was in a state of intoxication also finds independent corroboration from the FSL (chemical examination) report which facts were not in the knowledge of the Investigating Agency at the time the disclosure was made and is admissible in evidence. Further, the FSL reports Ex.PW23/E and Ex.PW23/F confirm the presence of blood on the bricks Ex.P3. This again is a disclosure of fact. (107) It is borne out from the above that the Investigating Agency was not even aware of the death of the deceased and was only aware that he was missing. It is only when the accused Guddi disclosed about the same that it came to be known to them. Thereafter the place where the dead body of the deceased was concluded and it was only on the disclosure of the accused Guddi that she had buried the dead body of her husband Ram Chander in the plot at Kharkhoda which she had purchased in her name came to be known. It was also not known to the police that initially Guddi had inflicted injuries on Ram Chander with brick pieces which she had thrown on the back portion of the house. This is something which noone knew and it is only this disclosure statement of Guddi which provided a lead to the Investigating Agency resulting into recovery of the dead body of Ram Chander from the place where she had concealed the same by digging the ground. All these are disclosure of facts as contemplated under Section 27 of St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 103 Evidence Act and admissible in evidence. What turns on the fact that accused Guddi told the police about the death of Ram Chander and the manner how she had killed him and then pointed out the place of murder of the deceased which place was not in the knowledge of the police and thereafter led the police to the place of incident and got recovered the dead body of the deceased Ram Chander and also got recovered the bricks with which she had inflicted injuries upon the deceased, which was not in the knowledge of the police previously. (108) It is evident from the above that the disclosure statement of the accused Guddi is compatible to the medical and forensic evidence on record confirming that the deceased was under the influence of liquor at the time of the incident and that the death had been caused on account of head injuries coupled with smothering. The intention of the accused Guddi to cause the death of Ram Chander is reflective from the fact that first the deceased was hit with the bricks after which he was manually strangulated (as confirmed from Medical Evidence) and she thereafter buried his dead body resulting into smothering.
(109) Further, coming to the aspect as to whether the commission of the offence was the job of one person or more than one person. Firstly I may observe that at the time of the incident the accused Guddi was not physically very strong (as seen in the video St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 104 recording) whereas in comparison to her deceased Ram Chander was a healthy man. Guddi could not have committed this crime single handedly had it not been for the intoxication of the deceased Ram Chander (as confirmed from the viscera report) and it is this which explains how the accused Guddi had committed the offence singularly. Secondly, the postmortem report shows that injuries No. 1 to 5 had a small striking surface and even the depth of the injuries was not much indicating that this was the job of person not physically strong. In case of involvement of a healthy male (Bijender Singh) the striking surface and blows would have been hard and impact on the body would have been much greater and this I say in view of the fact that the accused Bijender is well built. Thirdly there are also signs of manual strangulation which the deceased Ram Chander survived since as per the postmortem report his death was a result of smothering. This again indicates that it was a lady (Guddi) who had strangulated him. Had this been the job of a healthy male (Bijender Singh), then the deceased would not have survived this strangulation. Fourthly as established from the report of the Autopsy Surgeon the death of Ram Chander was on account of head injuries coupled with smothering. This confirms that after Ram Chander was given brick blows on his head followed by manual strangulation he was taken to be dead and it is for this reason that in order to conceal /dispose off his body the same was buried. Little did Guddi know that he was still alive by that time and expired St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 105 only later when he was smothered on account of being buried in the pit which was the ultimate cause of his death. Lastly it is evident from the testimonies of the various witnesses and also from the visuals of the CD Ex.A9 that the body of Ram Chander was discovered from the pit after it was dug for about 2 - 2½ feet where it laid buried at that depth. This fact that the pit which was dug for concealing and causing the disappearance of the body was hardly two to two and a half feet deep not only indicates that the person doing so was in a hurry but also that perhaps it was done single handedly by a person not physically very strong or else the depth of this pit would have been more. (110) These are the circumstances which make me doubt the presence of accused Bijender at the spot or there being a prior meeting of mind or an act of consortium. Though the evidence on record confirms that both Bijender and Guddi were into a relationship but it is insufficient to establish the allegations against the accused Bijender and the overt act on his part leading to the commission of the offence as attributed to him in pursuance to an act of consortium with accused Guddi.
(111) However, in so far as the accused Guddi is concerned, in view of my detail discussion as aforesaid the evidence on record conclusively points towards her involvement and guilt in the killing of her husband Ram Chander and concealing of his body. St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 106 Presence of accused Bijender at the spot at the time of the incident does not stand established:
(112) The case of the prosecution is that in furtherance of their common intention, both the accused Guddi along with the accused Bijender committed the murder of Ram Chander. In order to connect the accused Bijender Singh with the offence the prosecution not only placed its reliance on the disclosure statement of coaccused Guddi but also all the Call Detail Record of the accused Bijender Singh and the testimony of Mahender Singh the brother of the deceased according to whom the death of Ram Chander was a result of this illegal and immoral affair between Guddi and Bijender.
(113) In this regard I may observe that the fact that Bijender Singh had purchased the mobile phone make TATA Huawei C 2205 for a sum of Rs.2,100/ on 25.03.2007 from the shop of Raj Kumar (PW13) vide cash memo Ex.PW13/A, stands established. It also stands established that the accused Bijender Singh was using the SIM No. 9211484604 in the said mobile phone (as evident from the the seizure memo of mobile phone Ex.PW14/S. The Investigating Officer though not cited the Nodal Officer as a witness to prove the said Call Detail Records Ex.PW23/D in respect of the above number, yet he has himself proved having obtained the same from the service provider. A perusal of these Call Detail Record by this Court explains why the Investigating Officer has deliberately chosen not to prove the same and that is St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 107 because instead of proving their case these Call Detail Record rather assists the defence (i.e. accused Bijender Singh). These Call Detail Records show that the accused Bijender Singh was in Delhi not only prior to the incident but also at the time of the incident and even thereafter.
(114) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Bijender Singh was with the accused Guddi at the same location at the time of the incident of murder of Ram Chander and both had killed him. Had that been so, their would have been no occasion for him to have telephoned to her or to have spoken to her. Rather, it is writ large from the Location Chart which has been obtained by the Court that on 30.6.2007, 1.7.2007, 2.7.2007, 3.7.2007 and 4.7.2007 the location of the accused Bijender Singh is shown within the area covered by the tower installed at Village Punjab Khor, Delhi (i.e. tower No. 29313). The incriminating evidence against the accused Bijender Singh is his own disclosure statement coupled with the disclosure statement of the co accused Guddi which is inadmissible in evidence. The case of the prosecution is that pursuant to his disclosure the accused Bijender Singh got recovered the motorcycle of the deceased Ram Chander bearing No. DL 4SU 5036 belonging to deceased Ram Chander inside his house at village Majra Farmana, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana and also got recovered his clothes which he was wearing at the time of the incident from his house at village Qutub Garh, Delhi.St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 108
(115) Before coming to the facts of the present case, I may observe that it is a settled law that mere recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of an accused person, without there being any other evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the crime, is insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. (See the decisions of the Hon'be Supreme Court in Narinbhai Haribhai Prajapati Vs. Chhatar Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1977 SC 1753; Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1994 SC 110 and Deva Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1999 Crl. L.J. 265). (116) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babuda Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1992 SC 2091 that:
"....... Mere recovery does not establish the guilt of the accused, where there is no other clinching evidence particularly about his presence in the house of the deceased when the occurrence took place. On mere suspicion, however strong, the conviction cannot be based. In the result the, convictions and sentences awarded to the appellant are set aside....."
(117) Now coming to the merits of the case, at the very outset I may observe that no where in the missing report lodged by Mahender Singh any information with regard to the motorcycle of Ram Chander being missing along with the details of the same find a mention. Ld. Defence counsel has vehemently argued that there were large number St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 109 of public persons present at the spot of the recovery of motorcycle at village Farmana from where the alleged motorcycle of the deceased bearing No. DL 4SU 5036 (photographs Ex.M3 & M4) was recovered and even at village Qutub Garh from where the accused Bijender allegedly got the clothes which he was wearing on the date of the incident recovered. He has stated that neither the disclosure statement of Bijender has been attested by any independent witness showing that it was fabricated later nor any independent public witness from the above villages were joined at the time of alleged recoveries of above motorcycle (photographs Ex. M3 & M4) and clothes (i.e. Kurta Ex.PY and Pyajama Ex.PZ) showing that the same have been planted only to connect the accused Bijender with the offence. The Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that assuming but not admitting the prosecution version that after committing the murder of Ram Chander the accused Bijender brought his motorcycle to his house and concealed the same in the verandah of his ancestral house at village Farmana, the whole story appears to be non believable and improbable. He submits that no person who would have committed such an offence would do such an act which would lend him into difficulty more so when he has other options of disposing off the said case property belonging to the deceased by hiding it at some other place in the village like the Gaon Sabha land, fields or by abandoning it elsewhere. I have considered the above submissions of the Ld. Counsel and I find merit St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 110 in the same. A person guilty of killing another would never conceal the property of the deceased like motorcycle etc. in his house as it will only create problem for him and that too when he has other options available of disposing off this property (i.e. motorcycle) by abandoning it at some other place in the village. Under the given circumstances the chances of this motorcycle (photographs Ex. M3 & M4) being planted upon the accused Bijender by showing its recovery from the verandah of his ancestral house cannot be ruled out more so because being a property of common use by the other family members of Bijender (being ancestral property) anybody could have had an access to the said verandah. There is nothing on record to show as to how this motorcycle reached this verandah where it was allegedly parked for ten days. In this regard I may observe that the non joining of public witnesses is only a Rule of Prudence and not a Rule of Law. I may further observe in this regard that the requirement of law is not that the place is accessible to others or not but whether it was visible to others and if not then it is immaterial that the place of concealment is accessible to other. [Ref.: State of HP Vs. Jeet Singh reported in AIR 1999 SC 1293 and Tahir & Others Vs. State reported in 87 (2000) DLT 207 (Delhi) (DB)]. In the present case it is writ large that the recovery proceedings of the motorcycle not only took place in the absence of public persons despite their availability but was from a place which was accessible to other family members and also visible to St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 111 others.
(118) Further, in so far as the recovery of the clothes of accused Bijender i.e. Kurta Ex.PY and Pyajama Ex.PZ which he was allegedly wearing at the time of incident is concerned, I find it rather strange that he would have kept the same clothes at his house and would have got recovered the same after ten days of the incident which does not appear to be probable. Not only the said recovery has not been made in the presence of public persons despite their availability but even otherwise, the FSL Report Ex.PW23/E only show the presence of blood but does not confirm it was human blood or even the grouping thereafter. The said clothes have also not been sent for DNA Fingerprinting Examination so as to conclusively connect the same with the deceased. This coupled with the fact that the Call Detail Record Ex.PW23/D as already discussed herein above, does not confirm the prosecution version regarding the presence of the accused Bijender Singh at Kharkhoda, Haryana and rather comes to the assistance of the accused, establishing the presence of the accused Bijender at Delhi (not at Kharkhoda, Haryana where the incident took place and from where the accused Guddi got recovered the dead body of the deceased Ram Chander), creates a doubt in the mind of the Court in so far as the involvement of Bijender Singh in the actual crime is concerned. (119) This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 112 against the accused Bijender Singh beyond reasonable doubt and hence benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused Bijender Singh. Charges established against the accused Guddi:
(120) Charges under Sections 364 r/w 34 IPC, 302 r/w 34 IPC and 201 r/w 34 IPC were settled against the accused Guddi. In so far as the charge under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC is concerned, it is writ large that the accused Guddi is the wife of the deceased Ram Chander and had taken her husband Ram Chander on 1.7.2007 to Matindu Road, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana for showing him the plot purchased by her. It is only natural that under the given circumstances he would have accompanied her to the plot at Matindu Road, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana. It is impossible that she could have single handedly taken her husband Ram Chander to the said plot forcibly. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused Bijender Singh and Guddi had conspired to the killing of the deceased. Rather, it is the case of the prosecution that they both had entertained a common intention in pursuance to which the accused Guddi brought Ram Chander to the plot at Matindu Road, Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana where Bijender Singh was already present there who got them intoxicated and then committed his murder. The evidence on record is doubtful with regard to the presence of Bijender Singh at the spot of incident rather his Call Detail Record show that he was present in Delhi St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 113 at the relevant point of time i.e. prior to the incident, at the time of incident and even thereafter. Hence, the question of there being a prior meeting of mind, act of consortium and overt act does not arise.
This being the background and in view of the fact that the presence of accused Bijender Singh has been shown in Delhi throughout and the prosecution having failed to prove and establish the common intention and prior meeting of mind of both the accused, I hereby hold that the charges against the accused Guddi under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC do not stand satisfied and she is acquitted of the same. (121) In so far as the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is concerned, it stands established that the accused Guddi first gave brick blows on the head of the deceased Ram Chander and thereafter manually strangulated him which she did with the intention of causing bodily injury to Ram Chander which injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The manner in which the offence has been committed by the accused Guddi, establishes the intent and knowledge of the accused Guddi (as contemplated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code) to cause the death of Ram Chander for which she is hereby held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.
(122) Further, in so far as the charge under Section 201 Indian Penal Code is concerned, it stands established from the evidence on St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 114 record that after committing the murder of Ram Chander, the accused Guddi buried his dead body in a plot situated at Matindu Road, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana in order to screen herself from legal punishment. Therefore, she is hereby held guilty of the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(123) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
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 the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 115 probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(124) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. From the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses and the evidence on record the following facts stand established:
➢ That the accused Guddi is the wife of Ram Chander (now deceased) and was residing along with her husband and children at Village Qutub Garh, Delhi.
➢ That Ram Chander (deceased) used to run an Ayurvedic Dispensary at village Qutub Garh, Delhi.
➢ That on 3.7.2007 the accused Guddi lodged a missing report at Police Station Kanjhawla informing the police that her husband Ram Chander went missing since 1.7.2007.
➢ That there was a talk in the area that accused Guddi was having illicit relations with Bijender who used to reside in the same village.
➢ That threefour months prior to the incident when Mahender Singh (brother of the deceased - Ram Chander) went to the house of his brother Ram Chander where he St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 116 found Guddi and Bijender inside the house whereas her children were playing here and there.
➢ That Mahender Singh tried to make Guddi understand that their family was earning bad reputation due to her illicit relations with Bijender but she paid no attention. ➢ That Mahender Singh also had a talk with his brother Ram Chander in this regard on which his brother tried to make Guddi understand but Guddi did not mend her ways.
➢ That since Ram Chander was missing since 1.7.2007, Mahender Singh searched for Ram Chander amongst his relatives and friends but in vain.
➢ That on 11.07.2007 Mahender Singh went to the Police Station Kanjhawla and lodged his complaint wherein he expressed his suspicion on the accused Guddi and Bijender Singh.
➢ That on the basis of the complaint of Mahender Singh the present FIR was registered.
➢ That on the same day during investigations ASI Jor Singh alongwith Constable Kuldeep and Constable Ramesh went to village Qutub Garh at the house of Ram Chander.
➢ That the accused Guddi who was found present, was thoroughly interrogated by ASI Jor Singh during which she confessed her guilt after which she made her disclosure St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 117 statement.
➢ That pursuant to her disclosure statement the accused Guddi led the police team to Matindu Road, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana and pointed out a plot / house where she had committed the murder of deceased Ram Chander.
➢ That Guddi had purchased this plot from Arjun for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/ and she had received the possession from Arjun on affidavit and no other document was executed. ➢ That one room was already constructed on the said plot and later the accused Guddi also constructed two room in the said plot.
➢ That pursuant to this disclosure by Guddi information was sent to then SHO Inspector Sandeep Bayala (now ACP) and to the Local Police as well as the SDM.
➢ That Inspector Sandeep Bayala reached the spot and so also Naib Tehsildar Jagbir Singh and other respectables of the area including Ghamandi Lal (brother of Pradhan of Ward No.10) and Raju (Pradhan of Ward No.10) and a large number of public persons.
➢ That the accused led the police party to her plot where she pointed out the place where she buried the dead body of her husband Ram Chander.
St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 118 ➢ That two labours namely Sonu and Manjeet were called and in the presence of public persons the dead body of Ram Chander was recovered after digging the said plot 22½ feet.
➢ That this entire process of recovery of dead body was photographed and videographed by a private photographer namely Surender Kumar wherein all the above public witnesses to recovery are also visible.
➢ That the accused Guddi also got recovered two half bricks pieces form the backside of the house which were used for causing injuries upon the deceased Ram Chander, which half bricks pieces blood stains (FSL confirms presence of blood) were thereafter seized by the police.
➢ That the accused Guddi got recovered one lady suit -
salwar from the kitchen of the house as the clothes which she was wearing at the time of incident and also got recovered one Kassi (phawra) which was used for digging and concealing the dead body of Ram Chander.
➢ That the dead body was thereafter sent to Government Hospital Sonipat and was duly identified by Mahender Singh brother of the deceased and Rajesh nephew of the deceased.
➢ That on the same day i.e. 11.7.2007 at the instance of St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 119 accused Guddi the accused Bijender Singh was apprehended from Qutub Garh, Delhi.
➢ That on thorough interrogation accused Bijender Singh disclosed his involvement in the commission of murder of Ram Chander after which the accused Bijender was arrested.
➢ That the accused Bijender also got recovered motorcycle bearing No. DL 4S NB1023 belonging to himself and his mobile phone TATA Indicom of black colour with which he was in contact with accused Guddi.
(125) The medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution that first the deceased Ram Chander who was under the influence of liquor was given brick blows on his head after which he was manually strangulated and thereafter buried resulted into smothering. It also stands established that the cause of death was head injuries coupled with manual strangulation and smothering which injuries were antemortem, homicidal and consequent to blow by hard and blunt object with a small striking surface and the probable time that elapsed between death and postmortem examination was 1014 days which is compatible to version put forward by the prosecution that the accused Guddi first gave brick blows on the head of the deceased Ram Chander and thereafter manually strangulated him which she did St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 120 with the intention of causing bodily injury to Ram Chander which injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The prosecution has been able to establish that the motive of this crime was the love affair of accused Guddi with Bijender Singh and she wanted to remove her husband Ram Chander from her way. (126) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (127) In so far as the accused Guddi is concerned, the prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 121 the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. (128) In so far as the charge under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC is concerned, it is writ large that the accused Guddi is the wife of the deceased Ram Chander and had taken her husband Ram Chander on 1.7.2007 to Matindu Road, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana for showing him the plot purchased by her. It is only natural under the given circumstances that deceased had willfully accompanied her to the plot at Matindu Road, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana. It is impossible that she could have single handedly taken her husband Ram Chander to the said plot forcibly. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused Bijender Singh and Guddi had conspired to the killing of the deceased. Rather, it is the case of the prosecution that they both had entertained a common intention in pursuance to which the accused Guddi brought Ram Chander to the plot at Matindu Road, Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana where Bijender Singh was already present there who got them intoxicated and then committed his murder. The evidence on record is doubtful with regard to the presence of Bijender Singh at the spot of incident rather his Call Detail Record show that he was present in Delhi at the relevant point of time i.e. prior to the incident, at the time of incident and even thereafter. Hence, the question of there being a prior meeting of mind, act of consortium and overt act does not arise. This being the background and in view of the fact that the presence of accused Bijender Singh has been shown in St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 122 Delhi throughout and the prosecution having failed to prove and establish the common intention and prior meeting of mind of both the accused, I hereby hold that the charges against the accused Guddi under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC are not made out and she is acquitted of the same.
(129) In so far as the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is concerned, it stands established that the accused Guddi first gave brick blows on the head of the deceased Ram Chander and thereafter manually strangulated him which she did with the intention of causing bodily injury to Ram Chander which injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The manner in which the offence has been committed by the accused Guddi, establishes the intent and knowledge of the accused Guddi (as contemplated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code) to cause the death of Ram Chander for which she is hereby held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.
(130) Further, in so far as the charge under Section 201 Indian Penal Code is concerned, it stands established from the evidence on record that after committing the murder of Ram Chander, the accused Guddi buried his dead body in a plot situated at Matindu Road, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana in order to screen herself from legal punishment. Therefore, she is hereby held guilty of the offence St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 123 under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. The accused Guddi is accordingly convicted.
(131) In so far as the accused Bijender Singh is concerned, the incriminating evidence against the accused Bijender Singh is his own disclosure statement coupled with the disclosure statement of the co accused Guddi which is inadmissible in evidence. The Call Detail Records does not confirm the prosecution version at all. Rather, the presence of the accused Bijender is shown at Delhi and not at Kharkhoda, Haryana (where the incident took place and from where the accused Guddi got recovered the dead body of the deceased Ram Chander). Further, the disclosure statement of the accused Bijender Singh allegedly leading to the discovery of motorcycle of the deceased and the clothes which he was wearing on the date of the incident, does not inspire confidence of this Court and is insufficient to connect him with the actual offence of murder of the deceased Ram Chander. Therefore, I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused person. The material brought on record by the prosecution is insufficient so as to hold that the accused Bijender Singh was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 124 established a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused Bijender Singh. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a court to record a finding of guilt of an accused, particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Bijender Singh, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to him who is acquitted of the charges under Section 364/302/201 Indian Penal Code.
(132) Case be listed for arguments on sentence qua the convict Guddi on 22.8.2013.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 12.8.2013 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 125 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSION JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 72/2013 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0596302007 State Vs. (1) Guddi W/o Ram Chander R/o Village Qutab Garh, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Bijender Singh S/o Suraj Mal R/o Teku Collony. Village Qutab Garh, Delhi (Acquitted) FIR No.: 124/2007 Police Station: Kanjhawla Under Sections: 364/302/302/34 IPC Date of conviction: 12.8.2013 Arguments concluded on: 26.8.2013 Date of Sentence: 29.8.2013 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Guddi in Judicial Custody with Sh. Arvind Kumar Advocate.
St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 126 ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per allegations, on 1.7.2007 in the morning at about 11:00 AM from village Qutab Garh in furtherance of their common intention both the accused Guddi and Bijender Singh abducted Ram Chander to a plot situated at Kharkhoda where they both committed the murder of Ram Chander. It has also been alleged that in furtherance of their common intention both the accused caused the dead body and other evidence connected with the offence to disappear including the disposal of the dead body in the said plot, with intention screen themselves from legal punishment.
However, on the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses and on the basis of the medical and circumstantial evidence on record, this Court has vide a detailed judgment dated 12.8.2013 held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code but acquitted her of charge under Section 364 IPC. The accused Bijender Singh has however been acquitted of charges under Section 364/302/201 IPC.
Vide the above judgment this Court has observed that the prosecution was able to successfully establish that the accused Guddi is the wife of Ram Chander (now deceased) and was residing along with her husband and children at Village Qutub Garh, Delhi; that Ram Chander (deceased) used to run an Ayurvedic Dispensary at village Qutub Garh, Delhi; that on 3.7.2007 the accused Guddi lodged a St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 127 missing report at Police Station Kanjhawla informing the police that her husband Ram Chander went missing since 1.7.2007; that there was a talk in the area that accused Guddi was having illicit relations with Bijender who used to reside in the same village; that threefour months prior to the incident when Mahender Singh (brother of the deceased -
Ram Chander) went to the house of his brother Ram Chander where he found Guddi and Bijender inside the house whereas her children were playing here and there; that Mahender Singh tried to make Guddi understand that their family was earning bad reputation due to her illicit relations with Bijender but she paid no attention; that Mahender Singh also had a talk with his brother Ram Chander in this regard on which his brother tried to make Guddi understand but Guddi did not mend her ways; that since Ram Chander was missing since 1.7.2007, Mahender Singh searched for Ram Chander amongst his relatives and friends but in vain. The prosecution was also able to establish that on 11.07.2007 Mahender Singh went to the Police Station Kanjhawla and lodged his complaint wherein he expressed his suspicion on the accused Guddi and Bijender Singh; that on the basis of the complaint of Mahender Singh the present FIR was registered; that on the same day during investigations ASI Jor Singh alongwith Constable Kuldeep and Constable Ramesh went to village Qutub Garh at the house of Ram Chander; that the accused Guddi who was found present, was thoroughly interrogated by ASI Jor Singh during which she confessed St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 128 her guilt after which she made her disclosure statement; that pursuant to her disclosure statement the accused Guddi led the police team to Matindu Road, Kharkhoda, District Sonepat, Haryana and pointed out a plot / house where she had committed the murder of deceased Ram Chander; that Guddi had purchased this plot from Arjun for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/ and she had received the possession from Arjun on affidavit and no other document was executed; that one room was already constructed on the said plot and later the accused Guddi also constructed two room in the said plot. The prosecution has also successfully established that pursuant to this disclosure by Guddi information was sent to then SHO Inspector Sandeep Bayala (now ACP) and the Local Police as well as the SDM; that Inspector Sandeep Bayala reached the spot and so also Naib Tehsildar Jagbir Singh and other respectables of the area including Ghamandi Lal (brother of Pradhan of Ward No. 10) and Raju (Nagar Palika Parshad of Ward No.
11) and a large number of public persons; that the accused led the police party to her plot where she pointed out the place where she buried the dead body of her husband Ram Chander; that two labours namely Sonu and Manjeet were called and in the presence of public persons the dead body of Ram Chander was recovered after digging the said plot 22½ feet; that this entire process of recovery of dead body was photographed and videographed by a private photographer namely Surender Kumar wherein all the above public witnesses to to recovery St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 129 are also visible; that the accused Guddi also got recovered two half bricks pieces form the backside of the house which were used for causing injuries upon the deceased Ram Chander, which half bricks pieces were thereafter seized by the police; that the accused Guddi got recovered one lady suit - salwar from the kitchen of the house as the clothes which she was wearing at the time of incident and also got recovered one Kassi (phawra) which was used for digging and concealing the dead body of Ram Chander; that the dead body was thereafter sent to Government Hospital Sonipat and was duly identified by Mahender Singh brother of the deceased and Rajesh nephew of the deceased.
Vide the judgment this Court has further observed that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish that on on the same day i.e. 11.7.2007 at the instance of accused Guddi the accused Bijender Singh was apprehended from Qutub Garh, Delhi; that on thorough interrogation accused Bijender Singh disclosed his involvement in the commission of murder of Ram Chander after which the accused Bijender was arrested; that pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Bijender got recovered the motorcycle bearing No. DL 4SU 5036 belonging to deceased Ram Chander inside his house at village Majra Farmana, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana; that the accused Bijender also got recovered another motorcycle bearing No. DL 4S NB1023 and his mobile phone TATA Indicom of black colour with which he was in St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 130 contact with accused Guddi and also got recovered his KurtaPyajama which he was wearing at the time of incident and one stamp paper of Rs.10/ was recovered from the pocket of the Kurta. In the Judgment it was also observed by this Court that the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution that first the deceased Ram Chander who was under the influence of liquor was given brick blows on his head after which he was manually strangulated and thereafter buried resulted into smothering; that the cause of death was head injuries coupled with manual strangulation and smothering which injuries were antemortem, homicidal and consequent to blow by hard and blunt object with a small striking surface; that the probable time that elapsed between death and postmortem examination was 1014 days which was compatible to the version put forward by the prosecution that the accused Guddi first gave brick blows on the head of the deceased Ram Chander and thereafter manually strangulated him which she did with the intention of causing bodily injury to Ram Chander which injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The prosecution was also able to establish that the motive of this crime was the love affair of accused Guddi with Bijender Singh and she wanted to remove her husband Ram Chander from her way. This Court hence observed that the manner in which the offence has been committed by the accused Guddi, established the intent and knowledge of the accused Guddi (as contemplated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code) to cause the death St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 131 of Ram Chander for which she has been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Further, after committing the murder of Ram Chander, the accused Guddi buried his dead body in a plot situated at Matindu Road, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana in order to screen herself from legal punishment and hence she has been held guilty of the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. She has, however, been acquitted of the charge under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC.
In so far as the accused Bijender Singh is concerned, the only incriminating evidence against the accused Bijender Singh was his own disclosure statement and the disclosure statement of the co accused Guddi which was inadmissible in evidence. The recovery of the motorcycle No. DL 4SU 5036 at the instance of the accused Bijender Singh does not inspire confidence of the Court there being no other direct or circumstantial evidence against him. Further, the Call Detail Record of the accused Bijender does not confirm the prosecution version regarding the presence of the accused at the scene of crime. Rather, on the contrary the presence of the accused Bijender as per the Call Detail Record is at Delhi and not at Kharkhoda, Haryana where the incident took place i.e. the spot from where the accused Guddi got recovered the dead body of the deceased Ram Chander. Hence, under these circumstances, benefit of boubt has been given to the accused St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 132 Bijender Singh who has been acquitted of the charges under Section 364/302/201 Indian Penal Code.
Heard arguments on sentence qua the convict Guddi. She is stated to be aged about 45 years having two sons and one daughter. She is totally illiterate. Ld. Counsel for the convict has vehemently argued that the convict Guddi has clean antecedents and she is not involved in any other criminal case. It is argued that the deceased Ram Chander was a habitual drinker and used to thrash the convict who suffered physical abuse on numerous occasions and the behaviour of the deceased was not good towards the convict, which fact of beating I may observe has now been raised by the accused Guddi for the first time and was never her case or defence. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel that the convict is in judicial custody for the last more than six years and there are no allegations against her of any kind of misbehaviour during her stay in jail. It is prayed that a lenient view be taken against her. In support of his contentions, the Ld. Counsel has placed his reliance on the authorities of Sham @ Kishor Bhaskarrao Matkari Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2011 (4) JCC 2766; Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1980 SC 898 and in the case of Oma @ Omprakash @ Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Crl. Appeal No. 143 of 2007.
On the other hand the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 133 placed his reliance on the judgments of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC (Crl.) 580 and Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 SCC (Crl.) 681 and has argued that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no alternative before this court but to impose death sentence upon the convict Guddi. It is also stated that the convict has not been able to show any mitigating circumstances in her favour which could make out a case for imposition of sentence of imprisonment for life.
I have considered the submissions made before me. At the very outset, I may state that there can be no dispute as to the applicability of the various principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid two cases viz Machhi Singh (Supra) and Bachan Singh (Supra) which are required to be keep in mind before awarding a death sentence in any given case.
The law is well settled in the decision in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898], wherein it was held that the death penalty can be inflicted only in the gravest of the grave cases. It was also held that such death penalty can be imposed only when the life imprisonment appears to be inadequate punishment. Again it was cautioned that while imposing the death sentence, there must be balance between circumstances regarding the accused and the mitigating circumstances and that there has to be overall consideration St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 134 of the circumstances regarding the accused as also the offence. Some aggravating circumstances were also culled out, they being:
(a) Where the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or
(b) Where the murder involves exceptional depravity.
The mitigating circumstances which were mentioned in that judgment were:
(a) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance;
(b) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death;
(c) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society;
(d) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (c) and (d) above;
(e) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence;
(f) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person; and
(g) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 135 The law was further settled in the decision in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court insisted upon the mitigating circumstances being balanced against the aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances were described as under:
(a) When the murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
(b) When the murder of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality is committed.
(c) When the murder of an innocent child, a helpless woman is committed.
It was also observed by the Hon'ble Court that at the same time it must be kept in mind that the principle of there being a proportion between punishment and offences ought not to be so mathematically followed so as to render the laws subtle, complicated and obscured. Brevity and simplicity are a superior good. Something of exact proportion may also be sacrificed to render the punishment more striking, more fit to inspire people with a sentiment of aversion for those vices which prepare the way for crimes.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again stressed upon the need for awarding the punishment for a crime which should not be irrelevant but should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 136 the brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence of crime and responding to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. (Ref. Ravji Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 (II) SCC 175). Punishment ought to fit the crime and sometime it is the desirability to keep the offender out of circulation.
Now I would like to draw a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors. The only mitigating factor in the present case is that the convict Guddi is not involved in any other case and has two sons and one daughter. The father of these children is dead and the mother is in custody. The aggravating factors are that the convict Guddi had committed the murder of her husband Ram Chander by due planning in a brutal manner i.e. first by giving brick blows on his head, thereafter manually strangulated and then in order to destroy all evidence of her crime, she buried his dead body on the plot newly purchased by her. The murder of Ram Chander had been committed without any instigation from his side only because she wanted her husband Ram Chander out of her way as she was having illicit relations with Bijender Singh and Ram Chander and so also his brother had come to know of it and often objected to the same.
After having considered the submissions made before me and the various mitigating factors which outweigh the aggravating circumstances, I am of a view that the case in hand certainly does not St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 137 fall within the category of Rarest of Rare and hence I hereby sentence the convict Guddi to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/ (Rs. Ten Thousand) for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.
Further, the convict Guddi is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three (3) years and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/ (Rs. Five Thousand) for the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Fifteen Days.
It is clarified that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period undergone by her during the trial.
The convict is informed that she has a right to prefer an appeal against the judgment. She has been apprised that in case she cannot afford to engage an advocate, she can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached with her jail warrants. St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 138
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 29.8.2013 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Guddi & Anr., FIR No. 124/07, PS Kanjhawla Page No. 139