Delhi District Court
State vs Sobran Singh Verma on 31 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) / ASJ / NORTH EAST /
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: SHAHDARA: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 44930/2015
CNR No. DLNE01-000009-2005
STATE Versus SOBRAN SINGH VERMA
S/o Late Sh. Chunna Lal Verma
R/o H. No. A-114,
Surabhi Palace, Shalimar Garden,
Sahibabad, U.P.
FIR No. : 442/2005
PS : Shahdara
U/Ss. : 302 IPC
Chargesheet Filed On : 24.11.2005
Date Of Allocation : 18.01.2006
Judgment Reserved On : 18.07.2018
Judgment Announced On : 31.07.2018
JUDGMENT:
1. One Smt. Kiran @ Krazy was married with Jitender on 08.11.2003. Jitender already had one son from his previous wife. One daughter was borne to Kiran and Jitender out of their wedlock. Kiran was residing at her matrimonial house i.e. H. No. 1/6626, Gali No.4, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
2. On 18.09.2005 at about 06:00/6:15 pm, Jitender gave telephone call to his sister-in-law Reema (sister of Kiran) and told her that she should go to his house as Kiran was vomiting blood. Reema reached there. She found that Kiran was lying in the courtyard in front of kitchen, and that her face had swollen and there was lot of blood around her. Blood was also lying in the kitchen. Mother-in-law of Kiran was also there. Daughter of Kiran was in her lap. When Reema inquired from Kiran, she told her that as their father had not given money SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 1 of 39 to her in-laws, they had stabbed her. Kiran took names of Ramwati (mother-in- law), Jitender (husband), Sobran Singh Verma and Sohan Lal (both jeth). Thereafter she became unconscious.
3. Reema cried for help. Some neighbours came there, and with their help, she was taken to one Nursing Home. She was provided first aid and referred to GTB Hospital as her condition was not good. Reema informed her brother-in-law (jija) Rahul, who informed their father Arvind Kumar. They also reached GTB hospital. At the hospital, Kiran expired. Police had also arrived. Statement of Arvind Kumar was recorded on the basis of which FIR was registered. Complainant Arvind/father of deceased Kiran told the facts which he noticed after arrival at the hospital. He suspected that Kiran was killed. FIR was registered u/s. 302 IPC.
4. Kiran was having wounds on her head and temple area. Spot of incident was inspected. One iron tawa which was possible weapon of offence was found at the spot and was seized. Some other exhibits were also seized. Crime team also visited the spot. Photographs were taken. Postmortem was got conducted.
5. Jitender, husband of Kiran, informed that gold chain and locket of deceased were missing. Relatives and persons close to the deceased were interrogated. On 21.09.2005, Asha Verma, step-mother of deceased, told that she had seen Sobran Singh Verma outside matrimonial house of Kiran on 18.09.2005 in the evening. Reema also stated that some altercations had taken SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 2 of 39 place between Sobran and deceased 3-4 days prior to the incident. As such, search was made for Sobran Singh Verma but he was found absconding. On 26.09.2005, on the basis of secret information, Sobran Singh Verma was apprehended near Bus Depot, Seemapuri. Sobran Singh Verma was interrogated in which he confessed about committing murder of Kiran @ Krazy by assaulting on her head with the tawa. He disclosed that he did so due to revenge as he was in huge financial losses. He stated that he had sought financial help from Jitender and Kiran but Kiran had insulted and humiliated him. He also confessed that he had removed gold chain from the neck of deceased. Accused Sobran Singh Verma was arrested and he got recovered his blood stained clothes (which he was wearing at the time of offence) and one gold chain from his shop. He made subsequent disclosure statement and also got recovered locket piece of the deceased from the same shop.
6. Postmortem report was obtained. Cause of death was "shock due to ante-mortem injuries to the head produced by a moderately heavy cutting object/weapon". Injuries no. 7 and 8 were described as sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Subsequent opinion was also obtained regarding weapon of offence i.e. tawa. It was opined that injuries were possible with the said tawa. TIP of jewelery articles were got conducted from Jitender, husband of deceased.
7. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Sobran Singh Verma for the offence u/s. 302 IPC. Later on, FSL result SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 3 of 39 was also filed.
8. After compliance of section 207 CrPC, learned MM committed the case to Court of Sessions as offence u/s. 302 IPC was exclusively triable by it.
9. Vide order dated 04.02.2006, my learned Predecessor framed charges for offences u/s. 302 IPC against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. During the pendency of the proceedings, further investigation was carried out and supplementary chargesheet was filed against accused Jitender, Sohan Lal and Ramwati but for the offence u/s. 498-A IPC. The said case was also committed to the Sessions court. An application was also filed for amendment of charge of the present case to include charge for the offence u/s. 304-B IPC. However, the said application was dismissed. The order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court but it was upheld. The said order thus attained finality.
11. Prosecution examined 27 witnesses to prove the charge.
12. Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 CrPC. Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
13. Evidence led by the prosecution may now be noted.
COMPLAINANT / MATERIAL WITNESSES SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 4 of 39
14. PW-1 Reema Verma and PW-2 Arvind Kumar are the star witnesses. Other important witnesses are PW-3 Ravinder Jain, PW-4 Sanjay, PW-5 Raj Kumar (all were neighbours), PW-15 Rahul Verma (Jija of deceased as well as PW-1) and PW-16 Asha Verma (step-mother of deceased).
15. PW-1 Reema Verma deposed that Kiran married with Jitender on 08.11.2003. After marriage, Kiran was residing at her matrimonial house. One daughter was borne to her and Jitender. She deposed that Jitender was earlier married and was having one son from previous wife. She stated that Jitender was a divorcee. She stated that atmosphere in the matrimonial house was cordial after marriage. She stated that mother-in-law of Kiran namely Ramwati was also residing with them in the matrimonial house.
16. She deposed that on 18.09.2005 at about 6:00/6:15 pm, Jitender gave call to her on her mobile phone and informed that Kiran was vomiting blood. He advised her to go to his house. PW-1 reached matrimonial house of Kiran. Main gate was lying opened. She saw that Kiran was lying in the courtyard in front of kitchen and that her face had swollen a lot and there was pool of blood in the courtyard. Kiran was in deep pain. She saw blood was lying in the kitchen as well and goods had been scattered. She stated that mother-in- law of Kiran was also sitting by her side and was having Jahnvi i.e. daughter of Kiran in her lap. PW-1 noticed deep stab wounds on her neck, face and head.
17. She deposed that she inquired from Ramwati as to what had happened on which she stared at her and questioned her as to how she had SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 5 of 39 reached there. PW-1 told her that Jitender had telephoned her. PW-1 saw that Kiran opened her eyes and then she inquired from her as to what had happened. Kiran told PW-1 that since their father had not paid money, hence 'they' people had stabbed her. When PW-1 inquired further as to whom she was referring as 'they', Kiran told that they were Ramwati, Jitender, Sobran Singh Verma and Sohan Lal. Both Sobran Singh Verma and Sohan Lal were jeth of Kiran. PW-1 further stated that Kiran requested her to take steps to save her and, thereafter, she became unconscious.
18. PW-1 further stated that she raised alarm for help upon which one Jain Sahib came there. Jain Sahib was having factory in front of matrimonial house of Kiran. She stated that she, with the help of Jain Sahib, lifted Kiran and brought her outside the house. The said Jain Sahib (PW-3) called one Sanjay (PW-4) who brought TSR. PW-1 with help of PW-3 and 4 took Kiran to Dr. Harish Gupta's Nursing Home which was nearby. She stated that while Kiran was being treated, she made call to her other brother-in-law (jija) namely Rahul (PW-15) and informed him all the facts. PW-15 also reached the Nursing Home and he informed his father-in-law i.e. father of deceased and PW-1. An ambulance was summoned and Kiran was referred to GTB hospital. She was taken there.
19. Arvind Kumar, father of Kiran also reached GTB hospital. PW-1 says that after about 30-45 minutes, Kiran expired in the hospital. She stated that police recorded her statement which became basis for registration of the SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 6 of 39 case. (However, as per record, FIR was registered on statement of Arvind Kumar.) She stated that at about 10:30/11:00 pm, she reached PS Shahdara and requested the SHO to arrest all the accused persons. She deposed that the SHO asked her not to tell anyone about these facts as he would manage the show.
20. Deposing further, PW-1 stated that Kiran had come to parents house three days prior to her death. She told their father that Jitender was demanding Rs. 2 Lakhs. PW-1 claims that she was present there at that time. When police did not take action, PW-1 stated that they had not made complaint to any other authority. However, her statement was recorded before a Magistrate. The same is Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 identified accused Sobran Singh Verma. She further stated that she had not seen Sobran Singh Verma quarreling with Kiran in presence of Jitender. She stated that she had not made any statement to the police regarding quarrel. She stated that police had not interrogated her at any point of time in May 2006. She also told that she was having her clothes which were stained with blood of deceased when she was removing her to hospital.
21. In cross-examination, she stated that she had not seen FIR of the present case. She stated that they used to go to police station and narrate facts to the police but those facts were not recorded. She alleged that the SHO told them that they should not narrate those facts to anyone. She stated that the police never recorded her statement in the present case. She denied that police SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 7 of 39 had recorded her statement on 18.09.2005 and 21.09.2005. She denied that she was deliberately disowning those statements as she and her father wanted to falsely implicate the entire family of Jitender in the case. She was confronted with various parts of previous statement Mark PW1/DA wherein many facts were not mentioned.
22. It has also come that she had not seen any footprints between courtyard and main gate though blood was lying on the ground. She denied that Kiran was brought to GTB Hospital as dead.
23. PW-2 is Arvind Kumar. He is father of deceased as well as PW-
1. He deposed that on 10.09.2005, Kiran had come to his house and asked him to pay Rs. 2 Lakhs to her stating that she was sent by her husband, mother-in- law and brothers-in-law (jeth) namely Sobran Singh Verma and Sohan Lal. She told PW-2 that this money was required by them to pay to someone. PW-2 deposed that he advised Kiran to go home as he was not having any money. She stated that on 17.09.2005, Kiran again came to his house and was weeping and again demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs. PW-2 told Kiran that he would pay the money after Diwali as he was to get money by selling his shop. He deposed that on his advise, Kiran had gone back to her matrimonial house.
24. On 18.09.2005, PW-2 had gone to his shop at Badarpur, Delhi. He deposed that at about 7:00/7:15 pm, his other son-in-law namely Rahul called him on mobile phone and informed that Kiran had met with an accident. He informed that Kiran was in Gupta Nursing Home and was being taken to GTB SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 8 of 39 hospital. PW-2 also reached there at about 8:00 pm. He saw that doctors were trying to revive Kiran. After some time, doctors declared Kiran dead. PW-2 went inside and saw various injuries on her head, face and neck. He also met his daughter Reema. PW-2 inquired from Reema about the incident and she told all the facts to him. PW-2 deposed that SHO PS Shahdara also met him and he narrated all the facts to him. SHO asked him to come to PS. PW-2 reached there at about 12:00 midnight. He told all the facts to him but alleges that his report was not lodged. He deposed that on 19.09.2005, he went to hospital and received dead body of Kiran. He deposed that they took the dead body to the matrimonial house where they demanded arrest of her husband, mother-in-law and brothers-in-law. PW-2 had stated that the SHO persuaded him to cremate the dead body which he did under compulsion. He deposed that from the cremation ground, he reached the PS and asked the police to record his statement. Only Ramwati was arrested. He alleges that SHO told him not to insist for including names of other persons. He deposed that on 25.09.2005, accused Sobran Singh Verma was called by the SHO and he told that Sobran Singh Verma was the family person responsible for the crime. When Sobran Singh Verma confessed to the crime, PW-2 says that other accused persons were let of. PW-2 gave complaint against all the accused persons. Ex.PW2/A is the statement recorded by SHO. However, PW-2 explains that he had signed it without going through the contents and at the instance of the SHO. He told that complete facts were not recorded in Ex.PW2/A. Ex.PW2/B is the statement of PW-2 regarding receipt of dead body by him. Ex.PW2/C is memo in that regard. SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 9 of 39 PW-2 deposed that he received copy of FIR by post after about 8-10 days of the incident and only thereafter he came to know that his report was not correctly recorded. He deposed about filing case in the court against all the four accused persons.
25. He also deposed that in June 2004, Jitender had demanded Rs. 1 lakh from him for purchasing a house. PW-2 paid the said money in the last week of June 2004. He deposed that Kiran used to tell him that mother-in-law used to taunt her that the earlier wife of Jitender was better. Kiran also told him that mother-in-law used to threaten to bring back the previous wife. He stated that on his request, Jitender gave him papers of divorce but the same were found to be fabricated. Kiran told him that she would adjust with her husband and in-laws. PW-2 further deposed that on 30.08.2004, he had received Rs. 5 lakhs towards earnest money of sale of his shop. He handed over the entire amount to Jitender to keep that in his house. On 01.09.2004, PW-2 went to house of Jitender and demanded back his money on which Jitender told him that he was in need of money of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs. PW-2 paid Rs. 50,000/- to Jitender and took back the balance amount. His statement recorded by Ld. MM is Ex.PW2/D.
26. In cross-examination, PW-2 stated that his statement was recorded by the police in the intervening night of 18 & 19.09.2005 at about 1:30 am in the PS Shahdara. He stated that his signatures were obtained by the police on a blank paper and his correct statement was not recorded. He stated SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 10 of 39 that Ex.PW2/A was not written when he signed the same. He stated that his statement was not recorded by the police even once. He denied making statement Ex.PW2/B. It has come that dead body of Kiran was cremated by Jitender i.e. her husband. PW-2 was confronted with his statement Ex.PW2/A wherein there were no such allegations that Kiran had come to his house and told that her husband and other in-laws were demanding Rs. 2 Lakhs from her. He again reiterated that his correct statement was not recorded by the police. He also stated that he was not aware that he could make complaint against the SHO. One complaint filed by him before the court of learned MM was exhibited as Ex.PW2/DA. However, he stated that the said complaint was not read over to him by his Counsel.
27. PW-3 is Ravinder Jain. He is neighbour. He deposed that on 18.09.2005 at about 6:30 pm, one worker from nearby shop came to him and told him that one lady in the house in front of his shop was calling him. It was house of Jitender. PW-3 stated that he went inside the house. He saw that wife of Jitender was lying in the courtyard in injured condition and she was profusely bleeding from her head injuries. PW-3 stated that mother-in-law of the lady was also inside the room and was having a child in her lap. He deposed that she asked him to take care of the injured. She also feigned ignorance as to how that lady received injuries. He stated that injured was not conscious at that time. He also stated that except that old lady, injured and small child, no one else was present in the house. Seeing the horried situation found, PW-3 came out due to fear.
SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 11 of 39
28. He stated that the labour who had come to call him gave him a slip which was having a phone number. PW-3 called on that number which was replied by one lady. The said lady told PW-3 that she was at some distance and that he should call husband of the victim. Thereafter, PW-3 called Jitender but his phone was busy. He also called to the 100 number. He deposed that he waited for 20-25 minutes but none from family of the injured reached there. After some time, one girl named Jimmy came there who inquired from the injured as to what had happened and was addressing the injured as sister. PW- 3 also went inside the house and on request of Jimmy, took injured out of the house and helped her board a TSR. They took injured to Dr. Harish Gupta's Nursing Home and from there to GTB hospital. He deposed that after 30-45 minutes at GTB hospital, doctors declared injured as dead.
29. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen injured speaking even a single word from the first time he saw her and till her death. He stated that injured was unconscious when Jimmy reached there. He stated that injured did not speak when Jimmy inquired about incident from her. He also stated that he had not seen accused Sobran Singh Verma in the house.
30. PW-4 is Sanjay. He is another neighbour. He also deposed about going to the house of deceased. He stated that one old lady came to his shop and requested him and his labour to come to her house. He stated that Ravinder Jain (PW-3) also accompanied him. He also saw injured lying in the courtyard and blood was oozing out of the head. Blood was lying in the kitchen SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 12 of 39 also. He deposed that seeing the horrific scene, they came out. The old lady had given a diary to Ravinder Jain and asked him to call her son. PW-4 stated that Sh. Jain made few calls. At about 7:00 pm, sister of the injured reached there. He stated that when the said sister inquired from the injured as to what had happened, the injured did not reply at all as she was unconscious. He deposed about taking injured to nursing home and from there to GTB hospital.
31. In cross-examination, PW-4 deposed that injured had not told anything to her sister.
32. PW-5 is Raj Kumar. He is another neighbour. He also gave account of few facts. He stated that hearing commotion at about 6:15 pm, he went to house Jitender. Lot of other persons had also gathered. He saw one lady lying unconscious in the baranda. There was lot of blood. There was old lady in whose lap, head of injured was resting. He deposed that the old lady was crying for calling her son. He stated that he went to a shop and gave call to police control room. Police arrived there. He stated that sister of the injured came to his shop and made 3-4 telephone calls. Injured was removed to hospital.
33. In cross-examination, he stated that injured was unconscious throughout.
34. PW-15 is Rahul Verma. He is another son-in-law of PW-2. He is Jija of PW-1. He deposed that on 18.09.2005 at about 7:00 pm, he received a SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 13 of 39 telephone call from Reema who told that Kiran had been assaulted by her in- laws and she was in injured condition. She told him to reach Gupta Nursing Home, Rohtash Nagar. PW-15 reached there. He found Kiran was writhing with pain. She was having injuries under the right and left eyes and right temple. There were injuries on her head. Her right ear was cut. PW-15 asked Reema if she had informed her father. Reema replied in negative upon which PW-15 informed him. He deposed that he told Arvind Kumar, father-in-law, that Kiran had met with an accident. He explained that he told about accident because Arvind was a heart patient. He deposed that Kiran was taken to GTB hospital where she had expired. His statement recorded by Ld. MM is Ex.PW15/A.
35. In cross-examination, PW-15 deposed that police never recorded his statement. He denied that police recorded his statement on 19.09.2005. The said statement is Mark A-15. He was confronted with the said statement wherein various facts were not mentioned.
36. PW-16 is Asha Verma. She is step-mother of deceased. She says that Kiran had complained to her that the mother-in-law used to taunt her that earlier wife was more beautiful than Kiran. She deposed that Kiran told her that the mother-in-law used to instigate Jitender to bring back earlier wife. Kiran also told her that mother-in-law used to snatch her money and used to torture her. She deposed that Kiran also told her that behavior of Jitender was not proper. She also deposed about payment of Rs.50,000/- out of earnest money of sale of shop to Jitender. She deposed that Jitender had demanded Rs. 2.5 SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 14 of 39 lakhs. She deposed that Kiran came to their house on 10.09.2005 and asked them to pay Rs.2 lakhs. She told them that she was being harassed by her husband and in-laws. She deposed about another visit of Kiran on 17.09.2005 on which she again complained about harassment for non-payment of money. She deposed that on 18.09.2005, her husband informed her about accident of Kiran. She also went to GTB hospital where Kiran died. She deposed that she had informed the SHO that she had seen Sobran at about 4:30/5:00 pm on 18.09.2005 in the street approaching house of Jitender. She deposed that Sobran was in hurry and was looking perplexed. Her statement recorded by the Magistrate is Ex.PW16/A.
37. In cross-examination, she deposed that she did not make any statement to the police on her first visit to the police station. She was confronted with her previous statement Ex.PW16/DA wherein there were no allegations that her husband gave Rs. 50,000/- to Jitender on his demand of Rs. 2 Lakhs. She was further confronted regarding allegations of demand of money by accused/in- laws from deceased. She was again confronted with previous statement Ex.PW16/A (recorded before Magistrate) wherein she had not stated that at about 4:30 or 5:00 pm, she had seen accused Sobran Singh in the street of the house of Jitender or that Sobran was in a hurry and looking perplexed.
38. She stated that on 18.09.2005, she had gone to shop of Aggarwal Pethe Wala at about 4:00-4:30 pm, and she saw accused Sobran Singh in the street. However, she also stated that she did not notice what clothes were worn SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 15 of 39 by accused Sobran Singh or whether there was any blood on the clothes or not. INVESTIGATION WITNESSES
39. PW-11 is ASI Bhram Prakash. He deposed that on 18.09.2005, on receipt of DD No. 18-A (Ex.PW11/A) by Ct. Yusuf (PW-7), he alongwith PW- 7 and Ct. Ajay Babu (PW-22) reached H. No. 1/6626, Street No.4, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara where he found blood lying in plenty inside the kitchen as well as on the floor in front of the kitchen in varanda. He also noticed one stool lying turtle, one towel type cloth smeared with blood, broken glass pieces of bangles and other articles there. He deposed that on inquiry, he came to know that injured was taken to a nearby nursing home. On leaving PW-22, PW-11 alongwith PW-7 went to Gupta Nursing Home where he was told that injured was removed to GTB hospital. He further deposed that he went to emergency ward of GTB hospital and collected MLC of Kajal @ Kiran who was declared brought dead in the hospital. He informed SHO Insp. K. G. Tyagi about the facts on telephone. He further deposed that at about 8:15 pm, Insp. K. G. Tyagi alongwith his staff came in the hospital and recorded statement of Arvind Kumar there. The statement is Ex.PW2/A. HC Gyanender handed over the ornaments to Insp. K. G. Tyagi which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A.
40. PW-11 deposed that from the hospital, IO/Insp. K. G. Tyagi reached the spot alongwith PW-11 and other staff and inspected scene of crime. Insp. K. G. Tyagi prepared site plan at the instance of sister of deceased and SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 16 of 39 also prepared rukka Ex.PW11/B. PW-11 further deposed that IO lifted blood stained bangle pieces, blood with help of gauze piece, blood stained pieces of glass, broken mangalsutra smeared with blood, nose pin, plaster stained with blood, plaster from kitchen, iron tawa, one plastic stool, one purple chunni, one brickbat, one wooden handle of tawa, blood stained hairs from the spot and seized them vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/C. One towel piece cloth and one purse containing medicines, paper pieces, one currency note of Rs.100/- and an iron key were also found and same were taken into possession by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/D and E respectively. PW-11 identified the case properties. Tawa is Ex. P-1, handle is Ex. P-2, bangle pieces are Ex. P-3 (colly.), bunch of hairs is Ex. P-4, mangalsutra is Ex. P-5, nose pin is Ex. P-6, chunni is Ex. P-7, brickbat is Ex. P-8 and the plastic stool is Ex. P-9.
41. In cross-examination, it has come that courtyard was about 10 paces from the main gate of the house. Courtyard was also small.
42. PW-7 is Ct. Yusuf Ali. He deposed that on 18.09.2005, he joined investigation with ASI Bhram Prakash (PW-11) and reached H. No. 1/6626, Street No.4, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara where they came to know that injured had been taken to Gupta Nursing Home. He deposed that they went to Gupta Nursing Home where they came to know that injured was taken to GTB hospital. On reaching there, they found that injured Kiran was declared brought dead and her dead body was lying in the Emergency Ward. He further deposed that the dead body was taken to mortuary and PW-7 guarded the dead body. SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 17 of 39
43. PW-7 deposed that on the next day i.e. 19.09.2005, SHO K.G. Tyagi (PW-24) reached the hospital and postmortem on the dead body of Kiran was got conducted vide his request letter Ex.PW24/E and thereafter dead body was released to the relatives of the deceased. He further deposed that doctor had handed over to him three sealed parcels which he had handed over to the SHO. SHO took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A.
44. PW-24 Insp. K. G. Tyagi was the SHO and main investigating officer. He deposed that on 18.09.2005 at about 6:50 pm, a call was received by Duty Officer that one lady was lying in injured condition and in pool of blood at H.No. 1/6626, Gali No. 4, East Rohtash Nagar, Delhi. The information was assigned to PW-11 ASI Brahm Prakash (as already noted). PW-24 deposed that he alongwith other staff also reached the spot and found that injured Kiran @ Krazy was already taken to GTB Hospital. PW-24 also reached the hospital and found that Kiran had been declared brought dead at about 8:00 pm. He met father of the deceased i.e. Arvind Kumar (PW-2) had recorded his statement (Ex.PW2/A). He also filled up form 25.B (Ex.PW24/A). He sent the body for postmortem. He alongwith PW-11, complainant and other relatives reached back to the spot. He inspected the scene of crime and made endorsement Ex.PW24/B on the statement Ex.PW2/A for registration of the case. Crime Team and Dog Squad also reached at the spot. Crime Team prepared spot report. Ct. Ajay came back with copy of FIR. Thereafter PW-24 prepared site plan Ex.PW24/C at instance of PW-1. He lifted exhibits. PW-24 deposed that various exhibits were lifted vide memo Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW11/E and SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 18 of 39 Ex.PW11/D. He recorded statements of various witnesses. He went to the hospital and HC Gyanender, Duty Constable handed over to him personal belongings of the deceased and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW10/A.
45. He further deposed that he got conducted proceedings u/s 174 CrPC. Identification statement of Arvind Kumar is Ex.PW2/B and that of Jitender is Ex.PW24/D. He got conducted postmortem. His request for postmortem is Ex.PW24/E. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to husband Jitender. He seized pullandas handed over to him by PW-7.
46. He deposed that he searched for Sobran Singh as his name surfaced during investigation. He made DD entries Nos. 27-A, 35-A and 33-A which are Ex.PW24/F1, F2 and F3. He again searched for accused Sobran on 25.09.2005 but he could not be found. Entry in DD register is Ex.PW24/B.
47. On 26.09.2005, he alongwith SI Sanjeev Kumar (PW-21) and ASI Rajbir Singh (PW-19) searched for accused Sobran Singh. At about 3:00/4:00 pm, he received secret information about presence of accused Sobran Singh in his house. Raid was conducted and accused Sobran Singh was apprehended. PW-24 interrogated him and he confessed to the crime. PW-24 arrested him vide memo Ex.PW19/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW19/B. Body inspection memo is Ex.PW24/H. Disclosure statement of accused is Ex.PW24/C. PW-24 explained that inadvertently the date on the disclosure statement was written as 18.09.2005 instead of 26.09.2005. PW-24 deposed that accused led them to Satnam Jewellers, Shalimar Garden and with SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 19 of 39 help of keys which were recovered from accused Sobran Singh, the shutter of the shop was opened and at the instance of accused, his blood stained clothes were recovered from the space between wall and locker. PW-24 prepared pullanda with seal of KGT and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW19/D. Accused disclosed that he was wearing those clothes at the time of the offence.
48. From inside the locker, accused got recovered one broken gold chain belonging to deceased Kiran. Pullanda was prepared with seal of KGT and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW19/E (mistakenly marked as Ex.PW19/D on the document). Pointing out memo Ex.PW24/G was also prepared at the instance of the accused. PW-24 prepared site plan of the place of recovery which is Ex.PW24/H.
49. PW-24 further deposed that on 28.09.2005, during PC remand, accused made further disclosure statement Ex.PW19/F and disclosed that he had also removed one gold locket having engraving of letter K alongwith chain. He again took police team to Satnam Jewellers and from drawer of the shop, one gold locket having engraving of letter K was recovered. It was converted into pullanda with seal of KGT and seized vide memo Ex.PW19/G. He deposed about sending weapon of offence for subsequent opinion. On 24.10.2005, case property was sent to FSL. He got prepared scaled site plan. He filed the chargesheet. Copy of DD No. 21-A and 22-A (both dated 18.09.2005), DD No. 11-A and 26-A (both dated 19.09.2005) are Ex.PW24/K1 and K2 and Ex.PW24/L1 and L2. He had also collected photographs. He identified the case SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 20 of 39 properties.
50. In cross-examination, it has come that the crime team could not find any chance prints. It has come that dog squad had also come. He says that he did not know if deceased had made any dying declaration. PW-24 was totally ignorant of the fact whether there was one lock or more locks on the shop. He was unaware of the position of the shop. He denied the locket and chain were planted upon the accused or that blood was put later on, on the clothes of the accused.
51. PW-19 is ASI Rajbir Singh. He deposed that on 26.09.2005, he joined investigation with Insp. K. G. Tyagi (PW-24) and other police officials and reached at A-114, Surbhi Palace, Shalimar Garden, Shahibabad, UP where wife of accused Sobran met them. He deposed that on inquiry, they came to know that accused Sobran was missing since 18.09.2005 and they returned. He deposed that on the way near Seemapuri Toll Tax, one secret informer met them and who informed that Sobran could come behind DTC Depot. He further deposed that at about 6:45 pm, on the pointing out of the secret informer, accused Sobran was apprehended and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/A. His persons search was also got conducted vide memo Ex.PW19/B. Accused Sobran also made disclosure statement Ex.PW19/C. He also deposed that a safari suit was got recovered at the instance of accused Sobran which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/D. Accused also got recovered two pieces of golden colour chain which were also SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 21 of 39 taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/E. PW-19 further deposed that on 28.09.2005, accused Sobran further made disclosure statement Ex.PW19/F and one locket was got recovered by accused Sobran which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/G. He also idenfied the case properties.
MEDICAL / EXPERT WITNESSES
52. PW-17 is Dr. Banarsi. He examined injured Kajal @ Kiran and declared her brought dead. He also prepared MLC No. A4003/05 of injured Kajal @ Kirha. The MLC is Ex.PW17/A.
53. PW-9 is Dr. Anil Kohli. He conducted postmortem on the body of Kiran vide PM report No. 893/05. The PM report is Ex.PW9/A. He also gave subsequent opinion vide Ex.PW9/B. FORMAL WITNESSES
54. PW-6 is Bharat Bhushan. He deposed that on 18.09.2005, he was called by the SHO PS Shahdara at H. No. 1/6626, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and took 10 photographs from different angles. The photographs are Ex.PW6/1 to 10.
55. PW-8 is SI Mukesh Jain. He deposed that he was summoned by Insp. K. G. Tyagi, SHO PS Shahdara on 24.10.2006. He further deposed that he alongwith the SGO and SI Sanjeev Kumar (PW-21) reached H. No. 1/6626, SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 22 of 39 Gali No.4, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara. He inspected the spot and took rough notes and measurements at the instance of SI Sanjeev Kumar. The scaled site plan is Ex.PW8/A.
56. PW-10 HC Gyanender Singh is the Duty Head Constable at GTB hospital. He deposed that on 18.09.2005, Kiran was brought to GTB hospital in dead condition. He deposed that after examination, doctor had handed over to him one pair of pajeb, four chutkies and two pairs of tops and he had handed over the same to IO/Insp. K. G. Tyagi. IO took those articles into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A.
57. PW-12 is Ct. Subhash. He deposed that on 24.10.2005, on the direction of SHO Insp. K. G. Tyagi, he collected 16 sealed parcels from the malkhana of PS Shahdara alongwith the sample seal vide RC No. 111/21 and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini.
58. PW-13 is Ct. Vedpal. He deposed that on 18.10.2005, on the direction of IO, he went to GTB hospital in department of Forensic Medicine and collected one sealed parcel and one sample seal alongwith one opinion paper from Dr. Anil Kohli. Thereafter he handed over the sealed parcel to MHC(M) and opinion paper to the IO.
59. PW-14 SI Itender Swaroop is I/C Mobile Crime Team. He deposed that on 18.09.2005 at about 9:30 pm, on receipt of call from Control Room, he alongwith crime team officials reached H. No. 1/6626, Street No.4, SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 23 of 39 East Rohtash Nagar, Delhi. He further deposed that he noticed blood lying inside and outside the kitchen, broken mangal sutra, pieces of bangles, pieces of bricks, broken glass, some blood stained clothes and iron tawa at the spot. There was no chance prints. His report is Ex.PW14/A.
60. PW-15 is ASI Dhrampal. He was Duty Officer. He recorded the FIR on the basis of rukka Ex.PW11/B. Copy of FIR is Ex.PW15/A. He also made endorsement Ex.PW15/B on the rukka regarding registration of FIR.
61. PW-18 is Ct. Avdesh Kumar. He deposed that on 18.09.2005, DO handed over him the copies of FIR of the present case and he delivered the same to DCP, ACP and area MM.
62. PW-20 is Sh. Chandra Shekhar. He was Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. He conducted TIP proceedings vide Ex.PW20/E. The certificate of correctness is Ex.PW20/D. The orders of adjournment of the proceedings are Ex.PW20/A, B and C.
63. PW-23 is Sh. R. P. Tomar. He was Asstt. Ambulance Officer. He deposed that on 18.09.2005 at about 6:57 pm, he reached H. No. 1/66/25, Gali No.5, East Rohtash Nagar, Delhi in vehicle Alpha 15 CAT bearing no. DL-1-A- 1277 and took the injured to GTB hospital and got her admitted there vide CR No. 100982. The copy of Control Room call register vide Mark PW23/A.
64. PW-25 is Insp. Raja Ram. He deposed that on 31.03.2006, he was called by Sh. R. K. Yadav, Ld. ASJ/KKD, Delhi and directed him to SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 24 of 39 investigate further Arvind Kumar and Ms. Jimmy @ Rima in the present case. He further deposed that on the directions, he collected certified copies of statements of Arvind Kumar and Ms. Jimmy @ Rima. The certified copy of statement of Arvind Kumar is Ex.PW25/A and that of Ms. Jimmy @ Rima is Ex.PW25/B. PW-25 further deposed that he called witness Arvind Kumar, Rima @ Jimmy, Asha Verma and Rahul Verma and interrogated them. He also recorded their statements u/s. 161 CrPC. He also deposed that all these witnesses had made allegations against accused Jitender, Ramwati and Sohan Lal regarding demand of dowry and harassment.
65. PW-26 Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta is Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-2, Delhi. She deposed in the year 2005, when she was working as MM at KKD Courts, Delhi, she recorded statements of witnesses Ms. Jimmy Verma @ Reema, Arvind Kumar Verma, Rahul Verma and Smt. Asha Verma u/s. 164 CrPC vide Ex.PW1/A, 2/D, 5/A and 6/A respectively.
66. PW-27 is HC Sardar Singh. He deposed that he produced original Register No. 19 relating to entires no. 2544, 2545, 2558 and 2563 which were in the handwriting of HC Raju the then MHC(M) PS Shahdara. The photocopies of all the aforesaid entries are collectively Ex.PW27/A. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
67. Accused Sobran Singh Verma, in his statement u/s. 313 CrPC, stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that he SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 25 of 39 did not commit any offence. He stated that he was present in his shop at Jawahar Park, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP. He did not examine any defence witness despite seeking opportunity for the same.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
68. I have heard Sh. D. K. Singh, learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Vinod K. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the accused.
69. Learned Addl. PP submitted that prosecution has brought on record enough material showing that accused is guilty. He referred to the testimony of PW-1 Reema and PW-2 Arvind Kumar and submitted that same are reliable. He pointed out that from testimony of PW-1, it is appearing that deceased had made a dying declaration and according to the said dying declaration, it was accused Sobran Singh Verma who had attacked upon her with Tawa.
70. On the other hand, learned defence counsel submitted that there is no material against accused Sobran Singh. He submitted that except the alleged dying declaration, there is no other evidence or material against accused Sobran Singh. He argued forcefully that the so called dying declaration is not worth reliance. He pointed out various shortcomings in the testimonies of witnesses regarding the said dying declaration.
71. He also pointed out that Tawa produced in the court as weapon of offence was different from its sketch prepared in report Ex.PW9/B (subsequent SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 26 of 39 opinion regarding weapon of offence) which creates doubts about prosecution case. He contended that recoveries have been planted to falsely implicate the accused. He prayed for acquittal.
FINDINGS
72. I have considered the submissions.
73. From the submissions of the Ld. Counsel, the following points for determination arise in the present case:
i). Whether accused was present at the spot at the time of the offence?
ii). If yes, whether accused committed murder of deceased Kiran?
74. Following injuries were noticed during postmortem as per PM report Ex.PW9/A:
External Injuries
i). Two blisters, one over inner aspect of left wrist and the other over right little finger were present. Both are filled with serous fluid and have reddened hyperemic based.
ii). Red bruise 7.5 cm x 8 cm, over back of right shoulder.
iii). Red abrasion 1 cm x 0.8 cm over dorsum of left index finger just proximal to the nail.
iv). Red bruise 10 cm x 1 cm over back of left middle finger and hand.
v). Red bruise 4 cm x 3 cm, over center of back of left hand.
vi). Red bruise 2 cm x 1 cm, over back of left little finger.
vii). Incised wound with edges occasionally irregular and abraded at SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 27 of 39 places measuring 11 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep, present over right temporal region of head placed 1 cm above the right ear.
It is placed horizontally and the underlying temporal bone had been cut.
viii). Incised wound with edges occasionally irregular and abraded at places measuring 13 cm x 0.3 cm x bone deep, present over right temporal region of head placed 1 cm below and parallet to injury no. vii. It is cutting the pinna through and through with fracture of underlying temporal region.
ix). Incised wound with edges occasionally irregular and abraded at places measuring 6 cm x 0.3 cm x 1 cm placed 1 cm above below and parallel to injury no. viii cutting the lobule of right ear through and through.
x). Incised wound circular with edges abraded at places measuring 0.7 cm x 0.7 cm x 0.6 cm present just in front of upper portion of left ear.
xi). Incised wound with edges occasionally irregular at places measuring 2 cm x 0.3 cm x bone deep, over left side of face placed 0.5 cm lateral to outer angle of left eye with cutting of underlying temporal bone and surrounded by a bruise measuring 4 cm x 2.5 cm.
xii). Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 0.2 cm x 1 cm over left eyelid placed just below out angle of left eyebrow.
xiii). Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm x bone deep, present over left side of face 1 cm below left eye and just lateral to nose.
xiv). Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm over bridge of nose.
xv). Lacerated wound 1.9 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.7 cm over right nostril. xvi). Red bruise 2 cm x 1.5 cm over right cheek.
xvii). Lacerated wound 0.9 cm x 0.4 cm x bone deep present right side of forehead 2 cm above eyebrow and 4 cm to right of mid- line.
xviii).Incised wound 3 cm x 0.3 cm x 0.5 cm over inner aspect of right angle.
Internal Injuries:
i). The scalp shows red abrasion 3 cm x 3 cm over left side under surface of scalp in the front.SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 28 of 39
ii). The scalp shows fracture of temporal bone as mentioned earlier and fracture of middle cranial fossa of base of scalp.
iii). The brain shows contusions over right temporal lobe and right side base of brain, intra-cerebral hemorrhage in right and left temporal lobes.
iv). The uterus contain of fetus 7 cm in length.
v). The neck of fetus could be made out and sex could not be
made out.
vi). No external and internal injury seen in the genitalia.
75. From the above, it is amply clear that deceased died homicidal death. The task now was to ascertain whether accused caused the homicidal death.
76. Prosecution case is heavily resting on the testimony of PW-1.
There is no eyewitness. It is only PW-1 who has deposed about dying declaration purportedly given by deceased Kiran.
77. The case is based on dying declaration which is an oral dying declaration. It is settled law that conviction can be based on oral dying declaration as well. The law regarding dying declarations has been discussed in many judgments. One such case is State of MP vs. Dal Singh & Ors., reported as (2013) 14 SCC 159. It was observed as under:
" 20. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that law does not provide who can record a dying declaration, nor is there any prescribed form, format, or procedure for the same. The person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the maker is in a fit state of mind and is capable of making such a statement. Moreover, the requirement of a certificate provided by a Doctor in respect of such state of the SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 29 of 39 deceased, is not essential in every case.
21. Undoubtedly, the subject of the evidentiary value and acceptability of a dying declaration, must be approached with caution for the reason that the maker of such a statement cannot be subjected to cross-examination. However, the court may not look for corroboration of a dying declaration, unless the declaration suffers from any infirmity.
22. In Govindappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 6 SCC 533, it was argued that the Executive Magistrate, while recording the dying declaration did not get any certificate from the medical officer regarding the condition of the deceased. This Court then held, that such a circumstance itself is not sufficient to discard the dying declaration. Certification by a doctor regarding the fit state of mind of the deceased, for the purpose of giving a dying declaration, is essentially a rule of caution and therefore, the voluntary and truthful nature of such a declaration, may also be established otherwise. Such a dying declaration must be recorded on the basis that normally, a person on the verge of death would not implicate somebody falsely. Thus, a dying declaration must be given due weight in evidence."
78. It was further observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narain Singh v. State of Haryana reported as "A dying declaration made by a person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The shadow of impending death is by itself guarantee of the truth of the statement of deceased regarding the circumstances leading to his death. But at the same time the dying declaration like any other evidence has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility to be acceptable. It is more so, as the accused does not get an opportunity of questioning veracity of the statement by cross- examination. The dying declaration if found reliable can form the base of conviction."
79. It has also been held that there is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 30 of 39 (Munnu Raja v. State of M.P., 1996 (3) SCC 104). Again, it was observed to the effect that if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. (State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, (1985) 1 SCC 552). Advising the courts, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. (K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor MANU/SC/ 0127/1976). Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0160/1976). Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. (Kake Singh v. State of M.P. 1981 Supp. SCC 25).
80. Evidence of PW-1 thus needs to be scrutinized carefully. Firstly, it is to be established by the prosecution that deceased Kiran in fact made any dying declaration. It is only thereafter that it is to be considered whether the said dying declaration is sufficient or not to convict the accused.
81. PW-1 claims that when she reached at the matrimonial house of Kiran, she was alive and in senses. PW-1 says that it was Kiran who told her that it was accused Sobran Singh, Ramwati, Jitender and Sohan Lal who had stabbed her.
82. At this stage, it is to be noted that while investigating agency filed SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 31 of 39 chargesheet only against Sobran Singh, the family of the deceased, on the other hand, was alleging that not only accused Sobran Singh but also his brothers Jitender and Sohan Lal as well as their mother Ram Wati were the offenders. For all purposes, PW-1 and her father PW-2 were pitted against prosecution's own case.
83. As already noted, application for amendment of charge had already been dismissed and the said order had attained finality.
84. While PW-1 claims that deceased Kiran had talked to her before she became unconscious, on the other hand, there are witnesses who say that deceased had not talked at all with anyone. PW-3 Ravinder Jain (neighbour) has clearly stated in cross-examination that Kiran had not spoken even a single word from the time he saw her and till she was declared dead in the hospital. As per PW-3, he had reached the scene of crime even prior to PW-1. He says that Kiran was unconscious when PW-1 reached there. He also says that he had not seen accused Sobran in the said house on that day.
85. Similarly, PW-4 Sanjay (another neighbour) also says that Kiran had not spoken any word. He says that Kiran had not replied to questions of PW-1. On the same lines, PW-5 Raj Kumar (another neighbour) has also said that Kiran was unconscious when he entered the house and when she was taken to hospital.
86. As can be seen, version of the neighbours is contrary to that given SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 32 of 39 by PW-1. What should be the fate of the so called oral dying declaration is the question to be answered.
87. Under the given circumstances, in my view, there is serious doubts about fact of making any dying declaration by deceased Kiran @ Krazy. There is no record of the so called dying declaration. It is only oral testimony of PW-1 regarding the same. When PW-1 stands contradicted by the neighbours who are independent witnesses, it will be difficult to believe that deceased told anything to PW-1 before dying.
88. Upon perusal of the record, it is found that the dying declaration has not been proved. Except PW-1, who is sister of deceased, no other witness has corroborated the facts regarding dying declaration. Rather, the testimonies of neighbours PW-3, 4 and 5, falsify the fact of making of dying declaration by deceased. As such, prosecution cannot derive any benefit out of the so-called dying declaration.
89. In these circumstances, prosecution has now to rely upon circumstantial evidence.
90. The law regarding cases based on circumstantial evidence is well settled. The famous case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 is the guiding judgment. The five golden principles reiterated in the said judgment may be noted as below:
i). the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 33 of 39 drawn should be fully established;
ii). 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;
iii). the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
iv). they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
v). 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 probability the act must have been done by the accused.
91. From the photographs Ex.PW6/1 to 10 , it is visible that lot of blood had spilled on the ground in the house. Therefore, there is no doubt that a brutal assault was committed upon deceased in the said house.
92. From the postmortem report, it is more than apparent that deceased Kiran died homicidal death. The tawa Ex. P-1 is also confirmed to be the weapon of offence. Learned Counsel for the accused had made few submissions regarding the tawa. He contended that the dimension of the tawa is different from actual measurement of the said tawa. He submitted that in the subsequent opinion Ex.PW9/B, the length of the iron part of the handle of the tawa is shown is 3.2 cm whereas the length of the same part of the tawa produced in the court is 11 cm. He thus submitted that a different tawa was produced before the concerned doctor for opinion.
SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 34 of 39
93. I do not find much significance in this contention. No doubt, there is difference in the measurement of the tawa as mentioned in the document and as of actual tawa, but this alone is not sufficient to conclude that it is a different tawa. The diameter of the tawa is 22.3 cm, which is same as mentioned in the document and of the tawa Ex. P-1. Moreover, PW-9 was not cross-examined on this aspect at all. In fact PW-9 was not cross-examined at all by the learned Defence Counsel which means that the defence accepted the testimony of PW-
9. Therefore, it is held that the tawa Ex. P-1 is the possible weapon of offence.
94. However, prosecution has failed to connect the tawa with the accused. There is no finger print of accused on this tawa. Neither his blood is there on the said tawa. The tawa was found at the spot. It was not recovered at instance of the accused. Hence, it is impossible to connect the tawa with the accused. Prosecution was able to show that the tawa was used in committing the murder but it has failed to show that it was accused Sobran Singh who used the said tawa.
95. Prosecution produced step-mother of PW-1 (as well as of deceased) as a witness of fact of seeing accused near the house of the deceased on the fateful day. It is to be noted that evidence of the said witness i.e. PW-16 Asha Verma is not very inspiring. The said witness says that she had seen accused Sobran at about 4:30 or 5:00 pm on 18.09.2005 near house of deceased and accused was looking perplexed and walked in hurry. The time of the offence is around 6:30 pm. Even as per prosecution case, offence took SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 35 of 39 place at around 6:30 pm. Therefore, there was no reason for accused Sobran to look perplexed at about 4:30/5:00 pm. The impression given by the witness is that she saw Sobran after the offence. Perusal of cross-examination of PW-16 shows that she had met the police for the first time after 3 - 4 days of the incident and she did not give any statement to the police. She had given statement Ex.PW16/A before learned MM on 11.11.2005. In the said statement, PW-16 did not say any fact about seeing accused near house of deceased on the relevant date. PW-16 was confronted with the said statement in this regard. PW-16 has not given any reason as to why she was near the house of deceased on that day. She was living far away from the house of deceased Kiran. Why she went there? PW-16 has not explained. It is apparent that PW-16 has cooked up a story of seeing the accused on that day. Testimony of PW-16 is not reliable.
96. Prosecution has also heavily relied upon recovery of few jewelery articles belonging to the deceased at the instance of accused. As per prosecution, accused got recovered one broken chain of gold/yellow colour and one locket (also of gold/yellow colour) vide Ex.PW19/E (inadvertently written as 19/D on the document) and 19/G. Accused also allegedly got recovered his blood stained clothes vide Ex.PW19/D.
97. The disclosure statement on the basis of which prosecution claims that accused got recovered jewelery articles of the deceased is itself a doubtful document. It is to be noted that on disclosure statement Ex.PW19/C, date is SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 36 of 39 mentioned as 18.09.2005 whereas accused is shown to have been arrested on 26.09.2005. The seizure memo Ex.PW19/E is dated 26.09.2005. As per testimony of IO, accused was apprehended only on 26.09.2005 and only thereafter his disclosure statement was recorded. IO has explained that date was wrongly mentioned as 18.09.2005 instead of 26.09.2005. This explanation is not sufficient. The wrong date on the disclosure statement fortifies the allegation of the accused that he was illegally kept under detention since 18.09.2005 and falsely shown arrested on 26.09.2005. It is further the case of the prosecution that accused made supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW19/F on 28.09.2005 and got recovered one locket which was seized vide Ex.PW19/G dated 28.09.2005. It is not explained why supplementary disclosure statement was recorded. It seems to be strange. It is worth noting that accused took the police team exactly to the same place on 26.09.2005 and 28.09.2005. Both the recoveries are shown from the same place i.e. shop named Satnam Jewelers. This circumstance is quite intriguing. The recoveries are doubtful.
98. Prosecution claims that accused took away jewelery of the deceased after causing injuries to her. The motive supplied by the prosecution is that accused was in need of money and he had sought help from his brother Jitender who was husband of deceased but the deceased had asked her husband not to help the accused. This motive does not withstand judicial scrutiny. A person who is in need of money would not kill the person only to take away one broken chain piece and one locket. These items were not of such huge value as would fulfill need of the accused. No public witness was SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 37 of 39 associated at the time of recovery of these items. The recovery itself is doubtful. The motive thus alleged by prosecution is rejected.
99. From the material on record, it transpires that only mother-in-law was with the deceased in the house at the time of the offence. The Investigating Officer did not make any enquiry from the mother-in-law. She was the best person to throw light on the mystery. The mother-in-law has now already expired.
100. The blood stained clothes allegedly belonging to accused were sent for FSL examination. Human blood has been found on the pants but blood group could not be ascertained. There is no DNA examination which could have confirmed blood of deceased on the clothes of accused. In the absence of any such examination, the clothes cannot be connected with the offence.
101. In view of the above discussion, it is held that accused is entitled for acquittal and is hereby acquitted of the charge.
102. Accused is required to furnish bail bond for the purpose of Sec. 437-A CrPC. On request of the accused, bail bond already furnished by him is accepted further for a period of six months for the purposes of Sec. 437-A CrPC.
103. Case property is confiscated to the State. It be disposed of as per rules.
104. An application was already filed on behalf of minor child baby Janvi @ Divya u/s 357-A CrPC. She is daughter of the deceased. This is a fit SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 38 of 39 case where provision for rehabilitation of the child should be made. Therefore, the application is forwarded to the DLSA, North-East for appropriate action.
105. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on the 31st day of July 2018.
Digitally signed bySANJAY BANSAL
SANJAY Location: Karkardooma BANSAL Court Date: 2018.08.01 16:27:35 +0530 (Sanjay Bansal) Special Judge (NDPS)/ASJ/ NE/KKD Courts/Delhi. SC No. 44930/2015 State Vs. Sobran Singh Verma Page 39 of 39