Delhi District Court
State vs Satyander Pal Singh Ors on 6 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02), SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLSE010002222013
Session Case No.1499/2016
FIR no.204/2013
Police Station: Jaitpur.
State
Versus
1. Satender Pal Singh
Son of Late Inderpal
Resident of House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar,
Jaitpur, New Delhi.
2. Amit
Son of Late Inderpal
Resident of House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar,
Jaitpur, New Delhi.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 1 of 87
3. Seema
Wife of Amit
Resident of House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar,
Jaitpur, New Delhi.
4. Ms. Omwati
Wife of Late Inderpal
Resident of House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar,
Jaitpur, New Delhi. (Proceedings against her
abated on 04.06.2025 as she
died on 24.04.2021)
5. Inderpal
Son of Late Ajab Singh
Resident of House No.O-458A, Saurabh Vihar,
Jaitpur, New Delhi. (Proceedings against him
abated on 30.05.2017 as he
died on 24.01.2017)
..........Accused persons
Date of Institution : 04.09.2013
Judgment reserved on : 23.05.2025
Date of Decision : 05.06.2025
JUDGMENT
1. A police report was put up by the State through officer- in-charge of the police station Jaitpur before the concerned FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 2 of 87 Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take cognizance of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') against the accused, namely, Satender Pal @ Mintu, for having committed the said offence.
2. As per the police report, on 07.06.2013, this case FIR was registered in police station Jaitpur for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC.
3. As per the police report, on 07.06.2013 at 02.30 p.m., vide DD No.7A police station Jaitpur, an information was given by WT operator C/Room regarding 'son of caller has killed his wife' and this information was given to SI Subhash on telephone and its copy was sent through Constable Niranjan Singh on the spot of incident; Additional S.H.O. D.P. Kalra, who was on night patrolling in Sub-Division, was also informed on telephone.
4. It is further reported in the police report that SI Subhash along with Constable Niranjan reached at the spot of incident i.e. House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, New Delhi where near the door of toilet in the left side corner of overhanging eave towards the door on the second floor of that house, one lady whose name, on inquiry, was revealed as Vimlesh wife of Satender Pal resident of above-said address, aged about 34/35 years was found dead whose back was touched with the railings of the overhanging eave and her neck was towards the floor and her legs were towards the East direction and back was towards the West direction and she was FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 3 of 87 having a green colour salwar and there was a green colour chunni wrapped around her neck and she was wearing biscuit colour jumper and there were injury marks on her face and on the front side of the neck, there were deep scratch mark and broken pieces of bangles were available nearby; on the side of her legs, a plastic stool of sky blue colour was lying near the door of kitchen which was blood- stained and some broken hair strains were lying near the palm of the right hand.
5. It is further reported in the police report that SI Subhash had given information about the circumstances to the senior officers and Inspector D.P. Kalra, A.T.O., police station Jaitpur reached at the spot and the crime-team was called at the spot of incident and inspection of the spot was got conducted and the dead-body was sent to AIIMS hospital in a private vehicle in the custody of constable Niranjan.
6. It is further reported in the police report that from the the circumstances, contents of the DD and inspection of the spot of incident, the offence under section 302 IPC has been made out, therefore, a case under that section was got registered and further investigation was taken up by Inspector D.P. Kalra and Dak was sent to the senior officers through special messenger.
7. It is further reported in the police report that the crime- team came at the spot and inspected the spot of incident and FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 4 of 87 photographs of the spot of incident were also taken by the photographer.
8. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, Inspector D.P. Kalra prepared the site-plan of the spot of incident and from the spot, Exhibit 1 i.e. a round shaped plastic stool of sky blue colour having blood-stains which had been dried-up was picked-up and kept in a white cloth and a pullanda was prepared; and Ex.2 some pieces of broken bangles lying on the floor near the dead-body were picked-up and wrapped in a white colour cloth and a pullanda was prepared; and Ex.3 some strains of hairs of black colour entangled in the palm near the right hand of the dead- body were also picked-up and wrapped in a white colour cloth and a pullanda was prepared; Ex.4 one hair clip of black colour from the side of legs of the dead-body near the doors was picked-up and wrapped in the white cloth and a pullanda was prepared; all the pullandas were got picked up from SI Subhash Chand and were sealed with the seal of 'SC' and statement of the witnesses were recorded and the case property was deposited in the malkhana.
9. It is further reported in the police report that on 07.06.2013 parents of the deceased Vimlesh came to the police station and Kisan Singh got his statement recorded.
10. It is further reported in the police report that it is, inter- alia, stated by the complainant that he had five sons and four daughters; that he had got her younger daughter Vimlesh married FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 5 of 87 with Satender Pal S/o Inder Pal who earlier used to live in Jhuggi of Nauroji Nagar; that they were Satsangi and away from eating meat or fish; that Satender Pal and his family members used to eat meat and fish and got it cooked by Vimlesh which Vimlesh used to refused to cook due to which Satender Pal and his family members started beating and harassing Vimlesh; that Inder Pal (father-in-law), Omwati (mother-in-law) and Amit (brother-in-law) also with Satender Pal had beaten Vimlesh and they all had taken Vimlesh away to their native village, where they all had gone to a marriage in Tauru and left Vimlesh at their house after beating her; that after the marriage on the way for returning to Delhi also, they had beaten Vimlesh and one boy (Sunil S/o Birju) native of village of the complainant had come to Baraut and informed them that he had seen Vimlesh being beaten in the market, therefore, he had sent his elder son Virender, son-in-law Suresh, son Balinder and few relatives to know about well-being of Vimlesh and they returned on the 3 rd day and informed him that Vimlesh had been given beatings, for which they had made complaint in the police station and on seeing them, Satender had made a call to the police wherein they had alleged that Vimlesh was beaten by Satender Pal, father-in-law, namely, Inderpal, mother-in-law, namely, Omwati, sister-in-law, namely, Seema and brother-in-law, namely, Amit and the matter was got settled in the police station and Vimlesh was taken alone to the native village.
11. It is further stated by the complainant that after four-five days a complaint was also made in the Mahila Thana and on FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 6 of 87 24.02.2013 the persons from the social circle got the matter settled and Vimlesh was again taken to Delhi. It is further stated by the complainant that on 07.06.2013, it is informed by the police station Jaitpur that Vimlesh had been killed by her husband and on reaching Delhi, they came to know that on the last night at about 11.00 p.m., Vimlesh had been killed by mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in- law, sister-in-law and husband of the deceased as when Vimlesh was being beaten by them, she had run towards outside of the house to save her life but all those persons and dragged her upwards. It is further stated by the complainant that all those persons had killed Vimlesh, therefore, appropriate action as per law should be taken against them. It is further reported in the police report that besides the above statement, statement of the complainant under section 161 Cr.P.C., and statement of brother and brother in law of the deceased were also recorded.
12. It is further reported in the police report that on 08.06.2013 inquest papers of the deceased Vimlesh were prepared and after conducting the postmortem dead-body of the deceased was handed over to the family members against handing over receipt.
13. It is further reported in the police report that after the postmortem, Constable Niranjan had produced the exhibits, 1. one sealed pullanda containing clothes of the deceased, 2. one sealed pullanda containing LEGOHINE material, 3. one transparent Jar containing nail clipping right of the deceased, 4. one transparent Jar containing nail clipping right of the deceased 5. one sealed envelope FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 7 of 87 containing blood in gauze of the deceased, 6. one sample seal of Department of Forensic Medicine AIIMS New Delhi, the seal by which all the exhibits were sealed, the above all exhibits were seized vide seizure memo and taken into police possession and deposited in the malkhana of the police station.
14. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation and search, the accused Satender Pal @ Mintu was arrested vide arrest memo and his personal search memo was prepared and the wearing clothes of the accused which were having blood-stained were got put off and 1. one t-shirt of sky blue colour which were having stripes of dark and light lines and the word ONEILL was written on the chest and there was a mark of oneill on the back and left arm, which was having bloodstains at many places and the two arms were having marks of pull out and scratches, 2. one lower pyjama of grey colour, both legs of which were having stripes of blue colour and there were blood-stains on the front side of the lower; both the clothes were wrapped in separate white clothes and pullandas were prepared, sealed with the seal of 'DPK' and seized vide seizure memo and taken into police possession.
15. It is further reported in the police report that during interrogation, the accused Satender Pal admitted his guilt as well as guilt of the other accused persons and that in order to save other accused persons from imprisonment, his father and called police at 100 number so that all others except the accused Satender Pal were saved. The disclosure statement of the accused Satender Pal was FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 8 of 87 recorded separately and the accused Satender Pal @ Mintu was got medically examined and his blood sample was collected, sealed and seized vide seizure memo, the accused was produced in the Court and his one day PC remand was obtained; that the co-accused persons were searched for but no clue was found and on 08.06.2013 the accused was produced in the Court and sent to judicial custody.
16. It is further reported in the police report that the scaled site-plan was got prepared and copies of the complaint made by the deceased in Mahila Thana Baghpat, U.P. and compromise were collected.
17. It is further reported in the police report that the postmortem report was also collected wherein cause of death "In this case is asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. Strangulation in this case could be possible from the chunni (alleged ligature material) present in the neck of deceased. Uterus contained gestational sac with a non viable fetus (sex indistinguishable) of gestational age about 2 to 3 months" was opined.
18. It is further reported in the police report that on 10.07.2013 the exhibits collected in the present case were deposited with FSL, Rohini for obtaining result vide RC No.131/21/13 and the result was still awaited.
19. It is further reported in the police report that on transfer of Inspector D.P. Kalra from the police station, the investigation of FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 9 of 87 this case was assigned to Inspector Vipin Kumar, A.T.O. police station Jaitpur and the investigating officer made search for the co- accused persons who were evading their arrest.
20. It is further reported in the police report that from the investigation conducted so far and the disclosure statement as well as statement of the witnesses, sufficient evidence has been collected against the accused Satender Pal @ Mintu.
21. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer had prepared police report against the accused Satender Pal @ Mintu under section 302 IPC and filed before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and it was prayed that on receiving of FSL result and after arrest of the co-accused persons, supplementary police report shall be put up.
22. On the date of filing of police report i.e. on 04.09.2013, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and on that day, the accused Satender Pal was also produced in the Court from judicial custody. Copies of police report and other documents were supplied to the accused Satender Pal.
23. On 24.09.2013, the Metropolitan Magistrate found the offence under section 302 IPC to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session and therefore, committed the case to the Court of Session.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 10 of 8724. On 30.11.2013, supplementary police report was put up by the State before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
25. As per the supplementary police report, apart from whatever has already been stated in the main police report, during the course of investigation, the investigating officer on 04.09.2013 the accused Inderpal was arrested on the pointing out of the complainant Kishan Singh and during his custody, the accused has made disclosure statement whereby he admitted his guilt and commission of offence and stated that on the date of incident, he and his wife Vimlesh had caught hold both the legs of the deceased and Amit had caught hold of left hand of the deceased while Seema, wife of Amit had caught hold the right hand and hairs and then Satender had strangulated the deceased with her wearing chunni till she died and after her death, they made her to sit with the railing and all of them made a plan that it would be better if Satender alone would go to jail rather than all of them and due to such plan, the accused Inderpal made a call at 100 number informing that his son had killed his wife and thereafter, they all had gone to their respective rooms and had come out of their rooms only after arrival of the police so that the police would believe that they were not aware of the incident; that his younger daughter Ruby and son-in-law and daughter-in-law were sleeping in a room with door shut on the lower floor and due to not hearing of the noise, they were not awake.
26. It is further reported in the supplementary police report that thereafter, Amit, son of Inderpal had made disclosure statement FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 11 of 87 about his involvement in the offence on the lines of disclosure made by the accused Inderpal, his separate disclosure statement was recorded.
27. It is further reported in the supplementary police report that statement of the witnesses were recorded and the case property was deposited in the police malkhana and the accused persons were kept in police custody and on 05.09.2013, both the accused persons pointed out the place of incident and the pointing out memo was prepared and the accused persons were produced in the Court and sent to the judicial custody. It is further reported in the supplementary police report that after transfer of Inspector Vipin, the investigation of the case was assigned to Inspector Ravinder Kumar.
28. It is further reported in the supplementary police report that as the accused persons Omwati and Seema could not be arrested therefore, the investigating officer had got issued proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. against them from the concerned Court and on 11.11.2013, both those accused persons had surrendered in the concerned Court and they were arrested and interrogated with the permission of the Court and during their interrogation, the accused Smt. Omwati and Smt. Seema have voluntarily admitted their guilt and about their involvement in the commission of the offence and their separate statements were recorded and those two accused persons were produced in the Court and sent to judicial custody.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 12 of 8729. It is further reported in the supplementary police report that from the investigation conducted so far, the statement of the witnesses, arrest of the accused persons and their disclosure statements, sufficient evidence has been collected against the accused persons, namely Satender, Inderpal, Amit, Omwati and Seema to establish the offence of killing the deceased pursuance to their conspiracy and therefore, section 120B IPC was added in the present case. It is further reported in the supplementary police report that the report of FSL was awaited which would be produced after receiving it. After completion of investigation against the other accused persons, supplementary police report was put up in the Court.
30. On the date of filing of supplementary police report on 30.11.2013, the accused persons Inderpal, Amit and Omwati were produced from judicial custody, however, the accused Seema was not produced. On that day, the Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and supplied copy of police report and other documents and e-challan to the accused persons and issued production warrant to produce the accused Seema. On 11.12.2013, the accused Seema was also produced before the Court and copies of police report and documents and e-challan was supplied to her.
31. On 16.12.2013, the Metropolitan Magistrate found the offence under section 302 IPC to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session and committed the case to the Court of Session.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 13 of 8732. On 10.05.2014, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused, the charge was framed against the accused, namely, Satender Pal @ Mintu, Inderpal, Amit, Omwati and Seema for their having committed offence punishable under sections 302/34, the Indian Penal Code.
33. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the offence charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
34. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Anuj Negi, PW2 Dinesh Kashyap, PW3 Kisan Singh, PW4 Virender Singh, PW5 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Jogender Singh, PW6 Constable (Ct.) Ashwani, PW7 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Sajjan Kumar, PW8 Padam Singh, PW9 Balinder Singh, PW10 Suresh Kumar, PW11 Constable (Ct.) Niranjan, PW12 Sub-Inspector (SI) Subhash Chand, PW13 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, PW14 Constable (Ct.) Makhan Lal, PW15 W/Head Constable (HC) Geeta, PW16 Head Constable (HC) Vikas Tyagi, PW17 Sub-Inspector SI (SI) Manohar Lal, PW18 Ms. Anju Dixit, PW19 Dr. Abhineeth K.P. PW20 Sub-Inspector (SI) Hemant, PW21 Retired Inspector Dharampal Kalra, PW22 Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma, PW23 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Lalit Mohan, PW24 Assistant Sub- Inspector (ASI) Om Prakash, PW25 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, PW26 FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 14 of 87 W/Head Constable (WHC) Seema and PW27 Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar. During the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A7, Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/D1, Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW12/F, Ex.PW12/G, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW21/E, Ex.PW21/F, Ex.PW21/G, Ex.PW21/H, Ex.PW21/I, Ex.PW21/J, Ex.PW21/K, Ex.PW21/L, Ex.PW21/M, Ex.PW21/N, Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW22/B, Ex.PW22/C, Ex.PW22/D, Ex.PW22/E, Ex.PW22/F, Ex.PW22/G, Ex.PW22/H, Ex.PW23/A, Ex.PW23/B, Ex.PW23/C, Ex.PW23/D, Ex.PW23/E, Ex.PW23/F, Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B, Ex.PW26/C, Ex.PW26/D, Ex.PW26/E, Ex.PW26/F, Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW27/B and Pullanda' Ex.P12/P1, Ex.P12/P2, Ex.P12/P3, Ex.P12/P4, Ex.PX1, Ex.PX2 and Ex.MO-X3 were also tendered in evidence.
35. On 04.12.2024, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for examination of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and for their statements.
36. On 24.01.2025, this Court examined the accused persons, namely, Satender Pal @ Mintu, Amit and Seema under section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statements were recorded. During their examinations under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 15 of 87 Satender Pal denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. During his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused took the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, the deceased was suffering from mental illness and she was undergoing treatment for the said problem in her parental home and parental family members of the deceased were pressurizing him and his family members to take the deceased to his house but he was not inclined because the deceased was having suicidal tendency due to her mental illness. It is further stated that the deceased was suffering from mental illness to such an extent that she had pressed her small baby under her lap and killed her. It is further stated that on the day of incident, he was sleeping in his home and at around 02:30 midnight, when he woke up for urination, he saw his wife (since deceased) was lying in unconscious state as she attempted to commit suicide and she used to attempt suicide and for this reason, he left her in her parental home where she got treatment but the said illness could not be cured. It is further stated that he had no role in causing death of the deceased. It is further stated that it is a false case which has been converted into a murder case, instead of suicide case, by the police at the instance of family members of the deceased. It is further stated that he is innocent and has no involvement in the present incident at all and the witnesses have fabricated a false story in order to implicate him in the present case at the instance of the police. It is also stated that no incident with respect to vegetarian/non-vegetarian issue ever happened with family of the deceased and same are false allegation FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 16 of 87 to make out a case against him and his family members. It is further stated that she was never beaten, harassed or maltreated by him or his family members at any point of time and the accused expressed his desire not to lead evidence in his defence.
37. During the examination of the accused Amit under section 313 of Cr.P.C., he took the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he was residing with his wife on the separate floor i.e. 1st floor from the floor of deceased and her husband. It is further stated that his parents were residing separately on the ground floor of their house and he has no knowledge of the alleged incident. It is further stated that the family members of the deceased have leveled false allegations against him, his wife and his elder brother Satender Pal Singh in order to convert a suicide case into a murder case. It is further stated that the deceased was suffering from mental illness from a long time and she had attempted suicide on earlier occasions also, for which she was sent to her parental home in order to avoid any untoward incident. It is further stated that his marriage was solemnized with co-accused Seema 2-3 months ago from the date of incident and the deceased was never harassed, tortured or beaten by him or any of the family members. It is further stated that all the allegations leveled against him and co-accused persons are false and fabricated. It is further stated that on the fateful night, he and his wife were sleeping on his floor and came to know about the incident in the morning after arrival of the police and the accused expressed his desire not to lead evidence in his defence.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 17 of 8738. During the examination of the accused Seema under section 313 of Cr.P.C., she took the defence that she has been falsely implicated in the present case and she was residing on the separate floor i.e. 1st floor from the floor of the deceased and her husband. It is further stated that his parents in-law was residing separately on the ground floor of their house and she has no knowledge of the alleged incident. It is further stated that the family members of the deceased have leveled false allegations against her, her husband and her jeth Satender Pal Singh in order to convert a suicide case into a murder case and the deceased was suffering from mental illness from a long time and she had attempted suicide on earlier occasions also, for which she was sent to her parental home in order to avoid any untoward incident. It is further stated that her marriage was solemnized with Amit two/three months ago from the date of incident and the deceased was never harassed, tortured or beaten by him or any of the family members. It is further stated that all the allegations leveled against her and co-accused persons are false and fabricated and on the fateful night, she was sleeping in her floor and came to know about the incident in the morning after arrival of the police and the accused expressed her desire not to lead evidence in her defence.
39. I have heard Mr. Jagdamba Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Jitender Tyagi, Advocate for the accused persons and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 18 of 8740. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Anuj Negi, PW2 Dinesh Kashyap, PW3 Kisan Singh, PW4 Virender Singh, PW5 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Jogender Singh, PW6 Constable (Ct.) Ashwani, PW7 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Sajjan Kumar, PW8 Padam Singh, PW9 Balinder Singh, PW10 Suresh Kumar, PW11 Constable (Ct.) Niranjan, PW12 Sub-Inspector (SI) Subhash Chand, PW13 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, PW14 Constable (Ct.) Makhan Lal, PW15 W/Head Constable (HC) Geeta, PW16 Head Constable (HC) Vikas Tyagi, PW17 Sub-Inspector SI (SI) Manohar Lal, PW18 Ms. Anju Dixit, PW19 Dr. Abhineeth K.P. PW20 Sub-Inspector (SI) Hemant, PW21 Retired Inspector Dharampal Kalra, PW22 Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma, PW23 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Lalit Mohan, PW24 Assistant Sub- Inspector (ASI) Om Prakash, PW25 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, PW26 W/Head Constable (WHC) Seema and PW27 Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar, and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A7, Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/D1, Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW12/F, Ex.PW12/G, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW21/E, Ex.PW21/F, Ex.PW21/G, Ex.PW21/H, Ex.PW21/I, Ex.PW21/J, Ex.PW21/K, Ex.PW21/L, Ex.PW21/M, Ex.PW21/N, Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW22/B, Ex.PW22/C, Ex.PW22/D, Ex.PW22/E, Ex.PW22/F, Ex.PW22/G, FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 19 of 87 Ex.PW22/H, Ex.PW23/A, Ex.PW23/B, Ex.PW23/C, Ex.PW23/D, Ex.PW23/E, Ex.PW23/F, Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B, Ex.PW26/C, Ex.PW26/D, Ex.PW26/E, Ex.PW26/F, Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW27/B and Pullanda Ex.P12/P1, Ex.P12/P2, Ex.P12/P3, Ex.P12/P4, Ex.PX1, Ex.PX2 and Ex.MO-X3, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that in the light of evidence, the prosecution has been successful in proving the charge framed against the accused persons. It is further submitted that a PCR call, which is proved by PW15 WHC Geeta by producing PCR Form (Ex.PW15/A), was received from father of the accused Satender, which was marked to SI Subhash Chand, who along with Ct. Neeranjan went to the spot of incident and on the way, they met Satender Pal, who disclosed about his commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the PCR call was automatically recorded in the computer and the copy of PCR call is contained in CD which has been exhibited. It is further submitted that unfortunately, the neighbours of the accused persons turned hostile. It is further submitted that strangulation is proved by leading cogent evidence. It is further submitted that opinion on ligature material has been obtained. It is further submitted that although confession of the accused made in the police custody is not admissible but his conduct is very much admissible. It is further submitted that the accused Satender Pal is husband of the deceased, the accused Amit is the brother-in-law of the deceased and the accused Seema is her sister- in-law. It is further submitted that as per the postmortem report, three injuries were found on the person of the deceased and presence FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 20 of 87 of these injuries proved that the deceased was subjected to external force. It is further submitted that the judgment referred to on behalf of the accused persons is not applicable and is distinguishable from the present case on many grounds.
41. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused persons has drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Anuj Negi, PW2 Dinesh Kashyap, PW3 Kisan Singh, PW4 Virender Singh, PW5 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Jogender Singh, PW6 Constable (Ct.) Ashwani, PW7 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Sajjan Kumar, PW8 Padam Singh, PW9 Balinder Singh, PW10 Suresh Kumar, PW11 Constable (Ct.) Niranjan, PW12 Sub-Inspector (SI) Subhash Chand, PW13 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, PW14 Constable (Ct.) Makhan Lal, PW15 W/Head Constable (HC) Geeta, PW16 Head Constable (HC) Vikas Tyagi, PW17 Sub-Inspector SI (SI) Manohar Lal, PW18 Ms. Anju Dixit, PW19 Dr. Abhineeth K.P. PW20 Sub-Inspector (SI) Hemant, PW21 Retired Inspector Dharampal Kalra, PW22 Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma, PW23 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Lalit Mohan, PW24 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Om Prakash, PW25 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, PW26 W/Head Constable (WHC) Seema and PW27 Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar, and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A7, Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/D1, Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW12/F, Ex.PW12/G, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW15/A, FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 21 of 87 Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW21/E, Ex.PW21/F, Ex.PW21/G, Ex.PW21/H, Ex.PW21/I, Ex.PW21/J, Ex.PW21/K, Ex.PW21/L, Ex.PW21/M, Ex.PW21/N, Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW22/B, Ex.PW22/C, Ex.PW22/D, Ex.PW22/E, Ex.PW22/F, Ex.PW22/G, Ex.PW22/H, Ex.PW23/A, Ex.PW23/B, Ex.PW23/C, Ex.PW23/D, Ex.PW23/E, Ex.PW23/F, Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B, Ex.PW26/C, Ex.PW26/D, Ex.PW26/E, Ex.PW26/F, Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW27/B and Pullanda Ex.P12/P1, Ex.P12/P2, Ex.P12/P3, Ex.P12/P4, Ex.PX1, Ex.PX2 and Ex.MO-X3 and referred to the judgment in Jagdish Gond v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., 2025 INSC 460 and has submitted that no independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that voice sample of the accused Inderpal should have been taken and examined by the prosecution to establish that the call was made by the accused Inderpal only. It is further submitted that the deceased was not mentally stable. It is further submitted that the accused persons cannot be held guilty on the basis of presumptions under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act rather the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused persons by leading cogent evidence.
42. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
43. The accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. Section 302 FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 22 of 87 IPC provides for punishment of murder. Whereas, the offence of murder has been defined under section 300 IPC. Sections 300 and 34 IPC read as follows: -
"300. Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, if-
Secondly.- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offence knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
Thirdly.- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-
Fourthly.- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid."
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
44. The facts of the case have already been noticed earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 23 of 8745. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined twenty seven (27) witnesses.
46. PW1 Anuj Negi has deposed that he did not remember the date but one day, in the morning at about 05.00 a.m., the wife of Satender expired and the police had come to the house of the accused persons. It is further deposed by PW1 Anuj Negi that the police had asked him to drive the vehicle containing the dead-body to the hospital, so, he had driven the said vehicle to the hospital. PW1 Anuj Negi has further deposed that he did not know anything else about the present case. PW1 Anuj Negi has correctly identified the accused persons, namely, Satender Pal @ Mintu, Inder Pal, Omwati, Amit & Seema in the Court saying that they were his neighbours.
47. During the cross-examination on behalf of Addl. P.P. for the State, he admitted that on the morning of 07.06.2013, there were number of persons gathered outside the house of the accused Satender Pal and the police was also there. PW1 was not cross- examined by the defence.
48. PW2 Dinesh Kashyap has deposed that in the night of incident, he had come at about 11.30 p.m. and had gone for sleep as he was tired and the next morning, he had come to know about the death of the deceased Vimlesh. It is further deposed by PW2 Dinesh Kashyap that one police person had come to his place and that police had asked his name, parentage and the address. PW2 Dinesh Kashyap has further deposed that he did not know anything else FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 24 of 87 about the present case. PW2 Dinesh Kashyap has correctly identified the accused persons, namely, Satender Pal @ Mintu, Inder Pal, Omwati, Amit & Seema in the Court as they were his neighbours.
49. PW3 Kisan Singh has deposed that he had nine children i.e, five sons and four daughters including the deceased Vimlesh. It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that his daughter Vimlesh was married to the accused Satender about 8-9 years back and they were vegetarians whereas the accused persons were non-vegetarian and after the marriage of his daughter Vimlesh with the accused Satender, the accused persons used to compel his daughter Vimlesh to cook meat and fish for them and on refusal by his daughter, the accused persons used to quarrel, harass and beat her. It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that whenever the accused persons used to beat her and misbehave with her she used to come back to his place and initially, his daughter was sent back to her matrimonial home by Panchayat/respectable members of the society in the village but the beatings and harassment on the part of the accused persons continued so, his daughter Vimlesh was again brought home. It is further deposed by PW3 Sh. Kisan Singh that they had reported the matter to Baghpat Police and the matter was again pacified in the presence of the police and his daughter was again sent to her matrimonial home. It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that the accused persons treated well his daughter for about 15-20 days and thereafter, they again harassing and beating his daughter Vimlesh and his daughter used to tell that the accused Inderpal (father-in-law) used to abuse his FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 25 of 87 daughter and rest of the accused persons i.e, Satender and all other accused persons used to beat his daughter. It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that about one year back at about 04.00 a.m. initially, the police had informed them that his daughter was seriously ill but when they inquired from them, one of the constable informed them on phone that his daughter Vimlesh has already died and that his daughter Vimlesh has been shifted to the mortuary for the postmortem. It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that they had come to Delhi and had reached at the house of the accused persons and the house of the accused persons was locked, however, the neighbours present there told them that the previous night at about 09.00/10.00 p.m. when there was no light, they heard the quarrel from the house of the accused persons as the accused persons were beating his daughter and by that time the deceased Vimlesh had come out on the road from the house of the accused persons but the accused persons dragged his daughter back inside their house. It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that the neighbours also told them that after the accused persons dragged his daughter inside the house they again heard the screamings (hai-hulla) as the accused persons were still beating his daughter and then there was complete calm. It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that the neighbours also told them that the accused persons had shown the tamancha/pistol from the terrace and intimidated the neighbours not to become witness of the incident otherwise the witness would also be eliminated. It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that they had also visited the police station as well as the hospital where FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 26 of 87 postmortem was conducted. It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that the police recorded his statement to this effect and the accused persons were correctly identified by him in the Court.
50. PW4 Virender Singh has deposed that they are five brothers and four sisters and his younger sister, namely, Vimlesh was married to the accused Satender about eight-nine years prior to the incident. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that initially, the accused persons were staying at Nauroji Nagar jhuggis, thereafter, they shifted to Sourabh Vihar, Jaitpur and after marriage of his sister, the things were alright for few days, however, thereafter all the accused persons present in the court had started harassing his sister. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that they are satsangis and they do not consume liquor or eat fish or meat whereas the accused persons consume meat and also drink liquor and the accused persons used to compel his sister Vimlesh to cook meat and fish for them and when his sister used to refuse to cook meat or to eat meat, the accused persons used to beat his sister mercilessly. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that after about 2-3 years of marriage of his sister, she was so mercilessly beaten by the accused persons that she got mentally upset and had medical problems in her brain and the accused persons left his sister at his home. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that they got Vimlesh treated in Meerut Mental Hospital for two years and during this period neither the accused persons inquired about the whereabout/well-being of his sister nor they paid any money towards her treatment, thereafter the FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 27 of 87 respective members of the village intervened and a compromise arrived upon in the panchayat and his sister was sent to her matrimonial house in Jaitpur. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that for few days the accused persons treated his sister well but thereafter, they again had started harassing and beating his sister and in the month of January 2013, one of their neighbour namely Sunil informed them that Sunil had seen the accused persons and his sister in a vehicle in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh and had also seen that his sister was mercilessly beaten in the said vehicle. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that hearing this, they three/four brothers and some of their relatives had come to Delhi to see their sister but the accused Satender was not present at his home at that time and at about 11.00-12.00 p.m., the accused Satender along with four/five more persons had come to the house and all of them were under the influence of liquor and they had misbehaved and quarreled with them and they themselves had made a call at number 100. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that the police had come and did nothing and went from there, thereafter, the accused persons had called all their relatives and the relatives had come to their place in the night itself and in the following morning, they had gone to one of the relatives of the accused persons who was staying at the instance of about 100/150 yards away from the house of the accused persons and had asked them to intervene and pacify the matter and had also apprised them about the past night incident and after about 30-45 minutes, his sister was again mercilessly beaten by the accused persons and she had come to the said relatives where they were FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 28 of 87 sitting. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that his sister was bleeding from her mouth and other places and his sister informed them that when the accused persons were beating her, his younger brother, namely, Satender, who was also there, had come for her rescue pursuant to which, the accused persons had also beaten his younger brother and he had sustained severe head injuries (sar fad diya). It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that they immediately had come to the house of the accused persons in Sourabh Vihar and had seen that the accused persons had mercilessly beaten his brother. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that in order to falsely implicate them, the accused persons themselves had made a call at number 100 and the police had come there and accused Seema had got recorded to the police that they snatched her anklet, earrings and mangalsutra whereas the other accused persons had told the police that they had snatched Rs.50,000/- and two gold rings. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that one of the lady in the neighbourhood of the accused persons had given them a phone number which they dialed and they were asked to come to the Jaitpur police station and they had gone to Jaitpur police station. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that his sister deceased Vimlesh had got recorded her version to the police and the accused persons were called up in the police station. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that the allegations levelled by the accused persons against them turned out to be false during inquiry by the police and the matter was pacified by the intervention of the police and they had gone to the house of the accused persons and during FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 29 of 87 their stay of three days at the house of the accused persons, accused persons did not offer the meal or water to them. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that they did not consume the meal or water there and at about 1.30 a.m. in the night when they were sleeping at the terrace of the house of the accused persons, his sister Vimlesh had come to them and told that some persons had come in a vehicle and the accused persons in connivance of those persons can cause harm to them so she brought them to the room she was staying and bolted the room from inside and in the following morning, he asked the accused persons to let his sister accompany them to their place for treatment purposes and also asked them to let her son accompany her. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that after about five/six months of the birth of Master Adi, he was separated from his sister and the accused persons never used to allow him to meet his sister but he had taken Master Adi into his lap in order to take him, on this the mother-in-law of Vimlesh snatched Master Adi from him. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that he made the accused Satender Pal understood to let them take his sister and her son Adi with them and he can bring back them after about four days when the things become normal. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that as Master Adi remained separated from his sister for quite sometime so Adi started weeping and did not accompany them and they had taken their sister to their place and had asked the accused Satender to come to their place along with Master Adi after about four days. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that he FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 30 of 87 informed his family members about the complete incident at which his family members reported the matter to Mahila Cell.
51. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that his sister Vimlesh had preferred to stay with them as she was being ill- treated and beaten by the accused persons. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that somehow the accused Satender had come to know about the report having been made to Mahila Cell and had made a phone call to him and he had asked the accused Satender Pal to come along with Master Adi and had also assured Satender Pal that the matter can still be pacified and their matrimonial life can be saved. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that the accused Satender Pal along with his son Master Adi had come to their place thereafter, the matter was pacified in Mahila Cell, Baghpat and in the Mahila Cell, the family members and relatives of the accused Satender were present. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that his elder sister Maya was also present there and one of the relatives of the accused Satender had fallen in altercation with his elder sister Maya who slapped him, at this, the mother-in-law of Vimlesh, namely, Omwati had threatened that "abki baar Vimlesh ka patta saaf kardenge" and after sometime, the accused Satender along with Master Adi had gone to the house of one Madan and when they wanted to call Adi back from Madan's house, they had come to know that the accused Satender along with Master Adi had come back to Delhi. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that they immediately reported the incident to Mahila Cell, Baghpat and after FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 31 of 87 few days, the accused Satender again had come and had taken his sister Vimlesh with him though, his sister Vimlesh was reluctant in going back to her matrimonial house and she had also opposed the accused persons for keeping her in a separate house as she had apprehension that in separate house, she would be killed by them.
52. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that on 07.06.2013, the police of police station Jaitpur made a phone call to them at about 4.00-4:30 a.m. and initially, the police said that Vimlesh was mercilessly beaten and she was seriously ill and that she has been hospitalized and after sometime, the police had again made a phone call and during conversation, one constable informed them that the accused persons have killed his sister, thereafter, they had come to Delhi and had reached the house of the accused persons but the house of the accused persons was locked and the neighbours informed them that his sister was mercilessly beaten and was dragged by the accused persons before she was killed by them. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that they had gone to police station and thereafter, they had gone to the hospital where he had identified the dead-body of sister Vimlesh vide dead-body identification memo (Ex.PW4/A) and after the postmortem the dead- body of his sister was handed over to them vide dead-body handing over memo (Ex.PW4/B) and the investigating officer had recorded his statement to this effect. PW4 Virender Singh has correctly identified the accused Satender Pal @ Minto, Inderpal, Amit, Omwati and Seema in the Court.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 32 of 8753. PW5 ASI Jogender Singh has deposed that on 07.06.2013 he was working as Duty Officer at police station Jaitpur from 12.00 midnight to 8.00 a.m. and on the said date, an information, to the effect that the caller's son had killed his wife at O-458A, Sourabh Vihar, Jaitpur, was received on wireless set and he had reduced the said information into writing in the roznamcha in his own handwriting as DD No.7A (Ex.PW5/A). It is further deposed by PW5 ASI Jogender Singh that on the same day, SI Subhash Chand had sent the rukka through HC Omprakash for registration of case and he recorded formal FIR (Ex.PW5/B) and after registration of case, he had handed over the rukka and copy of the FIR to HC Omprakash with the instructions to take the same to Inspector D.P.Kalra as Inspector D.P.Kalra was entrusted with the investigation of the case and made endorsement (Ex.PW5/C) on rukka.
54. It is further deposed by PW5 ASI Jogender Singh that he had also made an entry in the roznamcha at serial number as DD No.10A while started recording the FIR and also made an entry as DD No.11A when the said FIR was summed up vide DD entries (Ex.PW5/D collectively) and he had also forwarded the photocopies of the FIR to the concerned Elaka Magistrate and the police officer in hierarchy through constable Nemichand as special messenger.
55. PW6 Ct. Ashwani has deposed that on 07.06.2013, he was posted as Constable (photographer) in Crime-Team, South-East District, C.R. Park and on the said day, upon receipt of information, he along with ASI Sajjan Kumar, in-charge of the Crime Team and FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 33 of 87 the HC Kirti Kumar (proficient) had reached at the spot i.e. 0-458 A, 2nd Floor, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur where Inspector D.P. Kalra was present. It is further deposed by PW6 Ct. Ashwani that one female dead-body was lying in the balcony and as per the instructions of the investigating officer, he clicked seven photographs of the spot from different angles and the seven negatives (Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A7) and the positives (Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7) of the same were given to the investigating officer, thereafter, the investigating officer had recorded his statement to this effect.
56. PW7 ASI Sajjan Kumar has deposed that on 07.06.2013, he was posted as in-charge Crime-Team, South-East District, C.R. Park and on the said day, he along with Ct. Ashwani (photographer) and HC Kirti Kumar (proficient) had reached at the spot i.e. 0-458 A, 2nd Floor, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur where Inspector D.P. Kalra was present. It is further deposed by PW7 ASI Sajjan Kumar that one female dead-body was lying in the balcony and as per the instructions of the investigating officer, he had inspected the scene of crime and had prepared his detailed report (Ex.PW7/A) and Ct. Ashwani (photographer) had clicked seven photographs of the spot from different angles, however, no fingerprint could be lifted from the spot and the investigating officer had recorded his statement to that effect.
57. PW8 Padam Singh has deposed that they were nine siblings i.e. five brothers and four sisters and the deceased Vimlesh was his youngest sister. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 34 of 87 that about 8-9 years prior to the incident, his sister Vimlesh was married to the accused Satender and at the time of marriage, the family of the accused used to reside in the jhuggis of Nauroji Nagar. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they were Satsangis by fate and they do not eat non-vegetarian food, however, the accused persons are non-vegetarians and the accused persons used to ask his sister Vimlesh to prepare non-veg food for them and on refusal on her part, the accused persons used to beat and harass her. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that after about 2-2.5 years of the marriage of Vimlesh, the accused persons had mercilessly beaten her for not making the non-vegetarian food for them due to which she had sustained injuries on the back side of her head. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that his sister was treated in a hospital at Meerut for the aforesaid injuries and his sister Vimlesh was blessed with a female child and after about 1-1.5 months of her birth, the accused persons along with his sister had come to the place of their relatives in their village itself and they had also brought his sister Vimlesh with them. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that the accused persons had spoken to their relatives in their village that they wanted separation of Satender from his sister and asked the said relatives to get the matter compromised in which they can divorce his sister but their relatives told them that it cannot be done, thereafter the accused persons along with his sister Vimlesh had come to their house. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they had asked Vimlesh the reason as to why all her in-laws have come and his sister told that during the course of journey from Delhi FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 35 of 87 to Badaut and thereafter to their village, the accused persons were having conversation that anyhow they had to get rid-off him. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that when they had conversation with the accused persons at their place and asked them to get separated from his sister if they so wish, the accused persons denied. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they had come back along with his sister, thereafter, the accused persons had again started harassing and beating his sister and the accused persons had so mercilessly beaten Vimlesh that she had gone to the nearby house of the bua of the accused Satender in order to rescue herself. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that the bua of the accused Satender had made a phone call to them and said that either they themself should kill Vimlesh or should bring her back to their place keeping in view the mal-treatment/harassment given to her by the accused persons. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that hearing this, his brother Virender, younger brother Satender Kumar, his brother-in-law Suresh along with two-three more persons had come to the house of the accused persons in Delhi and the accused persons misbehaved with them also. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that his brother Virender, jija Suresh along with other persons had gone to the house of the bua of the accused to know about the intentions of the accused persons whereas his younger brother Satender had stayed back with his sister Vimlesh at her matrimonial house. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that in the presence of his brother Satender, the accused Seema had started beating his sister Vimlesh and out of anger, his brother FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 36 of 87 Satender had pushed Seema pursuant to which, all the accused persons had started mercilessly beating his sister Vimlesh as well as his brother Satender. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that his brother Satender had sustained head injuries and received six stitches in his head and the accused persons had also called up the police on the pretext that they had stolen a cash of about Rs.1 lakh and the jewellery etc. from their house. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that one lady staying in the neighbourhood provided them the phone number of the Women Cell and had asked to make a call in the Women Cell otherwise the accused persons would falsely implicate them and the police had taken them to the police station. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that the police did not hear their version and his brother-in-law Suresh had made a phone call to the Women Cell and the Women Cell officials had contacted the local police and the local SHO compelled them to go for compromise and his sister Vimlesh was also inclined for compromise accordingly, the matter was compromised in the police station. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that few days thereafter Vimlesh had come to their house and Vimlesh had told that she was kept at upstairs and that her husband accused Satender did not visit his sister and that accused Satender used to eat the food downstairs and that the accused persons did not provide the milk to feed the baby. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that Vimlesh had also told them that every time they used to ask his sister to accompany the accused Satender for her matrimonial house and this time, his sister would not go as the accused persons had planned to kill her and his FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 37 of 87 sister had also asked them to first report the matter to the Women Cell i.e. Mahila Police Station, Baghpat and his sister Vimlesh accordingly had reported the matter to the Mahila Police Station, Baghpat. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that after about four-five dates, the officials of Mahila Police Station, Baghpat got the matter pacified subject to the condition that eight-nine persons would take guarantee that Vimlesh would not be ill-treated pursuant to which, the matter was compromised. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that the accused persons had also brought the child (son of Vimlesh) to Mahila police station, Baghpat and by the intervention of the police, the child was given to Vimlesh otherwise, the accused persons never wished to give the child to Vimlesh. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they brought Vimlesh and her son to their place and from their place, the accused persons were to take her with them and about four-five days thereafter, the accused Satender had come to their place and had asked that he has come to take Vimlesh and the child with her. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they were away in their farming fields and mother of the accused had asked the accused to take meal and thereafter, the accused can take Vimlesh along with the son but the accused Satender had taken the son with him leaving his sister Vimlesh and when they had come back home they inquired about the son of Vimlesh and had come to know that the accused Satender had come and the child was with him. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they had gone to the house of the relatives of the accused Satender but the accused Satender was not present there, thereafter, FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 38 of 87 they had made a phone call to the accused to which the accused said that he wanted his son and that he had taken him back. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they had again approached Mahila Police Station, Baghpat who called up the accused Satender along with the son and again the son was handed over to Vimlesh and again after about four-five days, the accused Satender had come to their home and had taken Vimlesh along with her son, thereafter, whenever they used to make a phone call, the accused persons did not get them connect to Vimlesh on one pretext or the other and about 15-20 days thereafter, he had come to Delhi to sell the flowers and at that time, he had gone to the house of the accused persons. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that Vimlesh had started weeping seeing him there and said that there was no gas in the cylinder otherwise, she would have served him the tea while sitting his foot touched with a pot meant for mixing the flour and he saw that one half cooked bread (chappati) and some quantity of wet flour and some dry flour was kept in the said pot. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that at his instance, Vimlesh had told him that for last two days, the accused persons did not get the gas filled-up in the cylinder and that she was hungry for last two days, thereafter, he called up Satender upstairs and Satender abused him out of anger and asked him that if the accused Satender has meal downstairs then why the accused did not provide the gas upstairs so that Vimlesh can make food for herself and for the children, hearing this, all the accused persons had come upstairs and the accused Omwati had slapped Vimlesh twice/thrice and said that she was back-biting when FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 39 of 87 he had objected as to why she slapped Vimlesh, Omwati said that they would kill Vimlesh and what would he do if the accused persons kill Vimlesh. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that the accused Inder had also repeated the warning and had asked that whatever they will do they can if they kill Vimlesh, thereafter, the accused Satender had got filled-up one kg gas in the cylinder, thereafter, he had come back home and after about 2-2.5 months, the birthday of the son of his sister Vimlesh was to be celebrated and Vimlesh had asked the accused persons to invite them also as they were inviting so many invities. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that the accused person had refused to invite them and on this issue, they had beaten Vimlesh and everytime the accused Seema used to start the beating, later on, he was invited to the birthday on phone whereafter, he had come to attend the birthday of his nephew and he had not brought any gift but he had given cash to the accused Satender for buying the toys and wearing apparel for his nephew. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that after the function was over and the family members of the accused including the chachas (uncles) gathered, all of them made the accused Satender understood not to harass Vimlesh and to keep her properly and the accused Satender had exceeded to the said preaching. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that he had also got cooked the food from Vimlesh and consumed the same and prior to that, the accused was eating food with the accused Seema for last about 3-4 months and on the intervening night of 6-7/6/2013, the police from Delhi had made a phone call to them at about 04.00 a.m. and had informed that the FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 40 of 87 accused persons had quarreled with Vimlesh and had beaten her and had asked them to come to Delhi. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they did not take the message seriously and after sometime, the police had again made a phone call and during conversation another police man had taken the phone from caller and had informed that the accused persons had killed Vimlesh. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that hearing this, they had come to Delhi and had reached at the house of the accused persons and the house of the accused persons was locked so they had gone to the house of the bua of the accused Satender who told that all the accused persons had jointly killed Vimlesh and Bua had also told them that once she had come to the road by escaping from the clutches of the accused persons, all of them had again dragged her into their house and had killed her. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that his deceased sister also told them that the police had removed the dead-body in the morning at about 05.00 a.m. and they had also inquired from the neighbours of the accused persons who told that at about 11.00 p.m. in the night when there was no light, the accused persons were beating her and when she rescued herself and came out, the accused Satender, Inderpal, Omwati, Amit and Seema had dragged her inside and were beating her. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they had also told that they heard the shouting/screaming of Vimlesh in the night and thereafter, there was complete calm, thereafter, they had gone to the police station, where they had come to know that they have sent the dead-body for postmortem and after the postmortem, the dead-body was handed FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 41 of 87 over to them. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that all the accused persons namely Satender, Inderpal, Omwati, Amit and Seema had killed his sister Vimlesh and the investigating officer had recorded his statement to this effect.
58. PW9 Balinder Singh has deposed that they were five brothers and four sisters and he was the youngest one in the family and the marriage of his sister Vimlesh was solemnized with the accused Satender Pal, who used to stay in Narauji Nagar about eight/nine years back and after two years of marriage, the accused Satender Pal used to beat his sister Vimlesh and the other accused persons i.e. father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in- law used to harass her. It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that on many occasions whenever Vimlesh used to make a complaint about the accused persons, accused persons used to say her that things would be alright very soon and on 22.01.2013 the accused Satender made a phone call to him and said that there was some issue in the house and asked him to come there. It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that on 23.01.2013 he along with Virender, Suresh, Satinder and Padam had come to the house of the accused Satender and made their sister Vimlesh as well as the accused Satender understood in order to pacify the matter. It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that the accused Satender was under
the influence of liquor and since the accused Satender did not hear them and was adamant so, except his brother namely Satinder, went to the house of the Bua of the accused in the same locality and told FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 42 of 87 her about the conduct of the accused. It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that in their absence, the accused persons had mercilessly beaten-up his brother Satinder and the accused Vimlesh. It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that his brother Satinder sustained serious head injuries and his sister also had injuries. It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that the accused person had also called the police and they had gone to police station Jaitpur where the accused persons levelled false allegation against them that they committed a theft of 25 grams (2 and a half tola) gold and Rs.50,000/- but in order to save the matrimonial life of his sister Vimlesh, they somehow pacified the matter and they again had come to the house of the accused person. It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that the accused persons did not even offer food to them and they remained hungry. It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that they took their sister with them and they put the matter in Mahila Police Station, Baghpat and in Baghpat also, the matter was pacified by the police and the other respectable persons pursuant to which, they sent their sister with the accused persons. It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that after about 4-5 months, the police made a phone call to him on 07.06.2013 at about 3 am and the police initially did not inform the death of his sister and some quarrel was going with her and asked to come to Delhi. It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that when he along with his brother Virender, Padam and Suresh were coming to Delhi, on the way, the police made many phone calls to reach Delhi in one of the call, the police informed that his sister Vimlesh has been killed and FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 43 of 87 they reached the house of the accused. It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that the house of the accused persons was locked and on inquiry, the neighbour informed that in the previous night when the accused persons were beating his sister Vimlesh, Vimlesh came out their house but the accused persons dragged her into the house and were mercilessly beating her. It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that on the next day i.e. 08.06.2013 after the postmartom of his sister Vimlesh, the dead-body was handed over to them vide dead-body (Memo 4/B). It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that the investigating officer had recorded his statement to this effect. PW9 Balinder Singh has correctly identified the accused Satender, Inderpal, Amit, Seema and Omwati in the Court.
59. PW10 Suresh Kumar has deposed that he was a diesel mechanic and the deceased Vimlesh was his sister-in-law (Saali) and she was married with Satender Pal about eight-ten years ago from the date of commission of offence. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that he had heard from the family members of accused that deceased was living happily at her matrimonial house and he had not visited the matrimonial house of deceased for about 1½ year after her marriage and after about two years of the marriage of deceased, he had gone to her matrimonial house along with his wife. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that he had heard from the deceased that the accused and his family are non-vegetarian and frequent quarrels took place due to said reason between the deceased FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 44 of 87 and her in-laws. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that sometimes Punchayats were organised at village Dhanora (the parental house of deceased) and matter was got compromised with the help of Punchayat.
60. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that in the month of January, 2013, a quarrel took place with the accused and the deceased and he had received message from his in-laws regarding the same, thereafter, he accompanied his in-laws to the matrimonial house of deceased for the first time. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that the deceased was living alone on the second floor without any basic facilities whereas her husband used to reside along with his family on the ground floor and they had stayed at the house of maternal aunt of the accused in a separate house. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that the accused along with family members had given beatings to his in-laws i.e. his elder sister-in-law, his brother-in-law (Satender) and deceased. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that the police was also called by the accused for the aforesaid incident and allegations regarding theft of Rs.50,000/- and one gold neckless were made against his in-laws and police report was lodged in this regard, thereafter, police had taken his aforesaid in-laws at police station Jaitpur. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that the police got compromised the matter between both the parties, thereafter, the deceased had returned to her matrimonial house and she got registered separate case at police station Baghpat, Mahila Police Station where the said matter was FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 45 of 87 also got compromised. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that the deceased was saying that despite compromise she would be murdered by her in-laws and she was not ready to go at her matrimonial house but the family members of the deceased had consoled her and she returned to her matrimonial house. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that in the month of May/June, he heard regarding death of deceased from his brother-in-law namely Balender. PW10 Suresh Kumar has correctly identified accused persons namely Satender, Inderpal (father-in-law), mother-in-law of deceased, sister-in-law of deceased (devrani) and brother-in-law of deceased saying that they were involved in the present case.
61. PW11 Ct. Niranjan has deposed that on 07.06.2013, he was working as Constable at the police station Jaitpur and on that day, at about 2:30 a.m., the investigating officer had received DD No.7A, then he along with SI Subhash had reached at O-458A, Saurabh Vihar, New Delhi, where they saw that a dead-body of a lady was lying near railing of the house and after inquiry, name of the lady was revealed as Vimlesh. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Niranjan that the body of lady was lying with the side of railing and her legs were towards the East direction, her neck was down towards the side of ground floor and she was wearing green colour salwar and green colour chunni. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Niranjan that there was a mark on the neck of the body of the deceased and some spot of blood were also found near kitchen. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Niranjan that crime-team was also called at the spot and FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 46 of 87 Additional SHO also arrived there and crime-team had conducted inspection of the spot and had taken the photographs of the spot, then, SI Subhash had prepared a letter and had sent him to AIIMS along with the dead-body where MLC of Vimlesh was prepared and her body was got preserved for 48 hours. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Niranjan that on 07.12.2013, SI Subhash had come to the mortuary and dead-body was identified by her brother and father and the postmortem was got conducted. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Niranjan that after the postmortem, dead-body was handed over to the father and brother of the deceased and the jewellery of the deceased was handed over to the brother of the deceased by the doctor. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Niranjan that after the postmortem, doctor had prepared some pullandas and had sealed the same vide memo (Ex.PW11/A) and after sealing, the sample seal was handed over to him and after sometime, he had handed over the sample seal to the investigating officer.
62. PW12 SI Subhash Chand has deposed that in the intervening night of 06/07.06.2013, he was on emergency duty and at around 2.30 a.m., he had received DD No.7A regarding murder of a woman by her husband at 0-458A, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur and after receiving the same, he along with Ct. Niranjan had reached at the spot and he had found that a dead-body of a woman was lying in the balcony on the second floor of the abovesaid premises and the injury marks on her face and neck were visible. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Subhash Chand that a small plastic stool of sky blue colour FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 47 of 87 was also lying over there having bloodstains on it and pieces of broken bangles were also scattered, one hair clip was lying on the floor and the right fist of the deceased was having hairs. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Subhash Chand that he had informed the senior officers and Inspector D.P. Kalra along with staff had come at the spot and the crime-team was also called at the spot and the crime- team had inspected the spot and taken photographs. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Subhash Chand that no eye-witness had met him at the spot and he had put his endorsement (Ex.PW12/A) on DD No.7A at point A, prepared the rukka and had given it to the HC Om Prakash and had sent him to police station Jaitpur for registration of FIR. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Subhash Chand that the dead- body was sent to AIIMS Morturary by a private vehicle and he had collected the exhibits from the spot as per seizure memo (Ex.PW12/B) and pullanda of the exhibits were prepared and it was duly sealed with the seal of 'SC'. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Subhash Chand that Inspector D.P. Kalra had prepared a site-plan (Ex.PW12/C) of the spot and the dead-body of the deceased woman was got preserved at AIIMS Mortuary vide his request letter (Ex.PW12/D).
63. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Subhash Chand that on 08.06.2013, he had filled-up Form No.25, 35 (1) (B) (Ex.PW12/D1) and he had made a request to get the postmortem conducted at AIIMS Mortuary vide (Ex.PW12/E) and he also made a request (Ex.PW12/F) to the CMO AIIMS Mortuary for removing the FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 48 of 87 ornaments of deceased. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Subhash Chand that the ornaments of the deceased was handed over the brother of the deceased vide (Ex.PW12/G) and the postmortem was got conducted and the dead-body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. PW12 SI Subhash Chand has correctly identified small plastic stool of sky blue colour having blood stains (Ex.PW12/P1) saying that the same stool which had been recovered from the spot, has also correctly identified pieces of broken bangles (Ex.PW12/P2) saying that the same had been recovered from the spot, has also correctly identified some hairs (Ex.PW12/P3) saying that the same had been recovered from the spot, has also correctly identified the hair clip (Ex.PW12/P4) saying that the same had been recovered from the spot.
64. PW13 Inspector Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 15.06.2013, he was posted as SI/Draughtsman at Crime Branch PHQ and on that day, at the request of Inspector Dharam Pal Kalra, he had reached at police station Jaitpur and from there he along with Inspector Dharam Pal Kalra and SI Subhash Chand had reached at the spot i.e. Second Floor of House No.0-458А, Saurabh Vihar, Jait Pur and at the spot, he had taken measurements and had prepared rough notes at the instance of Dharam Pal Kalra and SI Subhash Chand. It is further deposed by PW13 Inspector Mahesh Kumar that on 11.07.2013, on the basis of abovesaid rough notes and measurements, he had prepared scaled site-plan and had handed over FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 49 of 87 the same to investigating officer and he had destroyed the rough notes after preparation of scaled site-plan (Ex.PW13/A).
65. PW14 Ct. Makhan Lal has deposed that on 10.07.2013, he had taken seven exhibits from malkhana of police station Jaitpur and got it deposited at FSL Rohini, thereafter, he had come back at police station Jaitpur and had handed over the receiving (Mark PW14/A) of the exhibits to MHC(M) police station Jaitpur and the exhibits were not tampered till it remained in his possession.
66. PW15 WHC Geeta has deposed that on 07.06.2013, she was working as wireless operator in control room of PHQ and on that day, at about 2.30 a.m., a call was received in Police Control Room that son of caller had killed his wife and she reduced said information into writing vide PCR Form (Ex.15/A).
67. PW16 HC Vikas Tyagi has deposed that on 07.06.2013, he had gone to the hospital along with the accused Satender Pal Singh for his medical examination and after the medical examination, he had obtained pullandas given by the doctor duly sealed with the seal of AlIIMS and had handed over to the investigating officer who seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/A).
68. PW17 SI Manohar Lal has deposed that on 29.01.2013, he was working as SI at Mahila Thana District Baghpat, U.P and on that day, complainant Smt. Kamlesh had come to the police station FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 50 of 87 and had produced him her complaint against her in-laws. It is further deposed by PW17 SI Manohar Lal that during inquiry, he had called both the parties in the police station and after some efforts compromise had arrived between the parties. It is further deposed by PW17 SI Manohar Lal that he had filed the complaint on records and certified copy of the complaint was handed over to the investigating officer of the case and has also brought the original complaint (Ex.PW17/A) given by the complainant to him.
69. PW18 Ms. Anju Dixit, MRT, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi has deposed that she was working in AIIMS as Medical Technician since February 2007 and she has brought the original register containing record of MLC bearing No.5514/13 dated 07.06.2013 (Ex.PW18/A) of Mrs. Vimlesh 35 years female. It is further deposed by PW18 Ms. Anju Dixit that the said MLC was prepared by Dr. Pranay Choubey who had left the services of AIIMS and she identified the signature of Dr. Pranay Choubey at point A on the said MLC as she had worked with him and seen him signing and writing during course of her duty and the patient was declared brought dead.
70. PW19 Dr. Abhineeth K.P., Senior Resident (Surgery), AIIMS, New Delhi has deposed that he was working as above since year 2018 and he has been deputed by Medical Superintendent to depose on behalf of Dr. Pranay Chobey in reference to MLC No.5514/13 of Mrs. Vimlesh vide authority letter (Ex.PW19/A) bearing signature of Medical Superintendent at point A. It is further FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 51 of 87 deposed by PW19 Dr. Abhineeth K.P. that he has seen the aforementioned original MLC available on record (Ex.PW18/A) as per which, patient Mrs. Vimlesh, 35 years female was brought to casualty department with alleged history of strangulation by her husband and as per the MLC, rigormortis was present, pupils were fixed and dilated and BP and pulse not recordable and the body was received with the cloth used for strangulation found tied around the neck and the patient was declared brought dead.
71. PW20 SI Hemant has deposed that on 24.01.2013, he was on emergency duty in the police station and during his duty hours at about 12.40 a.m., a DD number 5B (Ex.PW20/A) was recorded regarding the information about a quarrel in the area of O block house number 458A Saurav Vihar Jaitpur and in pursuance of the said information, he along with constable Sanjay had gone to O- block house number 458A Saurav Vihar Jaitpur and upon reaching there, the caller Satender who was present as accused in the court met him and told that there was some altercations between his family members and by that time they had settled the matter amicably, therefore, the DD No.5B was filed. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Hemant that he had recorded his arrival DD No.17A dated 24.01.2013 (Ex.PW20/B) to police station from the spot.
72. PW21 Inspector (Retired) Dharampal Kalra has deposed that on 07.06.2013 he was posted as Inspector/ATO at police station Jaitpur and on that day, while he was on night patrolling duty and during the patrolling, the Duty Officer had informed him that he had FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 52 of 87 received a call regarding a murder of a lady by her husband in the area of Saurbh Vihar and in pursuance of the said call, he had reached at the house in the O-Block, Saurabh Vihar where SI Subhash had met him with staff who told him about the facts. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that the FIR had been got recorded by that time and the rough site-plan was prepared by SI Subhash Chand and had also sent the dead-body before he had reached there. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that SI Subhash had collected the exhibits from the spot through seizure memo (Ex.PW12/B) and had obtained the inspection report from the in-charge of Mobile Crime-Team and had recorded the statements of witness under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that he had also prepared the site map (Ex.PW12/C) of the place where the dead- body was found at the instance of SI Subhash. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that on 07.06.2013, he had arrested the accused Satender Pal in this case vide arrest memo (Ex.PW21/A), his personal search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW21/B) and had also recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.PW21/C). It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that nothing could be recovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement and the accused was got medically examined and his blood sample was given by doctor in sealed condition through constable Vikas which he had seized through seizure memo (Ex.PW16/A) and had recorded the statement of two persons who identified the dead- body vide (Ex.PW21/D and Ex.PW4/A). It is further deposed by FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 53 of 87 PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that on 08.06.2013, the dead-body was handed over to his legal heirs vide receipt (Ex.PW4/B) and had seized the wearing bloodstained clothes of accused i.e. one t-shirt and one lower through seizure memo (Ex.PW21/E) and sealed them with the seal of 'DPK'. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that Mark E was given to the said parcel and he had given request to the doctor for the opinion about the chunni vide his request (Ex.PW21/F), thereafter, the investigation was assigned to some other officer as he was transferred from there. PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra has correctly identified the accused Satender in the Court and has also correctly identified t-shirt having blue strips and cut marks (Ex.PX1) and one lower of grey and blue colours also having cut marks (Ex.PX2) saying that these clothes were seized by him and belonged to Satender Pal and at the time of seizure, the same were having bloodstains but the places of blood- stains have been cut by the FSL.
73. PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra has further deposed that during investigation, he had served notice under section 91 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW21/G) to the SHO Mahila police station District Baghpat, U.P. to receive earlier complaint between the parties and copy of their settlement arrived in Mahila police station District Baghpat, U.P. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that in pursuance to his aforesaid notice, he had received certified copies of relevant document that is complaint dated 29.01.2013 of victim Vimlesh (since deceased) (Ex.PW21/H) (2 FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 54 of 87 pages), certified copies of compromise dated 24.02.2013 between accused Satender Pal @ Mintu and his wife/victim Vimlesh (Ex.PW21/1) (2 pages), and certified copy of report of enquiry officer of Mahila Police Station Bhagpat UP, (Ex.PW21/J). It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that during investigation, he had sent request to obtain PCR form of present case regarding intimation dated 07.06.2013 at about 02.30 a.m., (Ex.PW21/K) and in pursuance of his requisition, he had received PCR form (Ex.PW21/L). It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that during investigation, he got sent request to Addl. C.P. (PCR) Delhi Police through Addl. D.C.P. SED Delhi for receiving voice recording of PCR call which was later forwarded to police station Jaitpur and recorded vide DD No.7A dated 07.06.2013 at 02.30 a.m. (Ex.PW21/M) and in pursuance same during investigation on 12.07.2013 Head Constable Mathew George, PCR 4th Floor PHQ Delhi had produced one CD regarding voice recording of caller Inderpal R/o O-458/A, Saurabh Vihar, N.D. in which he intimated that "caller ke ladke ne apni wife ko maar diya hai" through his mobile number 9910128067. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that he had sealed the said CD in white cloth pullanda and sealed with seal of 'DPK' and had seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW21/N). PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra has correctly identified the CD as above stated CD (Ex.MO-X3) received from PCR PHQ Delhi and the said CD was played and conversation was heard which is of two persons that was one lady and one male and the male voice was heard saying "Inderpal bol rha FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 55 of 87 hu, bete ne apni patni ko maar diya hai aur thane chala gya hai". On the request of learned Addl. PP for the State the CD (Ex.MO-X3) was retained on the Juidical file.
74. PW22 Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma has deposed that on 19.08.2013, the present case file was marked to him for further investigation after the transfer of Inspector Dharampal Kalra, thereafter, he had arrested the accused persons Inderpal and Anil vide their arrest memos (Ex.PW22/A and Ex.PW22/B), their personal searches were conducted vide memos (Ex.PW22/C and Ex.PW22/D). It is further deposed by PW22 Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma that he had also recorded their disclosure statements (Ex.PW22/E and Ex.PW22/F) and had also prepared pointing out memo at their instance (Ex.PW22/G and Ex.PW22/H). It is further deposed by PW22 Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma that he had recorded the statement of witnesses, thereafter, he was transferred to NFC and file was deposited with MHC(R) and the accused Amit was correctly identified.
75. PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan has deposed that on 07.06.2013, he had received five sealed pullandas out of which four pullandas were duly sealed with the seal of 'SC' and one pullanda was sealed with the seal of DPK along with 2 sample seal of AIIMS Hospital New Delhi through SI Shubhash Chandra. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that he had entered the same in the register numer 19 with entry number 1059 (Ex.PW23/A). It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that on 12.06.2013, he had FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 56 of 87 received five sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS along with one sample seal of AIIMS Hospital New Delhi through Inspector D.P Kalra. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that he had entered the same in the register number 19 with entry number 1070 (Ex.PW23/B). It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that on 12.07.2013, Inspector ATO police station Jaitpur handed over him one pullanda duly sealed with the seal of DPK and he had entered the same in the register number 19 with entry number 1124 (Ex.PW23/C). It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that on 04.09.2013, Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma had handed over him the articles recovered from the personal search of the accused Amit and Inderpal and he had entered the same in the register number 19 with entry number 1272 (Ex.PW23/D). It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that on 10.07.2013, he had handed over seven pullandas and 2 sample seal to Constable Makhan Lal vide road certificate number 131/21/13 to deposit with FSL and after depositing the case-property Constable Makhan Lal had handed over to him the acknowledgment slip which he had entered into the register number 19. PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan has brought the register number 19 in which Sr. No.1059 pertaining to this case vide entries (Ex.PW23/E and receipt Ex.PW23/F). It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that on 01.07.2014, he had received the result of the FSL through Ct. Wasim and had handed over the same to Inspector Ravinder Kumar. PW24 ASI Om Prakash has deposed that on 07.06.2013, he was on patrolling duty and his duty hours were FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 57 of 87 from to 12.00 mid night to 05.00 a.m. and at about 02.45-03.00 a.m., he had met the accused Satender Pal at House No.0-458A, Saurav Vihar and the accused told that he had killed his wife, in the meanwhile, SI Subhash Nagar, Ct. Niranjan and Inspector D.P Kalra had also reached there, thereafter, they had gone to the second floor of the said house and had found that one lady was lying with the help of railing and had found wound on her neck and broken bangles were found on the floor. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that they had also found a bloodstained plastic patri lying on the floor, thereafter, Inspector D.P Kalra had called crime-team officials and crime-team official had come and had taken the photograph of the spot. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that SI Shubhash had prepared tehrir and had handed over him for registration of FIR, thereafter, he had gone to police station and got the present case registered. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that after registration of the case, he had come back to the spot and had handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to the investigating officer Inspector D.P Kalra, thereafter, the investigating officer had arrested the accused Satender Pal vide arrest memo (Ex.PW21/A) and conducted his personal search vide memo (Ex.PW21/B) and the investigating officer had also recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.PW21/C). It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that the investigating officer had also seized the wearing clothes of the accused Satender Pal vide seizure memo (Ex.PW21/E), thereafter, the investigating officer had recorded his statement. PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan has correctly identified Satender.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 58 of 8776. PW25 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, Professor and Addl. Medical Superintendent, JPN APEX Trauma Center, AIIMS New Delhi has deposed that he was working with JPN Apex Trauma Center since 2006 and has seen the postmortem report of the deceased Vimlesh (Ex.PW25/A) and has identified signatures of Dr. Shashank Punia at Point 'A' on each page as he was his student and he had seen him writing and signing.
77. PW26 WHC Seema has deposed that on 11.11.2013, she had joined the investigation of the present case and had accompanied the IO/Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar to Saket Court and on that day, the accused Seema present in the Court and the accused Omwati (since died) had surrendered before the concerned Court. It is further deposed by PW26 WHC Seema that the investigating officer, after taking permission from the Court had interrogated and arrested them in her presence vide arrest memo of the accused Seema (Ex.PW26/A) and the arrest memo of the accused Omwati (Ex.PW26/B) and their personal search was also conducted vide memo (Ex.PW26/C & PW26/D). It is further deposed by PW26 WHC Seema that she had also recorded their disclosure statement vide disclosure statement of the accused Omwati (Ex.PW26/E) and te accused Seema (Ex.PW26/F).
78. PW27 Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar has deposed that on 11.11.2013, the present case was assigned to him for further investigation and pursuant to the information received from the Court of learned ASJ where the trial of the present case was pending, FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 59 of 87 regarding surrender of the accused persons Omwati and Seema before the Court, he along with W/Constable Versha and W/Constable Seema had reached the said Court and after taking permission from the Court, he had interrogated both the said accused persons and arrested them vide arrest memo of the accused Seema (Ex.PW26/A) and her personal search was also conducted vide memo (Ex.PW26/C). It is further deposed by PW27 Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar has deposed that the arrest memo of the accused Omwati (Ex.PW26/B), her personal search was also conducted vide memo (Ex.PW26/D) and he also recorded disclosure statement of both the said accused persons vide memo of the accused Seema (Ex.PW26/F) and the disclosure statement of the accused Omwati (Ex.PW26/E). It is further deposed by PW27 Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar that he had recorded the statement of the witnesses who had been associated with him in the said proceedings and prepared the supplementary charge-sheet qua the said proceedings and submitted the same before the said Court.
79. It is further deposed by PW27 Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar that on 08.01.2015, he had also submitted the FSL report of biology division (Ex.PW27/A) (running into two pages) vide his application (Ex.PW27/B) and he tendered the same in evidence. PW27 Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar has correctly identified the accused Seema in the Court and the accused Omwati has died.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 60 of 8780. It is also important to note here that during prosecution evidence, on 01.10.2024, the accused Satender Pal Singh, Amit and Seema had made joint statement under section 294 Cr.P.C., which is reproduced as under:-
"We have consulted with our lawyer. We are not disputing the genuineness of the document i.e. FSL No.2013/B-5682 ΒΙΟ No.757/13 dated 22.05.14, which is already Ex.PW27/A."
81. The above-mentioned document will be read in evidence as per Section 294 Cr.P.C.
82. In the light of the charge framed against the accused persons and the arguments advanced before the Court, following are the points for determination:
1) Whether the accused persons have caused death of the deceased Vimlesh by strangulating by means of chunni, with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death of the person to whom harm is caused., or with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death., or with the knowledge that the fact is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 61 of 87
2) Whether the accused persons have acted in concert.
DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
83. On these points, to prove the commission of offence, the testimonies of PW3 Kisan Singh, PW4 Virender Singh, PW8 Padam Singh, PW9 Balinder Singh, PW10 Suresh, PW11 Ct. Niranjan and PW12 SI Subhash, PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra and PW24 ASI Om Prakash are relevant.
84. In the present case, the criminal justice system was set into motion on receiving of an information which was recorded vide DD No.7A at the police station Jaitpur. PW5 ASI Joginder Singh, who was working as the Duty Officer of the police station on the date of incident, has proved the DD No.7A (Ex.PW5/A). As per the testimonies of PW5 ASI Joginder Singh, on the said date, an information to the effect that the caller's son had killed his wife at House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, New Delhi, was received on wireless set and he had reduced the said information in his own handwriting in roznamcha as DD No.7A.
85. As per the testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, on receiving a DD No.7A regarding murder of a woman by her husband in the intervening night of 06/07.06.2013, he along with Ct. Niranjan FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 62 of 87 had reached the spot i.e. House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, New Delhi, where, he had found a dead-body of a woman was lying in the balcony of the second floor of the said premises; the injury marks on her face and neck were visible; a small plastic stool of sky blue colour was also lying over there, having bloodstains on it; pieces of broken bangles were also scattered; one hair-clip was lying on the ground; the right fist of the deceased was having hair.
86. It is also in the evidence of PW12 SI Subhash Chand that he had informed the senior officers and Inspector D.P. Kalra along with the staff had come at the spot.
87. The above-said testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash have been duly corroborated by PW11 Ct. Niranjan, who had accompanied SI Subhash to the spot of incident on receiving of the DD No.7A.
88. PW21 Inspector Dharam Pal Kalra is the first investigating officer of the present case and as per his testimonies, on the relevant night during night patrolling duty, he had received information from the Duty Officer about the receiving of a call regarding a murder of a lady by her husband in the area of Saurabh Vihar, so he had reached at the spot and met SI Subhash and other staff, who had briefed about the facts to him.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 63 of 8789. Regarding registration of FIR, testimonies of PW5 ASI Joginder Singh, PW12 SI Subhash, PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra and PW24 ASI Om Prakash are relevant.
90. As per the testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra and PW24 ASI Om Prakash, PW12 SI Subhash Chand had made endorsement (Ex.PW12/A) on DD No.7A at point 'A', prepared the rukka and handed over it to HC Om Prakash for registration of FIR, who had gone to the police station and got the FIR registered.
91. PW24 ASI Om Prakash (the then HC) has corroborated the testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash Chand and as per his testimonies, he had gone to the police station, got the FIR registered and after registration of FIR, he had come back to the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to the investigating officer Inspector D.P. Kalra.
92. PW5 ASI Joginder Singh, who was working as Duty Officer at the police station Jaitpur on 07.06.2013, has proved that he had made endorsement (Ex.PW5/C) on the rukka and got the FIR (Ex.PW5/B) registered. It is also in the evidence of PW5 ASI Joginder Singh that he had made an entry in the roznamcha at DD No.10A while he had started recording the FIR and also made an entry at DD No.11A when the said FIR was summed up. PW5 ASI Joginder Singh has proved both the DDs No.10A and 10B as (Ex.PW5/D colly.) and he had also forwarded the photocopies of the FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 64 of 87 FIR to the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate and the senior police officers through Ct. Nemi Chand.
93. From the testimonies of PW5 ASI Joginder Singh, PW12 SI Subhash, PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra and PW24 ASI Om Prakash, the prosecution has been successful in proving the registration of FIR against the accused persons. During the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses and in the course of arguments, the registration of FIR against the accused persons have not been disputed by the defence counsel. No delay in the registration of FIR has been pointed out by the defence.
94. To prove the commission of offence, the prosecution has examined PW3 Kisan Singh, the father of the deceased and as per his testimonies, he had nine children i.e. five sons and four daughters including the deceased Vimlesh, who was married to the accused Satender about eight/nine years back. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that they were vegetarians whereas the accused persons were non-vegetarian but after the marriage of his daughter Vimlesh with the accused Satender, the accused persons used to compel her to cook meat and fish for them and on refusal by her, the accused persons used to quarrel, harass and beat her. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that whenever the accused persons used to beat her and misbehave with her, she used to come back to his place and initially, his daughter was sent back to her matrimonial home by Panchayat/respectable members of the society in the village but the beatings and harassment on the part of the accused persons FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 65 of 87 continued, so she was again brought to her parental home. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that they had reported the matter to Baghpat police and the matter was again pacified in the presence of the police and his daughter was again sent to her matrimonial home. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that the accused persons had treated his daughter well for about 15- 20 days and thereafter, they had again started harassing and beating her. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that his daughter used to tell that the accused Inderpal (father-in-law) used to abuse her and rest of the accused persons i.e. Satender and all other accused persons present in the Court used to beat her. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that about one year back at about 04:00 a.m., the police had initially informed them that his daughter was seriously ill but when they inquired from them, one of the officials had informed them on phone that his daughter Vimlesh has already died and that she has been shifted to the mortuary for postmortem. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that they had come to Delhi and had reached at the house of the accused persons and the house of the accused persons was locked, however, the neighbours present there had told them that the previous night at about 09:00/10:00 p.m. when there was no light, they heard the quarrel from the house of the accused persons as the accused persons were beating her and by that time, the deceased Vimlesh had come out on the road from the house of the accused persons but the accused persons had dragged her back inside their house. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that the neighbours had also told FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 66 of 87 them that after the accused persons had dragged her inside the house, they again heard the screamings (hai-hulla) once as the accused persons were still beating her and then there was complete calm. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that the neighbours had also told them that the accused persons had shown the tamancha/pistol from the terrace and had intimidated the neighbours not to become witness of the incident otherwise, the witness would also be eliminated. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that they had also visited the police station as well as the hospital where postmortem was conducted and the police had recorded his statement to this effect and the accused persons were correctly identified by the witness.
95. PW4 Virender Singh is the brother of the deceased and he has corroborated the testimonies of PW2 Kisan Singh regarding marriage of the deceased, harassment of the deceased by the accused persons for not cooking meat for them, the beatings given by the accused persons to the deceased and the information given by the police to them after death of the deceased. Apart from the above, it is in the evidence of PW4 Virender Singh that in the month of January 2013, one of their neighbours, namely, Sunil had informed them that he had seen the accused persons and his sister in a vehicle in Baghpat, U.P. and he had seen that his sister was mercilessly beaten in the said vehicle. Similarly, PW8 Padam Singh, PW9 Balinder Singh, both brothers of the deceased and PW10 Suresh Kumar, FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 67 of 87 brother-in-law of the deceased have also corroborated the testimonies of PW3 Kishan Singh.
96. As noted-above, the information regarding the offence was given to the police station Jaitpur and it was recorded vide DD No.7A, duly proved by PW5 ASI Joginder Singh. A perusal of DD No.7A (Ex.PW5/A) reveals that this DD was recorded at the police station Jaitpur on the information given by wireless operator through wireless at 02:30 in the night, whereby the caller had informed that his son has killed his wife and the said DD was assigned to SI Subhash Chand for necessary action, who along with Ct. Niranjan Singh had departed to the spot of incident and the said information was also given to the Additional SHO through telephone, who was on night patrolling.
97. The call received in the police control room regarding the incident has been proved by PW15 W/HC Geeta. As per the testimonies of PW15 W/HC Geeta, on 07.06.2013, she had been working as wireless operator in the control room of police head quarter and on that day, at about 02.30 a.m., call was received in the police control room that son of caller had killed his wife and she had reduced said information into writing vide PCR Form (Ex.PW15/A). During her cross-examination, a question was put to her by the learned defence counsel which she admitted to be correct that in the police control room, more than 100 people used to be present to receive the calls at the system of receiving the call in the police control room remains under the control of several persons.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 68 of 8798. During the course of arguments, it is argued by learned defence counsel that the prosecution should have obtained voice sample of father of the accused Satender in order to prove that the said call was made by him and it should have been got examined by a forensic expert with the recording of PCR call. The argument addressed by learned defence counsel on these points seems to be misplaced. As noted above the present case initiated on receiving a call in the police head quarter whereby the caller had informed that his son had killed his wife. The call has been duly proved by PW15 Women HC Geeta who has brought the PCR call. Pursuant to receipt of call in the police head quarter, its information was given to the police station concerned which was reduced into writing vide DD No.7A (Ex.PW5/A) and the said DD was handed over to PW12 SI Subhash who reached at the spot along with PW11 Ct. Niranjan and as noted above, both of them found the dead-body of the deceased in the condition hereinabove explained by them.
99. As I have already observed that the above testimonies of PW11 Ct. Niranjan and PW12 SI Subhash duly corroborated by PW24 ASI Om Prakash who was on patrolling duty and met the accused Satender Pat at his house and the accused had told him that he had killed his wife.
100. Even otherwise, there is presumption under the law that the official acts are performed regularly.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 69 of 87101. In view of the above, the argument addressed by learned defence counsel seems to be without any substance and it has been duly proved that on 07.06.2013 at about 02.30 a.m., a caller had informed the police control room that his son had killed his wife.
102. For proving the identity of the deceased/dead-body, as per the testimonies of PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra, he had recorded the statement of two persons who had identified the dead-body vide (Ex.PW21/D and Ex.PW4/A). As per the testimonies of PW4 Virender Singh, brother of the deceased, he had identified the dead- body of his sister Vimlesh in the hospital vide dead-body identification memo (Ex.PW4/A) bearing his signature at Point 'A' and after the postmortem, the dead-body of his sister was handed over to them vide dead-body handing over memo (Ex.PW4/B). In view of the testimonies of PW4 Virender Singh, the identity of the dead-body of the deceased is duly proved.
103. As per the testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, he had got the dead-body of the deceased preserved at AIIMS mortuary vide his request letter (Ex.PW12/D). It is also in the evidence of PW12 SI Subhash that he had filled up Form No.25,35(1)(b) (Ex.PW12/D1) and had made a request (Ex.PW12/E) to get the postmortem conducted at AIIMS mortuary and also made a request (Ex.PW12/F) to the CMO AIIMS mortuary for removing the ornaments of the deceased and the postmortem was got conducted.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 70 of 87104. Regarding preparation of scaled site-plan (Ex.PW13/A) of the place of incident, it is in the evidence of PW13 Inspector Mahesh Kumar that on 15.06.2013, on the request of Inspector Dharam Pal Kalra, the investigating officer, he had reached at police station Jaitpur and from there, he along with Inspector Dharam Pal Kalra and SI Subhash Chand had reached at the spot i.e. House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, New Delhi and had taken measurements and prepared rough notes and on the basis of rough notes and measurements, he had prepared scaled site-plan (Ex.PW13/A) and handed over it to the investigating officer.
105. For proving the injury on the body of the deceased, testimonies of PW18 Ms. Anju Dixit, MRT and PW19 Dr. Abhineeth K.P. are relevant.
106. PW18 Ms. Anju Dixit, MRT, AIIMS Hospital has identified the signature of Dr. Pranay Chobey on the MLC bearing No.5514/13 dated 07.06.2013 (Ex.PW18/A) of the patient Vimlesh prepared by Dr. Pranay Chobey. It is in the evidence of PW19 Dr. Abhineeth K.P., Senior Resident (Surgery) AIIMS that as per the MLC (Ex.PW18/A) of the patient Vimlesh, the patient was brought 'dead' to the casualty department with the alleged history of strangulation by her husband. It is also in the evidence of PW19 Dr. Abhineeth K.P. that as per MLC, rigormortis was present, pupils were fixed and dilated and B.P. and Pulse not recordable; the body was received with the cloth used for strangulation found tied around the neck.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 71 of 87107. A perusal of MLC (Ex.PW18/A) of the deceased reveals that the following opinion was given on the said MLC of the deceased:
"Cloth used for strangulation found tied around the neck. Injury present on right eyebrow suggestive of assault so, when patient brought to AIIMS, no signs of life present and rigormortis present. So, patient declared brought dead and sent to mortuary for preservation."
108. The postmortem report (Ex.PW25/A) has been proved by PW25 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, Professor and Additional Medical Superintendent, JPNATC, AIIMS. As per the testimonies of PW25 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, he has identified the signatures of Dr. Shashank Punia at point A on the postmortem report (Ex.PW25/A) as he had seen him writing and signing being his student.
109. A perusal of postmortem report (Ex.PW25/A) reveals that following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:
Ligature mark: A discontinuous reddish brown colour ligature mark is running horizontally, present in front and lateral sides of neck. It is 14 cm in length. It is extending upto 5 cm to the risht side of neck from midline and 9 cm to the left side of neck from midline, It is 6 cm below chin and 5 cm above suprasternal notch. It is 7 cm below right mastoid tip and 6 cm below left mastoid tip. Ligature mark is not apparent on sides and postrio-lateral aspect of the neck. Width of ligature mark is 2.5 cm in front, in midline of neck. Width of ligature mark is varying between 1 cm and 4 cm. On dissection, hematoma is present in underlying subcutaneous tissue and musculature. Thyrohyoid complex is intact. Tracheal mucosa is congested.FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 72 of 87
2). Two oval reddish brown colour contused abrasions of size 0.5 x 0.7 cm and one oval reddish brown colour contused abrasion of size 1 x 0.5 cm are present over right lateral side of neck.
3). A reddish brown colour contused abrasion of size 2 x 1 cm is present over right eyebrow.
110. PW12 SI Subhash has proved the fact that he had got conducted the postmortem of the deceased Vimlesh and also collected the postmortem report.
111. In the light of testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, it is proved that postmortem of dead-body of the deceased was got conducted by him from AIIMS hospital and it was conducted by Dr. Shashank Punia, who had opined that the cause of death in this case is asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. Strangulation in this ccase could be possible from the chunni (alleged ligature material) present in the neck of deceased. Uterus contained gestational sac with a non viable foetus (sex indistinguishable) of gestational age about 2 to 3 months.
112. Regarding recovery and identification of weapon of offence i.e. chunni, the testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash and PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra are relevant.
113. It is in the evidence of PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra that SI Subhash had collected the exhibits from the spot vide seizure memo (Ex.PW12/B). PW12 SI Subhash has also duly corroborated the fact that he had collected the exhibits vide seizure memo FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 73 of 87 (Ex.PW12/B). As per the testimonies of PW11 Ct. Niranjan, after postmortem, the doctor prepared some pullandas and sealed the same vide memo (Ex.PW11/A) and he has identified his signatures at point A and after sealing the pullandas, sample seal was handed over to him. As per the seizure memo (Ex.PW11/A), the ligature material i.e. chunni along with other articles was seized by the investigating officer.
114. PW12 SI Subhash has also proved recovery of case properties i.e. one small plastic stool of sky blue colour (Ex.PW12/P1), broken pieces of bangles (Ex.PW12/P2) of the deceased, some hair of the deceased (Ex.PW12/P3) and hair-clip (Ex.PW12/P4).
115. From the testimonies of PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra, PW22 Inspector Vipin Kumar and PW26 W/HC Seema, the arrest and identification of the accused persons have been duly proved.
116. It is important to note here that an application (Ex.PW12/E) was made by SI Subhash Chand to the Head, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS, New Delhi for conducting the postmortem examination of dead-body on 08.06.2013, whereby a short summary of the case was mentioned by him. The short summary of the case mentioned in application (Ex.PW12/E) is reproduced as follows: -
In the night of 06/7.06.2013 at about 2:30 a.m. there was a PCR call vide DD No.7A about killing of a FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 74 of 87 woman by her husband. After reaching on the spot, Bimlesh w/o Satender Pal, R/o O-458A Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, New Delhi age 35 years reportedly found murdered by her husband Satender Pal by strangulation with the help of a chunni. After enquiry, dead body was deposited at AIIMS mortuary and a case FIR No. 204/13 Dated 7/6/2013 u/s 302 IPC has been registered against the accused Satender Pal. The Postmortem of dead body may be conducted. MLC No. 5514/13 refers.
117. In the light of short summary given in Ex.PW12/E also, the involvement of the accused Satender Pal @ Mintu in the commission of offence has been mentioned.
118. It is important to note here that there is no eye-witness of the crime committed in the present case.
119. The prosecution has examined two neighbours, namely, PW1 Anuj Negi and PW2 Dinesh Kashyap to be the eyewitnesses of the incident, however, both those witnesses have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution during trial, except that PW1 Anuj Negi had driven the vehicle containing the dead-body to the hospital and that PW2 Dinesh Kashyap had come to know about the death of the deceased Vimlesh.
120. During the cross-examination of PW2 Dinesh Kashyap, immediate neighbour of the accused persons, certain questions were put to him by the defence counsel in his cross-examination and his testimonies made during cross-examination are noteworthy and reproduced as under :FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 75 of 87
"It is correct that the house in which the accused persons reside is a three storey building. It is correct that accused Inder alongwith his wife stays at the ground floor, accused Seema alongwith her husband stays at the first floor whereas accused Satender Pal along with Vimlesh were staying at the second floor."
121. In the light of cross-examination of PW2 Dinesh Kashyap, it has been asserted on behalf of the accused persons that the accused Satender Pal along with the deceased Vimlesh was staying at the second floor of the house of the accused persons and the witness has admitted it to be correct.
122. From the above cross-examination of PW2 Dinesh Kashyap, it has been on behalf of the accused persons, hence, proved that the accused Satender Pal was staying at the second floor of their house along with the deceased Vimlesh.
123. Since, there is no eyewitness of the crime committed in the present case, therefore, the theory of last seen together shall also apply here and the accused is expected to offer some explanation as to when and under what circumstances the death of the deceased Vimlesh (wife of the accused Satender Pal) has occurred.
124. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120 has analysed various judgments on last seen theory and held as follows:
6. It may be noted that once the theory of "last seen together" was established by the prosecution, the accused was expected to offer some explanation as to when and under what circumstances he had parted the company of FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 76 of 87 the deceased. It is true that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Of course, Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove the guilt of the accused, nonetheless it is also equally settled legal position that if the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such failure on the part of the accused may be used against the accused as it may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances required to be proved against him. In the case based on circumstantial evidence, furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of "last seen together" as propounded by the prosecution was proved against him.
In case of Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi), it was observed as under:
"12.2.4. Having observed so, it is crucial to note that the reasonableness of the explanation offered by the accused as to how and when he/she parted company with the deceased has a bearing on the effect of the last seen in a case, Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the burden of proof for any fact that is especially within the knowledge of a person lies upon such person. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company with the deceased. In other words, he must furnish an explanation that appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory, and if he fails to offer such an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, the burden cast upon him under Section 106 is not discharged. Particularly in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, such failure by itself can provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. This, however, does not mean that Section 106 shifts the burden of proof of a criminal trial on the accused. Such burden always rests on the prosecution. Section 106 only lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 77 of 87 which are specially within his/her knowledge and which cannot support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce an explanation as an additional link which completes the chain of incriminating circumstances."
In Satpal Vs. State of Haryana, this Court observed as under: -
"6. We have considered the respective submissions and the evidence on record. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence but only circumstances coupled with the fact of the deceased having been last seen with the appellant. Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly. But when it is coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation, or furnishes- a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Each case will therefore have to be examined on its own facts for invocation of the doctrine."
In view of the afore-stated legal position, it is discernible that though the last seen theory in a case based on circumstantial evidence may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to base conviction solely on such theory, when the said theory is proved coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused does owe an explanation with regard to the circumstances under which death might FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 78 of 87 have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the conviction could be based on such evidence.
125. As noted above, pursuant to the receipt of DD No.7A (Ex.PW5/A), PW12 SI Subhash along with PW11 Ct. Niranjan had first reached the spot of incident. PW12 SI Subhash has explained the scene of crime as he had noticed after reaching there, which is at the cost of repetition, reproduced as follows:
"At around 02:30 a.m., I received DD No.7A regarding murder of a woman by her husband at O-458A, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur. After receiving the same, I along with the Constable Niranjan reached at the spot. I found a dead- body of a woman lying in the balcony on the second floor of the abovesaid premises. The injury marks on her face and neck were visible. A small plastic stool of sky blue colour was also lying over there having bloodstains on it. Pieces of broken bangles were also scattered. One hair clip was lying on the floor. The right fist of the deceased was having hairs."
126. The above testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash regarding the scene of crime and the injury marks on the person of the deceased, have been duly corroborated by PW11 Ct. Niranjan who had accompanied PW12 SI Subhash to the spot of incident when the DD No.7A (Ex.PW5/A) was assigned to the SI for necessary action and both of them reached at the spot of incident and noticed the crime scene.
127. Regarding the scene of crime, the testimonies of PW24 ASI Om Prakash also are of much importance. As per the testimonies FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 79 of 87 of PW24 ASI Om Prakash, on 07.06.2013, he was on patrolling duty and at about 02:45-03:00 a.m., he had met the accused Satender Pal at House O-458A, Saurabh Vihar, who told him that he had killed his wife and in the meantime, SI Subhash, Ct. Niranjan and Inspector D.P. Kalra had also reached there and they went to the second floor of the house. PW24 ASI Om Prakash has also duly corroborated the testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash and PW11 Ct. Niranjan about the circumstances of the scene of crime.
128. PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra is the first investigating officer of the present case and as per his testimonies, on 07.06.2013, during night patrolling, he was informed of the call regarding a murder of a lady by her husband and pursuant to the said call, he had reached the spot.
129. As per the testimonies of PW21 Inspector Dharam Pal Kalra, PW12 SI Subhash and PW11 Ct. Niranjan, the crime-team was also called at the spot and the crime-team conducted inspection of the spot and took photographs of the spot.
130. The testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, PW11 Ct.
Niranjan, PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra and PW24 ASI Om Prakash regarding the condition of scene of crime and inspection of the crime-team have been duly corroborated by PW7 ASI Sajjan Kumar and PW6 Ct. Ashwani, who were posted in the crime-team at the relevant time and they were called at the spot. It is in the evidence of PW7 ASI Sajjan Kumar that on 07.06.2013, he along with FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 80 of 87 photographer Ct. Ashwani and fingerprint proficient Head Constable Kirti Kumar had reached the spot, he met Inspector D.P. Kalra there and he had inspected the spot and got the photographs of the spot clicked from different angles, however, no fingerprints could be lifted from the spot. It is also in the evidence of PW7 ASI Sajjan Kumar that his detailed report was exhibited as (Ex.PW7/A).
131. The testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, PW11 Ct.
Niranjan, PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra, PW24 ASI Om Prakash and PW7 ASI Sajjan Kumar regarding the inspection of scene of crime by the crime-team have also been corroborated by PW6 Ct. Ashwani, who had accompanied the crime-team in-charge, PW7 ASI Sajjan Kumar and had clicked photographs of the spot of incident and handed over the negatives (Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A7) of the same to the investigating officer. PW6 Ct. Ashwani has also proved the photographs (Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7).
132. During the course of arguments, the main defence taken by learned defence counsel is that this is a case of suicide and not homicide as the deceased was suffering from mental illness and earlier also, she had tried to commit suicide.
133. It is important to note here that there is no evidence led on behalf of the defence that earlier also the deceased had ever tried to commit suicide, therefore, such contention is not acceptable as not proved.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 81 of 87134. In order to decide whether the death of the deceased was suicide or homicide, the testimonies of the police witnesses, who had first reached at the spot and noticed the scene of incident are of much importance.
135. I have already observed above that PW12 SI Subhash, PW11 Ct. Niranjan and PW24 ASI Om Prakash have first reached at the spot on receiving of information regarding killing of a deceased by her husband. It is in the evidence of PW12 SI Subhash, PW11 Ct. Niranjan and PW24 ASI Om Prakash that when they had reached at the spot, they had noticed a dead-body of the deceased was lying in the balcony on the second floor of the above-said premises and there were visible injury marks on her face and neck. A small plastic stool of sky blue colour, as per their testimonies, was also lying there which was bloodstained and the pieces of broken bangles were also scattered; one hair-clip was also lying on the floor and the right hand fist was having hairs. The crime-team has also reached the spot, inspected the spot of incident and clicked the photographs of the spot of incident/the deceased.
136. From the testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, PW11 Ct. Niranjan and PW24 ASI Om Prakash and the photographs (Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7) of the dead-body, it clearly appears that there were signs of resistance at the scene of crime as broken pieces of bangles were scattered near the dead-body which goes to suggest that there was some struggle. Such struggle is also corroborated by the fact that the dead-body of the deceased, as per the testimonies of FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 82 of 87 PW12 SI Subhash, PW11 Ct. Niranjan and PW24 ASI Om Prakash, were having apparent injury marks, which fact is also corroborated by the photographs (Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7). A perusal of photographs (Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7) of the deceased also shows that the ligature mark on her neck is atypical kind of mark which is not suggestive of suicidal hanging but it is more suggestive of a homicidal strangulation, which is also corroborated by the cause of death as mentioned in the postmortem report (Ex.PW25/A).
137. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by either of them and PW12 SI Subhash, PW11 Ct. Niranjan and PW24 ASI Om Prakash have not been cross-examined by the defence on the point of their explaining the scene of crime and their testimonies have remained consistent to indicate towards the commission of offence by strangulation and causing injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature on the body of the deceased, inflicted on the person of the deceased.
138. For proving that there were strained relationship between the deceased and her husband/accused Satender Pal the prosecution has examined PW17 SI Manohar Lal from police station Mahila Thana, District Baghpat, U.P. and a complaint (Ex.PW17/A) filed by the deceased has been proved him, according to which, the matter was later settled between the parties. The record of such FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 83 of 87 complaint, as per the testimony of PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra, was obtained by him by issuing a notice under section 91 Cr.P.C.
139. From the above evidence led on behalf of the prosecution which has been discussed herein above, the prosecution has been successful in proving that the accused had strained relationship with his wife Vimlesh, the deceased. There is no denial to the fact that on the date of incident, the accused Satender Pal was present with the deceased on the floor where they were living together. The death of the deceased has been proved to be homicidal. The weapon of the offence i.e. chunni has been recovered and it has been proved the injury found on the person of the deceased could be caused by that chunni. In these circumstances, the accused Satender Pal owes an explanation but he has failed to do so and in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., he has simply stated that this is a case of suicide, which in the light of evidence produced by the prosecution and the photographs of the scene of crime is not plausible and is unacceptable.
140. There is another important circumstance which goes to indicate towards guilt of the accused Satender Pal is his conduct. As noted above, the information about killing of the deceased by the accused Satednder Pal was given by his father. It has been established that the death of the deceased was homicidal. However, the accused has tried to mislead by pleading that the death of the deceased was suicidal.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 84 of 87141. Besides the accused Satender Pal, husband of the deceased, the charge under section 302 read with section 34 IPC has also been framed against the accused persons Inderpal (father-in- law), Omwati (mother-in-law), Seema (sister-in-law) and Amit (brother-in-law) of the deceased.
142. Proceedings against the accused persons, namely, Inderpal and Omwati have been abated as they have died during trial.
143. Now, the question before the Court is whether all the accused persons have acted in concert with the accused Satender Pal in the commission of the offence.
144. As per the prosecution story, one Sonu has seen the accused persons giving beatings to the deceased in a vehicle but the prosecution has not examined such person who had witnessed such beatings. As per the prosecution evidence, brother of the deceased had also sustained severe head injuries but this fact is also not proved by leading cogent evidence.
145. There is no cogent evidence against the accused persons Seema and Amit as two neighbours, namely, PW1 Anuj Negi and PW2 Dinesh Kashyap claimed to be the eyewitnesses of the incident have turned hostile, therefore, it would not be safe to convict the accused persons, namely, Seema and Amit for the offence they have been charged with. As per the cross-examination of the house in which the accused persons reside is a three storey building and the FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 85 of 87 accused Inder along with his wife stayed at the ground floor and the accused Seema along with her husband stayed at the first floor, whereas, the accused Satender Pal along with Vimlesh were staying at the second floor at the relevant time.
146. In the light of evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution and the discussion above-stated, the prosecution has been successful in proving that (i) on the date of incident, the accused Satender Pal was present with the deceased on the floor on the date and at the time of the incident, ( ii) the dead-body of the deceased was found at the place where both of them were living together (iii) the death of the deceased has been proved to be homicidal, (iv) the ligature material i.e. chunni was recovered from the spot and it has been proved that it could cause the death by strangulation which is also corroborated by the medical evidence.
147. In these circumstances, as observed above, the accused Satender Pal owes an explanation but he has failed to give any plausible explanation and has not thrown light on the circumstances under which death of the deceased had occurred rather the accused has tried to mislead the Court.
148. Further, the accused Satender Pal has not been able to spell out any plausible reason for his false implication.
149. Furthermore, the accused Satender Pal @ Mintu has not tendered any reasonable explanation of his conduct.
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 86 of 87150. The accused Satender Pal has not led any evidence in his defence.
151. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Satender Pal, so the accused Satender Pal is found guilty of having committed the said offence and hence, he is convicted of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
152. Further, giving benefit of doubt, the accused persons, Seema and Amit are hereby acquitted of the offence they have been charged.
153. Let the convict Satender Pal be heard on the question of sentence. Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.05 18:13:59 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR) rd on 05 June, 2025. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02, South-East, Saket Court Complex 05.06.2025 FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 87 of 87