Delhi District Court
Reddy vs . State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Air 1990 ... on 9 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL); DELHI
SC No.55/08
FIR No.134/08
PS Sadar Bazar
U/s 302 IPC
In the matter of:
State
Versus
Ved Prakash,
S/o Late Sh. Prem Singh,
R/o A219, Gali No. 7, Meet Nagar,
Police Station, Nand Nagri,
Delhi. .... Accused
Date of Institution: 30.09.2008
Date of Judgment : 09.05.2012
J U D G M E N T
Accused Ved Prakash is a Clerical Head Constable with Delhi Police. He has been facing trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC on the accusation that on 31.05.2008 between 10.15 am12 noon, he did commit murder of Amarjeet Kaur, then serving as Assistant SubInspector with Delhi Police.
In brief, case of the prosecution is that on 31.05.2008 W/ASI Shakun received information that a lady was lying in unconscious condition at house no. FIR No.134/08 1 448, TypeA, Ahata Kidara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. She communicated this information to SI Rajbir telephonically, while recording DD No. 13A. This information pertained to Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, who was putting up at house No. 448, the government accommodation allotted to her.
ASI Rajbir reached the spot with the company of Ct. Sunil. Inspector Dara Singh accompanied by other police officials also reached the spot vide DD No. 14A and found ASI Rajbir and Ct. Sunil were present there.
Accused was also found present there at the time ASI Rajbir & Ct. Sunil reached there. He informed the police that he had came to see Amarjeet Kaur and found her lying on the ground; that he had made her to lie on the sofa and switched on the fan. Persons from the neighbourhood, present there, told that accused used to come there and meet Amarjeet Kaur.
PCR officials too were present at the spot. ASI Yashpal of PCR received call on 31.05.2008 at about 12:20 pm that a lady was lying in unconscious condition at house no.448, Aahata Kidara. That is how, ASI accompanied by his staff reached the disclosed place and found accused and other persons there.
Smt. Amarjeet Kaur (since deceased) present there had ligature marks on her neck/ throat. Inspector Dara Singh conducted preliminary inquiries and then prepared a rukka. He sent the rukka to PS Sadar Bazar through HC Yashpal for registration of FIR. Special reports were dispatched about registration of the case through Ct Vikas.
SI Amar Singh of Crime Team reached the spot at about 1:30 pm. HC Rajpal, photographer and Dalip Singh Professional Fingerprint expert were FIR No.134/08 2 accompanying the Sub Inspector. The crime team inspected the spot and prepared a report During inspection, crime team picked up from the spot one chunni which was lying near the dead body of Amarjeet Kaur. It was turned into parcel seal and then seized. One hair clip, in broken condition, was lying at the floor, near the sofa. It was also turned into parcel sealed and seized. Right hand fist of Amarjeet Kaur contained having some hair. These were removed from the fist, turned into parcel and seized. One pillow with its cover lying under the dead body was also turned into parcel, sealed and seized.
From the dead body of Amarjeet Kaur some articles were recovered, turned into parcel, sealed and seized Inspector Dara Singh inspected the spot and prepared its site plan. On search of other room one mobile phone make Nokia was recovered and seized.
Dead body of Amarjeet Kaur was shifted to mortuary Subzi Mandi. Inspector Dara Singh recorded statements of the witnesses.
On personal search of accused, one parking slip no. 5972, in respect of motor cycle no. DL7SAT6832 issued by attendant of Pul Bangash Metro Station parking was recovered.
He was also having a mobile phone make Nokia bearing No 9871481897. On opening the message box of the mobile phone , photographs of the screen, 7 in number were taken. It transpired that on 27.05.2008 at about 4:44 pm Amarjeet Kaur had sent one sms to the accused on his mobile phone from her mobile phone 9971845634 .
FIR No.134/08 3
On 31.05.2008 accused was got medically examined by Dr. G.B.S. Kohli of Hindu Rao hospital.
On 01.06.2008, Inspector Dara Singh reached the mortuary and carried out inquest proceedings. On his request, the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. Dr. Rohit of Aruna Asif Hospital who conducted the autopsy of the dead body opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia consequent upon compression of neck by means of ligature and that the asphyxia produced was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries were antemortem in nature.
Dr. Rohit preserved all the clothes of the deceased, scalp hair, vaginal swabs (2 in number), vaginal slides (2 in numbers) blood in gauge and fiber taken from ligature mark side.
Accused made disclosure statement and then led the police party to Pul Bangash Metro station parking and got recovered motor cycle. Ashok Kumar, the parking attendant produced one bunch containing counter part of slip no. 5972.
Call details record of both the mobile phones were collected during investigation.
On 25.06.2008, HC Mohd. Sajeem collected sealed parcels, FSL form and impression of the seal and deposited the same at FSL with seals intact.
On completion of investigation, challan was put in court. FIR No.134/08 4 Compliance with provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C
2. Copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused free of cost. After compliance with provisions of Section 207 CrPC, case came to be committed to the Hon'ble Court of Session.
It may be mentioned here that during trial on 11.06.2011 blood sample of the accused was taken for the purpose of DNA profile.
On 11.06.2011, on receipt of two sealed parcels, Dr. A.K. Srivastava, Assistant Director (Biology) subjected their contents to DNA isolation. He prepared DNA profile of five strands of hair taken out of the parcel no.1. He also prepared allelic data of five hair strands. Ultimately, he submitted his report.
On 13.06.2011, Dr. A.K. Srivastava subjected the contents of one sealed parcel to DNA isolation, prepared DNA profile and allelic data. The doctor then compared the DNA profile and allelic data with DNA profile developed from five hair strands, recovered from the fist of Smt.Amarjeet Kaur, and allelic data and submitted final report. In the opinion of Dr. A.K. Srivastava that alleles present on the hairs found on the fingers of Amarjeet Kaur matched with alleles present in the blood sample of the accused.
Charge
3. Prima facie case having been made out, charge for an offence under Section U/s 302 IPC was framed against the accused.
Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.
FIR No.134/08 5
Prosecution evidence
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following 36 witnesses: PW1 Sunita From the neighbourhood of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur (Since deceased) who reached the place of occurrence on 31.05.2009 at 12/12.15 pm, on being called by the accused and found Smt.Amarjeet Kaur lying there unconscious .
PW2 HC Ramesh From the neighbourhood of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur (Since deceased), who reached the place of occurrence on 31.05.2009 at 12/12.15 pm and further that on that day he had seen the accused entering the quarter of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur and also about their relations.
PW3 ASI Rajbir Singh Who deposed about investigation part of prosecution story.
PW4 Ct. Sunil Kumar Who deposed about investigation part of prosecution story.
PW5 Balbir Singh Husband of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur PW6 HC Ramesh From the neighbourhood of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur (Since deceased) who reached the place of occurrence on 31.05.2009 at 12/12.15 pm and further that there was talk in the colony about relations of the accused and the deceased.
PW7 ASI Amar Singh, To prove report Ex PW7/A prepared by him Incharge of Mobile Crime on inspection of the spot.
Team
PW8 Malluk Singh Father of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur
PW9 W ASI Shakun, Duty To prove recording of FIR Ex PW9/A and Officer DD no. 13A Ex PW9/C. PW10 Paramjeet Singh To prove factum of identification of dead body of Amarjeet Singh FIR No.134/08 6 PW11 ASI Yashpal Member of PCR Staff who reached the spot soon after having received information at 12.20 pm. PW12 Dr. G. B. S. Kohli To prove MLC Ex PW12/A on medicolegal examination of the accused.
PW13 HC Kishan Lal To prove Ex PW13/A record pertaining to PCR vehicle bearing registration no. DL 1CJ 4809 Sugar16 as on 31.05.2008.
PW14 Ct. Vikas To prove delivery of special reports. PW 15 HC Yashpal Singh To prove investigation part of the prosecution story.
PW16 Dr. Rajender Kumar To prove report Ex PW16/A & B regarding contents of sealed parcels sent to FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
PW17 Dr. C. P. Singh, Expert To prove report Ex PW17/A. PW18 R. K. Singh, Nodal To prove record pertaining to mobile phones Officer of the accused and deceased.
PW 19 Harman Deep Singh Son of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.
PW 20 HC Mohd. Sajeem Who collected sealed parcels and deposited the same at FSL alongwith FSL form and impression of the seal on 25.06.2008 and also collected copy of duty roster of PCR Van Sugar16 on 28.07.2008.
PW21 Retd. Inspector To prove scaled site plan Ex PW21/A. Devender Singh PW 22 HC Lokesh Kumar To prove investigation part of the prosecution story.
PW 23 SI Abdul Kalim To prove investigation part of the prosecution story.
FIR No.134/08 7 PW 24 Ashok Kumar To prove factum of parking of motorcycle Hero Honda bearing registration no. DL 7S 8E 6832 Ex P2 by the accused in the parking of metro station, Pul Bangash on 31.05.2008; that motorcycle was sezied vide Ex PW23/G; and about seizure of booklet of counter slips vide memo Ex PW23/H. PW 25 Dr. S. Lal To prove autopsy report Ex PW25/A in respect of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur prepared by Dr. Rohit.
PW 26 Inspector Aarti Sharma To prove investigation part of the prosecution story.
PW 27 Ct. Om Prakash Another official of PCR staff. PW 28 HC Rajpal Singh, To prove photographs Ex PW28/A and their Member of Crime Team negatives Ex PW28/A1.
PW 29 HC Anand Singh Another member of PCR Staff.
PW 30 Inspector Dara Singh Investigation officer of this case.
PW 31 HC Ved Pal Singh To prove entries and other record pertaining
to case property which was dealt with by
him.
PW 32 Dr. A. K. Srivastava, To prove Ex PW32/A and Ex PW32/B Assistant Director (Biology) regarding DNA analysis. PW33 H C Suresh To prove despatch of sealed parcels to FSL on 11.06.2011, 13.06.2011 and entries Ex PW33/A, Copy of road certificate Ex PW33/B and Copy of acknowledgment Ex PW33/C. PW34 HC Raj Kumar In whose presence blood sample of the accused was taken by doctor on 11.06.2011 and the parcel so prepared and the sample seal were seized vide memo Ex PW34/A PW35 SI Sachin Yadav To prove collection of blood sample of the accused and documents Ex PW33/B to Ex PW32/D. FIR No.134/08 8 PW36 Dr. Piyush Gupta of To prove taking of blood sample of the Hindu Rao Hospital accused.
Statement of accused
5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and claimed false implication.
To most of the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the accused pleaded ignorance. Defence plea of the accused is as under: "I was not present there on the given date, time and place. I had not called PCR Staff.
It is correct that I was having mobile phone no. 9871481897. I cannot say anything about call details of my mobile phone.
I was not having any relationship with Amarjeet Kaur. I never visited her quarter or roamed with her around.
I was picked up by the police on 31.05.2008 from my house i.e. H. No. A219, Gali No. 7 Meet Nagar, Wazirabad Road, Delhi. At that time, my mother was present at my house. At the same time, my motorcycle and my mobile phone were also taken away by the police from my house. I was taken to PS Sadar Bazar. Ultimately, I was falsely implicated in this present case. My hairs were removed by the police from my head forcibly. I was also given beatings by the police."
In defence, accused examined his mother Smt. Sohanbiri (DW1) to prove that he was picked up from his house on 31.05.2008, on a Saturday, at about 8.15 am and at that time police had taken away his motorcycle and mobile phone from his house.
Arguments heard. File perused.
FIR No.134/08 9 Discussion
6. As noticed above, present case is based on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has relied upon following circumstances:
1. Presence of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur at her Government accommodation.
2. Presence of accused at the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur on 31.05.2008 from 10 am.
3. Accused used to visit the house of Smt. Amar Jeet Kaur even earlier.
4. Relations of accused and Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.
5. Condition of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur on 31.05.2008 at 12.15 p.m. as noticed by the prosecution witnesses.
6. Medical Evidence.
7. Electronic evidence.
8. Recovery of mobile phone from the accused.
9. Recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased.
10. Recovery of motorcycle at the instance of accused.
11. Recovery of hair strands.
12. DNA profile of the accused comparison with hair strands recovered from the fist of the deceased.
13. Dupatta used in strangulating Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. The law regarding circumstances evidence is well settled. Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following principles :
1. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
3. the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency.
FIR No.134/08 10
4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and
5. there must be a chain of evidence complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Reference in this regard may be made to the decision in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79 and Chenga Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) 10 SCC 193.
In view of the settled legal proposition, this Court proceeds to find out as to whether prosecution has been able to establish the circumstances referred to above.
(1) Presence of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur at her Government accommodation To prove this circumstance, prosecution has examined number of witnesses including PW1 Smt. Sunita, PW2 HC Ramesh and PW6 HC Ramesh, from the neighbourhood of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. It is in the statements of all these w itnesses that Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, employed in Delhi Police as a cook was residing in quarter no. 446, Police Colony, Ahata Kinara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, and that on 31.05.2008 at about 12.15 pm she was present at the said accommodation. Even dead body of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur was found lying in the chair of Sofa at her house.
(2) Presence of accused at the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur on 31.05.2008 from 10 am In order to prove this circumstance, prosecution has examined number of FIR No.134/08 11 witnesses including PW1 Smt. Sunita, PW2 HC Ramesh and PW6 HC Ramesh, from the neighbourhood of Smt.Amarjeet Kaur, PCR staff, members of the Mobile Crime Team and other police officials and Officers.
It is in the statement of all these witnesses, including those from the neighbourhood of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur that accused Ved Prakash was present at the government accommodation quarter no. 448 on 31.05.2008 at about 12.15 pm. PW1 Smt. Sunita specifically stated that it is the accused who knocked at her house and told her that Smt. Amarjeet Kaur had somehow become unconscious and she should come see her (Amarjeet Kaur), and that is how she entered the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.
It is also in the statement of PW2 HC Ramesh that on that date i.e. 31.05.2008, he had seen the accused entering the quarter of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.
PW 6 HC Ramesh has also stated to have seen the accused entering the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur at about 10 am. It is significant to note that testimony of PW6 HC Ramesh has gone unchallenged for want of any cross examination. This goes to show that the accused did not dispute the version narrated by this witness regarding his entry in the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur on 31.05.2008 at about 10 am and his presence at the house at the given time.
Even otherwise, from the statement of all the police officials including PCR staff who happened to visit the spot at about noon time, the accused was found present at quarter no. 448 of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.
From the material available on record, this Court finds that prosecution FIR No.134/08 12 has fully established presence of accused at the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur on 31.05.2008 from 10 am onwards . As such there is no merit in the contention of learned defence counsel that prosecution has not been able to establish presence of accused at the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur on 31.05.2008 at about noon time.
(3) Accused used to visit the house of Smt. Amar Jeet Kaur even earlier It is case of prosecution that ever prior to 31.05.2008, accused used to visit the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW1 Smt. Sunita and PW6 HC Ramesh. According to PW1 Sunita, she had seen the accused visiting the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur even prior to the present occurrence. She had also seen both of them occasionally leaving the house together. Even if PW1 could not state if the accused was regularly visiting the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, the same does not adversely affect the case of prosecution that he used to visit the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur even prior to the present occurrence and that both of them were seen occasionally leaving house together.
Even according to PW2 HC Ramesh, Ved Prakash accused often used to visit Amarjeet Kaur. He has further stated that the accused and Smt. Amarjeet Kaur used to visit together and he used to see them going out of the colony and entering the colony.
PW6 HC Ramesh is also from neighbourhood of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. He stated to have seen the accused visiting the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur on FIR No.134/08 13 several occasions and that too in her company. Statement of PW6 has not been subjected to any crossexamination.
(4) Relations of accused and Smt. Amarjeet Kaur PW5 Bablir Singh is husband of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. It is in his statement that he got married to Amarjeet Kaur on 05.12.1999 and from this wedlock they were blessed with two children. In the year 2003, there developed gulf in their married life. Amarjeet Kaur lodged an FIR against him and his family member on the allegations of demand of dowry. Since then she started living separately. Both the children were putting up with parents of Amarjeet Kaur, as further stated by the witness.
Learned defence counsel has referred to the statement of PW5 Balbir Singh, husband of Amarjeet Kaur, wherein he displayed ignorance as to with whom his wife was having illicit relations. The contention is that when PW5 has not stated that it is the accused who was having illicit relationship with his wife Amarjeet Kaur, prosecution version in this regard cannot be believed at all.
Although PW5 Balbir Singh stated that his wife was having an affair with a person, his testimony in this regard being hearsay cannot be taken into consideration. However, in his cross examination, he stated that dispute between him and his wife started in the year 2003 due to her bad character. This fact was not further subjected to any crossexamination.
According to PW2 HC Ramesh, it was talk of the colony that Ved Prakash accused and Smt. Amarjeet Kaur were having relations. The witness was not subjected to any cross examination on this point. According to witness, he knew FIR No.134/08 14 the accused for the last 5 months and Smt. Amarjeet Kaur for the last 78 months.
PW6 HC Ramesh has also deposed that it was talk of the colony that accused and Smt. Amarjeet Kaur were having relations. Statement of PW6 has gone unchallenged for want of any cross examination.
Accused has not explained anywhere as to what type of relations he was having with Smt. Amarjeet Kaur and as to why he used to move around with her and her child.
8 years old son of Smt.Amarjeet Kaur deposes as PW19 PW19 Harmandeep Singh is son of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. In the year 2009, when his statement was recorded in court, he was 8 years old and student of second standard. It is in his statement that police officials had shown him photograph of the accused. According to witness, the accused had taken him and his mother to India Gate on his motorcycle. Statement of PW19 has not been subjected to any cross examination on any point. This goes to show that the accused did not challenge the testimony of this child witness that it is he who took him (the witness and his mother) to India Gate on his motorcycle.
PW19 is a child witness. At the time of his examination in court on 15.09.09, he should have been put preliminary questions to find out if he was understanding the questions and giving rational answers, but this omission does not come to the help of the accused when the statement of PW19 has not been subjected to any cross examination despite opportunity. Even in the course of arguments, learned defence counsel has not raised any objection on the point of FIR No.134/08 15 competency of PW19 to make statement or on the point of admissibility of his statement in evidence.
From the above evidence, this Court finds that accused was having extra marital relations with Smt.Amarjeet Kaur; that he used to visit her at the said flat; and that both of them were seen moving together.
(5) Condition of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur on 31.05.2008 at 12.15 p.m. as noticed by the prosecution witnesses According to PW1 Smt. Sunita, on 31.05.2008 at about 1212.15 pm, accused came to her house and told her (PW1) that Smt. Amarjeet Kaur had somehow become unconscious and that she should come and see her. on the request of the accused she entered the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, her neighbour and found that she was sitting in sofa chair with her eyes closed. According to witness, she poured water on the face of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur but there was no reaction. She ultimately left the house having become nervous and informed other neighbours.
There is nothing in the cross examination of this witness to disbelive the version narrated by her regarding the condition of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur on the given, date, time and place.
PW2 HC Ramesh is also from the neighbourhood of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. He visited the spot on having been informed by PW1 Smt. Sunita that something had happened with her and she was lying unconscious. According to PW2, on reaching the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, he observed ligature marks on the neck of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.
FIR No.134/08 16
PW6 HC Ramesh, another person from the neighbourhood of Amarjeet Kaur has also deposed to have observed ligature marks on the neck of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur who was lying unconscious at her house on 31.05.2008 at 12.15 pm. Statement of PW6 HC Ramesh has not been subjected to any cross examination. So, it goes unchallenged.
From the statements of above three witnesses, it stands established that all of them found Smt. Amarjeet Kaur lying unconscious at her house whereas two of them observed ligature marks on her neck.
PW3 SI Rajbir Singh and PW4 Ct. Sunil Kumar are the police officials who reached the spot on receipt of information vide DD no. 13A.
In this regard, it has been submitted that as per prosecution version, information was received at the police station on 31.05.08 at about 12.15 p.m. from one Parkash, but prosecution has not led any evidence to suggest as to who is said Parkash, who informed the police. The contention is that non examination of Parkash creates doubt in the version of prosecution that this information was ever given to the police.
Arrival of ASI Rajbir & Ct. Sunil Kumar PW9 ASI Shakun is the Duty Officer who recorded DD No. 13A Ex PW9/C on receipt of information that a lady was lying unconscious at house no. 448, TypeA, Ahata Kidaran. This information was received by wireless operator from PCR. It was recorded at 12.15 pm as per contents of Ex PW9/C, ASI Rajbir Singh was informed about this information. That is how, he happened to reach the spot.
FIR No.134/08 17
PW4 Ct. Sunil Kumar also accompanied ASI Rajbir Singh to the spot. On reaching the spot both of them found Smt.Amarjeet Kaur, a lady aged 3035 years, lying dead on the sofa chair, while accused was also present there.
According to ASI Rajbir Singh information was received by him at about 12.15 pm and then he reached the sot. Further according to this witness, he observed ligature marks on the neck of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.
PW3 ASI Rajbir Singh has stated that he made inquiries from the accused whereupon he told that he was working as clerical Head Constable with Special Branch whereas Smt. Amarjeet Kaur (since deceased) was serving as a cook at police station Civil Lines and further that deceased had slided from the sofa whereupon he put her straight on the sofa.
PW4 Ct. Sunil Kumar has made statement in line with statement of ASI Rajbir Singh. In his cross examination, he stated that ASI Rajbir Singh did not make any inquiry from Ved Prakash in his presence. But the fact remains that ASI Rajbir Singh has deposed as to what the accused told him at the spot.
It was for the accused to explain as to under what circumstances Smt. Amarjeet Kaur slided from the sofa.
It is not case of the accused that when he entered the house of Smt.Amarjeet Kaur, it was lying closed. From the given situation, when it stands established that he gained entry in the house of Smt.Amarjeet Kaur on 31.5.2008 at about 10 a.m it was also for him to explain as to what happened at the house during the period from 10 a.m. to 12.15 p.m and as to what led to ligature marks on her neck. But he has not put forth any explanation in this FIR No.134/08 18 regard. No explanation from his side in this regard speaks volumes against him.
Arrival of PCR Staff PW11 ASI Yashpal and PW29 HC Anand Singh are members of PCR team who reached the spot soon after having received call at about 12.20 pm that a lady was lying conscious at house no. 448. It is in their statements that on reaching the spot they found the accused and other persons present there. One lady Smt. Amarjeet Kaur was lying on sofa chair. It is also in their statements that the accused told them to have come to Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.
PW29 HC Anand Singh specifically stated that accused had told to have come their to take some parts of computer from Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. But there is no explanation from the accused in this regard. PW 29 has also deposed about arrival of local police.
It is in the statement of PW11 ASI Yashpal of PCR that ASI Rajbir of local police reached there after their arrival. Even the SHO had reached there accompanied by other police officials as further stated by him.
From the material available on record it stands established that soon after receipt of information, not only persons from the neighbourhood, even police reached there without any delay.
Arrival of Inspector Dara Singh accompanied by others Prior to the arrival of Mobile Crime Team, Inspector Dara Singh Investigation Officer of the case accompanied by Inspector Rajbir Sharma, SI Abdul Kalim and HC Yashpal reached the spot. The factum of arrival of Inspector Dara Singh accompanied by aforesaid members finds support from FIR No.134/08 19 departure entry made at PS Sadar Bazar on 31.05.2008 at 12.17 pm. This DD entry no. 14A is Ex PW30/A. After having inspected the spot, the Inspector despatched the rukka Ex PW30/B from the spot at 1.15 pm. In rukka Ex PW30/B proved by PW 30 Inspector Dara Singh, it finds mention that on his arrival at the spot on inspection of the dead body of Amarjeet Kaur, he found ligature marks. Factum of presence of accused at the spot at that time also finds mention in the rukka.
PW 15 HC Yashpal proved to have collected rukka from Inspector Dara Singh at the spot and taken the same to Duty Officer for registration of the case. On its basis FIR Ex PW9/A was recorded at 1.30 pm. Arrival of HC Yashpal at the police station with rukka stands proved from contents of DD no. 15A recorded at 1.30 pm. DD No. 16 proves departure of the HC Yashpal with original rukka from the PS for the spot and also about despatch of special reports through constable Vikas. PW14 Ct. Vikas has proved delivery of special reports to the senior officers including one of the copies to Metropolitan Magistrate at 7.30 pm. Ct. Vikas returned to the PS at 8.55 pm after delivery of special reports vide DD no. 24A.
DD no. 25A recorded at the police station at 11 pm would reveal that accused was brought to the PS by Inspector Dara Singh after his arrest from the spot. Arrest memo of the accused is Ex PW23/B. It depicts that accused was arrested from the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur on 31.05.2008 at 6 pm. Personal search memo Ex PW23/C in respect of personal search of the accused is also dated 31.05.2008.
FIR No.134/08 20
Arrival of Mobile Crime Team It is case of the prosecution that Mobile Crime Team headed by PW7 SI Amar Singh reached the spot, inspected it and prepared report Ex PW7/A. Besides this, photographs of the scene of crime were also taken.
While appearing in Court as PW7 SI Amar Singh deposed that his team reached the spot at about 1.30 pm and found dead body of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur lying in one of the rooms of the aforesaid house. There were ligature marks on her neck/throat.
According to PW7, the dead body was then removed form the sofa and in this process one hair pin with some hairs in it fell down. One dupatta was lying on a sofa. In the adjoining room, another dupatta was found lying. The witness has proved his report Ex PW7/A which he prepared and handed over to Inspector Dara Singh. In report Ex.PW7/A there is specific mention about presence of hair strands in the finger of Smt.Amarjeet Kaur. It is in the cross examination of the witness that his team remained at the spot for about two hours. He admitted in his cross examination to have not stated before the IO that there were ligature marks on the neck and that eyes and mouth of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur were lying closed or that body was having some hair strands in her fingers.
It is true that even if PW7 did not state before the IO about presence of ligature marks or hair strands in fingers of the deceased, same does not adversely affects the case of prosecution as in report Ex PW7/A prepared by this witness, these facts find specific mention.
Then there is statement of PW28 HC Rajpal, photographer who was also FIR No.134/08 21 member of the crime team. According to PW28, he took 15 snaps at the direction of investigating officer. The witness proved 15 photographs collectively exhibited as Ex PW28/A and negatives collectively exhibited as Ex PW28/A1.
In his cross examination, PW28 HC Rajpal Singh stated that he had not seen the accused at the quarter during the period he remained there. It is significant to note that PW7 SI Amar Singh was not questioned in his cross examination about presence or absence of the accused on the give date, time and place. Even otherwise, as noticed above, PW1 Smt. Sunita, PW2 HC Ramesh and PW6 HC Ramesh have categorically stated about presence of accused on the given date, time and place. Statement of PW HC Ramesh Kumar on this point has not been subjected to any cross examination. Therefore, when PW28 stated in his cross examination that he had not seen the accused at the spot during the period he remained there, it does not help the accused.
Learned defence counsel has contended that none of the photographs Ex PW28/A would reveal that any hair strand was there in any of the hands of the deceased.
On perusal of the photographs Ex PW28/A would reveal that none of them depicts any strands of hair in the hands of the Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.
But when PW7 specifically stated about presence of hair strands in the finger of Smt.Amarjeet Kaur and the same finds mention in his report Ex.PW7/A prepared at the spot, there is no reason to disbelieve the same simply because the photographs do not depict so.
FIR No.134/08 22
(6) Medical Evidence PW Dr. Rohit conducted autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur at Subzi Mandi Mortuary. Postmortem report examination Ex.PW25/A in respect of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur has been proved by Dr. S. Lal, deputed by the Medical Superintendent to appear and depose in place of Dr. Rohit. According to Dr. S. Lal, report Ex.PW25/A is in the handwriting and bears signatures of Dr. Rohit who was working with him.
As per postmortem report, Dr. Rohit observed in the manner as : "Ligature mark 31 cms. long brown parchment type present on front and both sides of neck. In the centre the ligature mark is 1 cm. Wide and is present 7 cms. below the chin. On right side the ligature mark is 2.8 cms. wife and 5 cms. below right angle of jaw, and on left side of neck the ligature mark is 0.9 cms. wife, and is present 2 cms. below left angle of jaw bone. The ligature mark is absent on back of nect. The ligature mark is incomplete."
In the opinion of Dr. Rohit, Smt. Amarjeet Kaur died due to asphyxia consequent upon compression of neck by means of ligature. The doctor further opined that asphyxia was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were antimortem in nature. Probable duration that elapsed between autopsy and death was of one day. In his cross examination, Dr. S.Lal stated that in the present case, strangulation was caused by means of ligature. He further stated that strangulation creates abrasions, finger, nail mark and bruises of nails at neck and other parts of the body only where strangulation is caused manually.
Medical evidence establishes that Smt.Amarjeet Kaur was done to death FIR No.134/08 23 by strangulation and that asphyxia was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
(7) Electronic evidence PW18 Sh. R.K. Singh is Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. He has proved that the mobile phone no. 9971845634 was issued in the name of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. He has also proved on record scanned copy of subscriber enrollment form and copy of ID Card of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. Details of subscriber find mentioned in Ex. PW8/C. Further, according to PW18 mobile phone no. 9871481897 was issued in the name of Ved Prakash, accused. The witness also proved scanned copy of enrollment form in respect of this mobile phone connection. Same is Ex. PW18/E. Copy of ID proof is Ex. PW18/F. From the above evidence, it stands established that mobile phone no. 9971845634 was issued in the name of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur whereas mobile phone no. 9871481897 was issued in the name of Ved Prakash, accused. Accused has not disputed issuance of this mobile phone in his name. The plea of the accused is that his mobile phone was taken away by the police from his house on 31.05.08 at about 8.15 AM. In support of his plea he has examined his mother Smt. Sohan Biri as DW1.
As noticed above, information that a lady was lying unconscious at quarter no. 448 received by the police at 12.15 PM on 31.05.08 and, i.e. how police came into action thereafter. It is not believable that on that day at about 8.15 AM police visited the house of the accused and took him alone or at the same time took away his mobile phone and motorcycle. FIR No.134/08 24
CDR details and ID chart By examining PW18 R.K. Singh prosecution has got proved on record, Call Details in respect of mobile phone of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur and of mobile phone of the name of the accused. Site ID chart has also been got proved on record.
Learned defence counsel has referred to the CDR regarding mobile phone of the accused and pointed out that as per prosecution version the accused was arrested at about 6.00 p.m. but one call is recorded to have been made from the mobile phone of the accused at 9.47 p.m. The contention raised by learned defence counsel is that this goes to show that mobile phone of the accused was being misused by the police while the accused was in custody and this fact goes against the prosecution.
It is significant to note that PW18 has not proved on record any certificate as required U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. In absence of any such certificate, these Call Details and site ID chart can safely be said to be "inadmissible in evidence" and as such, no reliance can be placed thereon. Therefore, these documents are being excluded from consideration.
(8) Recovery of mobile phone from the accused It is case of the prosecution that at the time the accused was arrested from the spot, one mobile phone make Nokia was recovered from him besides other items. It has been so stated by PW30 Inspector Dara Singh and other witness. Recovery memo Ex.PW22/C was prepared in proof of seizure of this mobile phone.
FIR No.134/08 25
It is in the statement of PW30 Inspector Dara Singh that message box of mobile phone recovered from the accused was opened, and photographs of screen were taken. Photographs of the screen revealed that on2 7.05.08 at about 4.44 p.m., Smt. Amarjeet Kaur had sent from her mobile phone no.9971845634 message to the accused on mobile phone no.9871481897 recovered from his possession. These photographs have been collectively exhibited as Ex.PW30/E. (9) Recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased It is case of the prosecution that Smt. Amarjeet Kaur was having mobile phone make Nokia bearing no.9971845634. According to PW30 Inspector Dara Singh, from another room of the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, one mobile phone make Nokia was found and seized vide memo Ex.PW23/E. SMS sent by Smt. Amarjeet Kaur to the accused A perusal of above referred to photographs of the screen of the mobile phone of the accused would reveal that one of these contains photograph of the following SMS : "Cash aap hmare ho pate. Per hmarei aaci kismet kain. Ki hum aap ka baby ko pda kar pate. I miss you"
This SMS was sent by Smt. Amarjeet Kaur from her mobile phone no. 9971845634 to the mobile phone of the accused. On 27.05.08 at 4:44:40 p.m. From the contents of this text message, it can safely be said that both of them were having love affair.
Learned defence counsel has referred to text of the SMS dt.27.05.08 Ex.PW30/E, which was found in the mobile phone of Amarjeet Kaur and FIR No.134/08 26 submitted that from this text, it cannot be said that Amarjeet Kaur was having illicit relations with accused and at the most, it can be said that Amarjeet Kaur wanted to have some relationship with accused but she could not, particularly when it is not case of prosecution that any message was ever sent by accused to Amarjeet Kaur.
But in view of the evidence available on record that the accused used to visit the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur occasionally and both of them were seen moving together, absence of any such message from the side of accused to Smt. Amarjeet Kaur does not come to his help.
(10) Recovery of motorcycle at the instance of accused It is in the statement of PW30 Inspector Dara Singh that accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW23/D and then led the police party to Pul Bangash Metro Station parking and pointed out his motorcycle no.DL7SAT6832. This motorcycle was seized vide memo ex.PW23/G. A perusal of recovery memo Ex.PW23/G makes it evident that this motorcycle was recovered on 01.06.08, by Inspector Dara Singh in presence of Inspector Aarti Sharma and SI Abdul Kalim. Both the attesting witnesses have supported the case of prosecution regarding recovery of this motorcycle from the parking of Metro Station Pul Bangash on 01.06.08.
Ex.PW23/H is the seizure memo vide which counter part of bunch of parking slips was seized by Inspector Dara Singh when produced by Sh. Ashok Kumar attendant present at the parking. This recovery memo also bears attestation of Inspector Aarti Sharma and SI Abdul Kalim. Both the witnesses FIR No.134/08 27 have proved their attestation on this recovery memo and supported the case of prosecution regarding seizure of bunch of counter slips.
As noticed above, parking slip bearing no.005972 in respect of this motorcycle was recovered on personal search of the accused on31.05.08 at the time of his arrest. The parking slip was seized vide personal search memo Ex. 23/C which also bears attestation of aforesaid two PWs Inspector Aarti Sharma and SI Abdul Kalim. Ex.PA is the sheet depicting particulars of the owner of the motorcycle. As per this document the motorcycle stands registered in the name of mother of the accused. These particulars were collected by Inspector Dara Singh from State Transport, Mayur Vihar on his application Ex.PW30/L. Prosecution has examined PW24 Ashok Kumar, the attendant at the aforesaid parking of Metro Station Pul Bangash. According to this witness, on 31.05.08, the accused came to him and parked his motorcycle no.DL7S AT6832 against slip no.5972 Ex.PW24/A. The witness has proved that this slip was issued by him and that the accused parked his motorcycle in the parking as he was in hurry to go somewhere. Ex.PW23/G also bears signatures of PW24 Ashok Kumar. He has identified the signatures on this memo, pertaining to seizure of motorcycle and at point Y on the seizure memo Ex.PW23/H, which pertains to seizure of bunch of counter slips.
A perusal of the original parking slip Ex.PW24/A recovered from personal search of the accused would reveal that vehicle no. DL7SAT6832 was parked at Metro Station parking of Pul Bangash on 31.05.08 at 12.10 p.m. This goes to suggest that the accused parked the motorcycle at the parking of FIR No.134/08 28 Metro Station Pul Bangash at 12.10 p.m. It further goes to show that after parking the motorcycle the accused came to the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. Since occurrence is alleged to have taken place around 12.15 p.m. and presence of the accused at the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur stands duly established, it was for the accused to explain as to under what circumstances Smt. Amarjeet Kaur died or under what circumstances she suffered ligature mark on her neck but the accused has failed to furnish any explanation in this regard.
(11) Recovery of hair strands According to Inspector Dara Singh at about 1.30 p.m. when crime team reached there and inspected the scene of crime, one chunni lying near the dead body on the sofa, one hair clip lying on the floor near the sofa, some small hairs in the right hand fist of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, one pillow with cover lying under the dead body were seized vide memo Ex.PW23/A. Memo Ex.PW26/A bears attestation of Inspector Arti Sharma and SI Abdul Karim. Inspector Arti Sharma has appeared PW6 whereas SI Abdul Karim has made statement as PW23. It is in the statement of PW23 that all these items chunni, hairs, hair band and pillow were seized in his presence at the spot, turned into parcels and thus sealed. Witness has proved his attestation on memo Ex.PW23/A. He also identified duppata Ex.P1, five hairs Ex.P2, and pillow Ex.P3, when produced in court.
In his cross examination, the witness stated that by the time the accused was taken away for medical examination from the spot, he had signed seizure memo. He also supported the prosecution version by stating that besides him FIR No.134/08 29 Inspector Arti Sharma also signed as attesting witness on different memos. Inspector Arti Sharma, while appearing as PW26, also proved her attestation on memo Ex.PW23/A vide which the aforesaid items, chunni, five hair, one hair clip and pillow were seized after the same were turned into parcels at the spot by Inspector Dara Singh. She too identified all these items when produced in court and also black colour plastic hair stick.
Learned defence counsel submits that PW28 HC Rajpal has not deposed that any hair in the fist of Amarjeet Kaur, and this fact creates doubt in the version if any hairs were recovered from her fist. Reference has also been made to the photograph Ex.PW28/A to submit that none of these photographs depict that Amarjeet Kaur was having any hair in his fist. Learned defence counsel has pointed out that according to PW28, his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded. According to PW28, only his name was noted down at the spot. Contention raised by learned defence counsel is that this creates doubt in the version of prosecution that any photograph was taken by this witness at the spot.
It is significant to note that accused has come up with plea that the police forcibly removed his hair for being used as evidence incriminating material against him, but there is no evidence to support this plea.
In view of the above evidence available on record, even if none of the photographs depicts hair in the right fist of the deceased, the same does not come to the aid of the accused or create any doubt about recovery of hair strands. FIR No.134/08 30
(12) DNA profile of the accused comparison with hair strands recovered from the fist of the deceased.
As noticed above, 5 hair strands were recovered from the fist of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur on 31.05.08 at the time of spot inspection. These were turned into a parcel, sealed with the seal bearing impression DS and seized by memo Ex. PW23/A. During trial, on 04.06.2011, my Ld. Predecessor allowed the application of the prosecution for taking of blood samples of the accused for generation of DNA profile and its comparison with DNA profile of the hair strands.
Accordingly, on 13.06.2011 Dr. Piyush Gupta took blood sample of the accused. PW35 SI Sachin Yadav collected the sealed parcel containing blood samples, from the MHC(M) and deposited the same at FSL with seals intact. PW33 HC Suresh has supported this fact.
PW32 Dr. A.K. Srivastava, Asstt. Director ( Biology) has proved reports Ex. PW32/B and D submitted on analysis of the contents of the parcels containing the blood samples of the accused and 5 strands of hair. As per the report of the expert, the alleles present on the hairs found on the fingers of deceased Amarjeet Kaur vide FSL No. 2011/DNA1179 matched with the alleles present on the source of the exhibit 1, i.e. blood sample of accused Ved Prakash.
(13) Dupatta used in strangulating Smt. Amarjeet Kaur Autopsy report Ex PW25/A has been proved by Dr. S. Lal. It is in the medical evidence that Dr. Rohit preserved fiber taken from the ligature mark FIR No.134/08 31 site, clothes of the deceased, scalp hair, vaginal swabs, vaginal slide and blood in gauge.
Medical evidence regarding recovery of fiber from the ligature marks from the site of ligature mark of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur has not been challenged by way of any cross examination.
As noticed above, at the time of spot inspection dupatta Ex P1 was recovered from the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW7 SI Amar Singh, PW23 SI Abdul Kaleem, PW26 Inspector Aarti Sharma and PW30 Inspector Dara Singh. These witnesses have proved recovery memo Ex PW23/A. This recovery memo bears signatures of Inspector Aarti and SI Abdul Kaleem.
This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of these PWs regarding recovery of dupatta Ex P1 from the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.
It is case of the prosecution that dupatta Ex P1 recovered from the house of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur was used in strangulating her and its fiber was removed by Dr. Rohit from the ligature mark observed on the dead body at the time of autopsy.
PW 17 Sh. C. P. Singh, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL has proved report Ex PW17/A issued by him on analysis of the contents of two sealed parcels. Parcel no. 1 was containing mehndi colour dupatta and parcel no. 2 was containing one adhesive tape with fiber material. The expert opined that on comparison of fabric material/fibers with fabric material from parcel Ex P1, it FIR No.134/08 32 was found that the fibers in exhibit 7 and parcel exhibit 1 were similar in terms of microscopic characteristic. This establishes that dupatta Ex P1 was used in strangulating Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.
Burden of proving a fact especially within the knowledge of the accused
7. Section 106 Indian Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him Where an incident of murder takes place inside the house, at a time where only the accused and the deceased are present, and the evidence fixes the liability for the death on the inmate of the house present there at the relevant time, in absence of any other explanation, the only possible inference would be that the accused/inmate participated in the crime. Reference in this regard may be made to decision in Shambhu Nath Vs. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 Supreme Court 404 & Balram Prasad Aggarwal Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1997 (1) Crimes (SC) 10.
8. Accused has not put forth any explanation about all the incriminating circumstances including as to how his hair strands were found in the fist of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.
From the above discussion, this Court finds that prosecution has fully established all the above mentioned circumstances and all these circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and exclude every possible hypothesis except the one proved, and all the circumstances form a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the FIR No.134/08 33 conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The entire evidence discussed above leads to the conclusion that in all human probability Smt. Amarjeet Kaur was strangulated by accused Ved Prakash.
From the circumstances proved on record and the complete chain formed thereby this court finds that the accused visited the house of Smt.Amarjeet Kaur on 31.5.2008 at 10 a.m and remained there till 12 noon; during his presence at the house some altercation took place between the accused and the deceased at the house on some issue and during scuffle Smt. Amarjeet Kaur appears to have grabbed some of the hair of the accused; that when accused has not come up with any explanation, in the given circumstances, altercation must have taken place over the kind of relationship the accused was having with Smt.Amarjeet Kaur; that it is the accused, and none else, who strangulated Smt.Amarjeet Kaur with a dupatta resulting in her death; and that he then went to metro station parking and parked his motor cycle at 12.10 p.m to create evidence that he had parked his motor cycle there at that time and then returned to the house of Smt.Amarjeet Kaur at about 12.15 p.m. In view of the evidence available on record, this Court does not find any merit in the contention raised by learned defence counsel that prosecution has failed to establish that the accused was having any motive in commission of murder of Amarjeet Kaur.
Conclusion
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that prosecution has fully established its case that on 31.05.2008 between 10.15 am12 noon, it is the FIR No.134/08 34 accused, and accused only, who committed murder of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, then serving as Assistant SubInspector with Delhi Police, at her government accommodation no. 448, TypeA, Police Colony, Ahata Kidara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The accused is therefore held guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted thereunder.
Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in Open Court (Narinder Kumar ) on 09.05.2012 Addl. Sessions Judge(Central):Delhi FIR No.134/08 35 IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL); DELHI SC No.55/08 FIR No.134/08 PS Sadar Bazar U/s 302 IPC In the matter of: State Versus Ved Prakash .......Convict ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Sh. Rajiv Mohan, Addl. P.P. for State. Convict with his mother and proxy counsel.
Heard on the point of sentence. Convict has prayed for leniency on the point of sentence on the ground that he is the only earning member in his family, his father having left this world and that there is none else to take care of his aged mother. Mother of the convict present in court has also made same submissions.
This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, including that the convict did commit murder of W ASI Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, after having visited her government accommodation and by strangulating her, the convict is hereby sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/, or in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo FIR No.134/08 36 further Rigorous Imprisonment for four months, for the offence U/s 302 Indian Penal Code. The period of detention already undergone by the convict during investigation, inquiry and trial to be set off against the period of sentence.
Case property be disposed of in accordance with law on expiry of period for Appeal/Revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court
on 09.05.2012 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
FIR No.134/08 37