Delhi District Court
State vs Arshdeep @ Puneet (Proceedings Abated ... on 28 February, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI KULDEEP NARAYAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (PILOT COURT)
WEST: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
SC No.57738/16
FIR No. 234/09
U/s. 302/34 IPC
P.S Rajouri Garden
In the matter of :
State
versus
1. Arshdeep @ Puneet (Proceedings abated vide
S/o Satnam Singh order dated 20.10.2016)
R/o J-5/157, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi
Also at:
A-12, Manik Vihar
near Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi
2. Sumit Kaur
W/o late Jag Mohan Singh
R/o G-16/7A, IInd Floor Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 1/93
Date of Institution : 23.11.2009
Date of reserving Judgment : 01.02.2018
Date of pronouncement : 28.02.2018
Appearances
For the State : Ms. Reeta Sharma,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
For the accused : Shri N.Hari Haran, Learned Senior
Advocate
Shri Varun Deswal, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Accused persons namely, Sumit Kaur W/o Late Jag Mohan Singh aged 28 years and Arshdeep @ Puneet S/o Satnam Singh aged 31 years were sent up for trial on the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) i.e. chargesheet submitted on 05.10.2009 upon conclusion of investigation into First Information Report (FIR) no. 234/2009 of police station (PS) Rajouri Garden for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 (IPC).
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 2/93Prosecution Version:
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Jagmohan Singh (deceased) got married with accused Sumit Kaur. Two children were born out of their wedlock. Subsequently, the deceased began to raise doubts on the character of accused Sumit Kaur. Quarrel started between them and consequently, accused Sumit Kaur began to live in her parental house alongwith both the children, 3-4 months prior to the incident. Meanwhile, accused Sumit Kaur had developed intimacy with accused Arshdeep, friend of the deceased. Accused Sumit Kaur planned to eliminate the deceased from her life, with the assistance of accused Arshdeep, in order to live together with him and on the day of incident, accused Sumit Kaur came to the house of deceased on some pretext, stayed there till night, called accused Arshdeep and both of them committed murder of the deceased while he was asleep under the influence of liquor.
3. As per the chargesheet, vide DD No. 7A Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 3/93 dated 09.07.2009, a call regarding stabbing of complainant's brother at G-16/7A, Rajouri Garden was received at about 2.55 a.m in the police station Rajouri Garden. On receipt of copy of said DD entry, SI Ram Kishore alongwith Ct. Dharambir reached at the place of incident i.e. G-16/7A IInd Floor, Rajouri Garden where they found dead body of a male Sikh lying on the bed in the bedroom.
Intestine from right side of stomach of the deceased had come out, which was hanging from the bed. A cream colour Chunni was found tied to the neck of the deceased. There were 6-7 wounds by some pointed weapon on the chest and stomach of the deceased. The bedsheet and pillow, which were lying on the bed were smeared with blood. Cousin of deceased namely, Savinder Pal Singh met on the spot, who identified the deceased as Jagmohan Singh @ Jugnu S/o late Jaimal Singh R/o G-16/7A, IInd floor, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. Savinder Pal Singh gave his statement to SI Ram Kishore to the effect that Jagmohan Singh @ Jugnu (deceased) was son of his uncle (Chacha) and was married to accused Sumit Kaur D/o Gurdeep Singh R/o V-31, Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 4/93 Rajouri Garden about 9 years ago. Out of the wedlock, they had two children. Accused Sumit Kaur and her husband Jagmohan Singh @ Jugnu (since deceased) had dispute over the character of accused Sumit Kaur. The deceased had also informed his in-laws and his cousin Savinder Pal Singh about the same. Due to above-said dispute, accused Sumit Kaur had been living at her parental home alongwith her two children for the last 3-4 months. Savinder Pal Singh further told that on 08.07.2009, accused Sumit Kaur had come to the house of the deceased to stay there. At about 2.45 a.m accused Sumit Kaur came to his house panting and informed him that something had happened with the deceased and asked him to immediately come with her. On reaching at the house of the deceased, Savinder Pal Singh found Jagmohan Singh @ Jugnu lying dead on the bed of his bedroom in a pool of blood. There were multiple stab wounds on the stomach and chest of the deceased and his intestines had come out from right side of his stomach. A cream colour Chunni was also tied to his neck. On asking about the incident, Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 5/93 accused Sumit Kaur could not give any satisfactory answer. Savinder Pal Singh raised doubts on her. He called the police by dialing 100 number. SI Ram Kishore recorded the statement of Savinder Pal Singh and informed the crime team and the photographer. Thereafter, SI Ram Kishore sent the Tehrir to police station Rajouri Garden through Ct. Dharamvir.
4. On the basis of the above-said statement of Savinder Pal Singh, FIR No. 234/2009 under Section 302 IPC was registered in the present case and the further investigation was handed over to Investigating Officer (IO) Inspector B.R Sankhla, who reached at the place of incident with Ct. Dharamvir. Accused Sumit Kaur was not found at the spot. The crime team inspected the place of occurrence and got the same photographed. After inspection, the IO had prepared the site plan, lifted the Exhibits from the spot and sent the dead body of the deceased to DDU hospital for postmortem examination through Ct. Dharamvir. After postmortem examination, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his relatives.
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 6/935. During further investigation, IO recorded the statements of relatives of the deceased and it was further revealed that on 08.07.2009 at about 10.30 p.m, Ranjeet Singh Kohli, maternal uncle (Mama) of the deceased had come to the house of the deceased but accused Sumit Kaur sent Ranjeet Singh Kohli to her parental house situated at V-31, Rajouri Garden, Delhi on the pretext that her father had been calling him (Ranjeet Singh Kohli) to have dinner with him.
6. On 10.07.2009, on being informed by the secret informer about the arrival of accused Sumit Kaur at her parental house i.e. V-31, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, IO alongwith constable M.M Khan and constable Preeti reached there. Accused Sumit Kaur was interrogated about the death of her deceased husband and her presence in the house of the deceased on 08.07.2009, who did not give satisfactory answers. On sustained interrogations, accused Sumit Kaur broke down and confessed her involvement in the crime. Accused Sumit Kaur disclosed that she became friendly with accused Arshdeep @ Puneet R/o A-12, 1st floor, Manik Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 7/93 Vihar near Subhash Nagar, Delhi who was friend of her deceased husband. Accused Arshdeep @ Puneet was a divorcee. She further disclosed that she had made a plan to kill her husband to get rid of him with the help of accused Arshdeep @ Puneet and as per the plan, on 08.07.2009, accused Sumit Kaur came to stay in the house of her husband. She had already handed over the duplicate keys of Jagmohan Singh's house to accused Arshdeep @ Puneet so that he could easily enter into the house in the night. During the night time, on asking of accused Sumit Kaur, accused Arshdeep @ Puneet entered into the house of Jagmohan Singh and they both committed the murder of Jagmohan Singh by strangulating his neck with Chunni and stabbing him several times with knife. Accused Sumit Kaur was arrested by the IO.
7. Thereafter, accused Sumit Kaur took the IO to the house of accused Arshdeep @ Puneet situated at A-12 Ist Floor, Manik Vihar Extension, Opp. Subhash Nagar, Delhi where IO interrogated accused Arshdeep @ Puneet, who also disclosed about the fact of committing murder of the Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 8/93 deceased. He confessed that as per plan, in the night of 08.07.2009, he entered into the house of the deceased after opening the door with the duplicate keys already given to him by accused Sumit Kaur. He and accused Sumit Kumar strangulated the neck of the deceaesd with Chunni and accused Arshdeep @ Puneet stabbed him several times with knife. Accused Arshdeep @ Puneet got recovered the clothes worn by him at the time of commission of offence from his house. He also got recovered the duplicate keys and Rs. 50,000/- given to him by accused Sumit Kaur. On the above confession of accused Arshdeep @ Puneet, he was also arrested by the IO. On his personal search, cash amount of Rs. 250/- and one mobile phone make NOKIA 6810 were seized by the IO. At the instance of accused Arshdeep @ Puneet, the washed knife used for commission of murder of the deceased was recovered from behind the almirah, three mobile phones without SIM card, which were taken away by him after committing the murder and the washed clothes worn by him at the time of commission of offence were also got Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 9/93 recovered and seized & sealed by the IO. Accused Arshdeep @ Puneet also produced the keys of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL9ST8680 belonging to one Tarun Bahl @ Kaku, parked downstairs which he had used to go to the house of deceased for commission of offence. After getting the medical examination conducted, IO took both the accused persons to the place of incident i.e. H. No.G-16/7A, IInd Floor Rajouri Garden where accused Sumit Kaur produced from Almirah wallet of accused Arshdeep @ Puneet, which was left there at the time of commission of offence, which was also seized by the IO. On pointing of accused Sumit Kaur, her blood-stained clothes, which she was wearing at the time of committing murder of her husband, were also recovered from J-3 Rajouri Garden Park and seized by the IO.
8. During the course of investigation, the postmortem examination report of the deceased was obtained by the IO. As per the postmortem examination report, the cause of death was opined to be Hemorrhagic shock subsequent to multiple stab injuries to the vital organs of body and prior to Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 10/93 stabbing, an attempt was made to strangulate the person by means of a chunni (Ligature). The manner of death was opined to be Homicidal and involvement of minimum two persons was not ruled out.
9. After concluding the investigation, the I.O came to a conclusion that sufficient evidence were collected against the accused persons qua commission of offences under Section 302/34 IPC and thereafter prepared chargesheet and filed in the court on 05.10.2009.
10. On the basis of charge-sheet and the documents submitted with it, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (West), Tis Hazari Courts took cognizance of offence under Section 302/34 IPC and after complying with the provisions contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Court of Session vide order dated 19.11.2009.
Charge :
11. On 19.05.2010, after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 11/93 learned counsel for the accused persons, charge was framed against the accused persons namely, Arshdeep @ Puneet and Sumit Kaur for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with sections 34 IPC. The charge so framed was read over and explained to the accused persons to which both of them did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Witnesses:
12. To bring home the afore-mentioned charge to the accused persons, the prosecution got examined Savinder Pal Singh (PW-1), Manjeet Singh Kohli (PW-2), Dr. Komal Singh (PW-3), Ct. Dharmender Yadav (PW-4), Jasbir Singh (PW-5), Ct. Rakesh (PW-6), Tarun Bahl (PW-7), HC Hans Raj (PW-8), Anuj Bhatia (PW-9), Rajiv Ranjan (PW-10), Pawan Singh (PW-11), Rishi Puri (PW-12), Ct. Preeti (PW-13), Vijaylaxmi Shukla (PW-14), Ct. Prabhat (PW-15), Satpal Singh (PW-16), Ranjit Singh Kohli (PW-17), HC MM Khan (PW-18), HC Dharambir Singh (PW-19), W/Ct. Pooja (PW-20), Ct. Vijender (PW-21), SI Mahesh Kumar (PW-22), SI Gulshan Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 12/93 Kumar (PW-23), HC Dal Chand (PW-24), HC Sunil Kumar (PW-25), ASI Sukhdev (PW-26), Inspector Ram Kishore (PW-27/A), Inspector B.R Sankhla (PW-28), Shri Naresh Kumar (PW-29) and Doctor Adesh Kumar (PW-30).
Documentary Evidence:
13. The prosecution also relied upon certain documents, tendered into evidence i.e. statement of Savinder Pal Singh (Ex.PW-1/A), seizure memo of blood stained floor (PW-1/B), seizure memo of blood stained clothes (Ex.PW-1/C), seizure memo of blood stained piece of intestine (Ex.PW-1/D), seizure memo of chappal (Ex.PW-1/E), identification statement (Ex.PW-1/F), seizure memo of handwritten note (Ex.PW-1/G), seizure memo of original electricity bill of BSES and copy of passport of Manjot Singh (Ex.PW-1/H), electricity bill of deceased Jagmohan Singh Kohli (Ex.PW-1/J), seizure memo of original passport of deceased Jagmohan Singh (Ex.PW-1/K), cancelled passport of Jagmohan Singh (Ex.PW-1/L), site plan without scale (Ex.PW-1/M), original letter alleged Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 13/93 to be written by the deceased (Ex.PW-1/M), DD entry no. 7 A dated 09.07.2009 PS Rajouri Garden (Ex.PW-1/DX), identification statement (Ex.PW-
2/A), receipt of dead body (Ex.PW-2/B), detailed MLC report (Ex.PW-3/A), sketch of knife (Ex.PW- 3/B), seizure memo of three locks alongwith keys (Ex.PW-5/A), statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW- 5/DX to Ex.PW-5/DZ), negative of photographs of the place of incident and dead body (Ex.PW-6/A1 to Ex.PW-6/A17), photographs of the place of incident and dead body (Ex.PW-6/B1 to Ex.PW- 6/B17), seizure memo of photocopy of insurance and invoice bills of motorcycle (Ex.PW-7/A), statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW-7/DA), FIR (Ex.PW-8/A), endorsement on Rukka (Ex.PW-8/B), DD entry no. 9A dated 09.07.2009 PS Rajouri Garden (Ex.PW-8/C), DD entry no. 10 A dated 09.07.2009 PS Rajouri Garden (Ex.PW-8/D), photocopy of customer application form pertaining to mobile no. 9899304988 issued in the name of Jagmohan Singh Kohli (Ex.PW-9/A), photocopy of PAN card (Ex.PW-9/B), photocopy of electricity bill (Ex.PW-9/C),call detail of mobile no.
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 14/939899304988 w.e.f 01.07.2009 to 23.07.2009 (Ex.PW-9/D), attestation of above-said call details (Ex.PW9/E), certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act (Ex.PW-9/F), cell ID chart of above-said mobile number (Ex.PW-9/G), customer application form which is photocopy of Ex.PW-9/A (Ex.PW-9/DA), customer application form pertaining to mobile no. 9250666644 issued in the name of Mukesh Goel (Ex.PW-10/A), certified copy of ID proof i.e. Voter I-Card (Ex.PW-10/B), copy of call detail w.e.f 01.04.2009 to 23.07.2009 (Ex.PW-10/C), attested copy of call detail w.e.f 01.04.2009 to 23.07.2009 (Ex.PW-10/D), certified copy of cell ID chart (Ex.PW-10/E), certified copy of cell ID chart (Ex.PW-10/F), certificate U/s 65B (4) (c) of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW-10/G), CAF of mobile no. 9990188803 issued in the name of Arshdeep (Ex.PW-11/A), photocopy of driving license (Ex.PW-11/B), call detail record w.e.f 01.07.2009 to 09.07.2009 of mobile no. 9990188803 (Ex.PW- 11/C), certified copy of cell ID chart (Ex.PW- 11/D), certificate u/s 65 B (4)(c) of Indian Evidence Act (PW-11/E), arrest memo of accused Sumit Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 15/93 Kaur (Ex.PW-13/A), personal search memo of accused Sumit Kaur (Ex.PW-13/B), disclouser statement of accused Sumit Kaur (Ex.PW-13/C), pointing out memo of accused Sumit Kaur (Ex.| PW-13/D), seizure memo of purse and some documents (Ex.PW-13/E), certified copy of mutation letter of MCD (Ex.PW-14/A), statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW-16/A), identification statement (Ex.PW-17/A), arrest memo of accused Arshdeep (Ex.PW- 18/A), personal search memo of accused Arshdeep (Ex.PW-18/B), seizure memo of cloths containing one white colour legging and one pink colour kurti (Ex.PW-18/C), sketch of recovered knife (Ex.PW-18/D), seizure memo of knife (Ex.PW-18/E), seizure memo of currency notes of Rs. 50,000/- (Ex.PW-18/F), seizure memo of keys (Ex.PW-18/G), seizure memo of three mobile phones (Ex.PW-18/H), seizure memo of two jars of viscera (Ex.PW-19/A), PCR form (Ex.PW-20/A), seizure memo of certified copy of customer application form of mobile phone nos. 9811057520 & 9899304988 and call details w.e.f 01.07.2009 (Ex.PW-21/A), seizure memo of Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 16/93 certified copy of call details of mobile nos. 9990188803 w.e.f 01.07.2009, customer application form of mobile no. 9990188803 and cell ID chart of Delhi/NCR region (Ex.PW-21/B), scaled site plan (Ex.PW-22/A), statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW-22/DX), crime team report (Ex.PW-23/A), entry in register no. 19 at serial no. 6110 (Ex.PW- 25/A), entry in the register no. 19 at serial no. 6111 (Ex.PW-25/B), entry in register no. 19 at serial no. 6239 (Ex.PW-25/C), copy of RC no. 57/21/09 (Ex.PW-25/D), copy of RC no. 65/21/09 (Ex.PW- 25/E), copy of RC no. 66/21/09 (Ex.PW- 25/F), receipt of depositing 13 sealed parcels (Ex.PW- 25/G), receipt of depositing exhibits sealed in one polythene bag (Ex.PW-25/H), copy of log book (Ex.PW-26/A), copy of order vide which property had been destroyed (Ex.PW-26/B), DD entry no. 7A dated 09.07.2009 PS Rajouri Garden (Ex.PW- 27/A), Rukka (Ex.PW-27/B), disclouser statement of accused Sumit Kumar (Ex.PW-27/C), seizure memo of motorcycle and keys (Ex.PW- 27/D), pointing out memo of accused Arshdeep (Ex.PW- 27/E), seizure memo of blood stained clothes of Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 17/93 accused Arshdeep duly sealed with the seal of BRS (Ex.PW-27/F), seizure memo of kurti and legging duly sealed with the seal of BRS (Ex.PW-27/G), seizure memo of seal of BRS (Ex.PW-27/H), inquest papers of dead body (Ex.PW-28/A), DD No. 29 A dated 22.09.2009 PS Rajouri Garden (Ex.PW-28/B), brief facts of the case (EX.PW- 28/D1), detailed biological report (Ex.PW-29/A), detailed serology report (Ex.PW-29/B) and detailed chemical report (Ex.PW-30/A).
Statements of accused persons:
14. On 04.04.2016, statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they denied the correctness of all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them and stated that they were falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Sumit Kaur stated that she had been framed in the present case as she was the easiest scapegoat available as just 3-4 months prior to the incident, she was having estranged relations with her husband. The deceased was a heavy drunkard and Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 18/93 used to beat her a lot. Further, the deceased had not mended his ways despite efforts made by the relatives and left with no option she moved on to her parents' house alongwith children. Accused Sumit Kaur denied the clothes recovered belonged to her and stated that the same were planted upon her.
15. Accused Arshdeep denied the recovery of Rs.
50,000/- and stated the same to belong to his parents. He also stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case.
16. Both the accused persons also led evidence in their defence. Accused Sumit Kaur got her father Gurdeep Singh examined as DW-1 whereas accused Arshdeep got his father Satnam Singh Sachdeva examined as DW-2.
17. Vide order dated 20.10.2016, proceedings against accused Arshdeep were abated as he had committed suicide when enlarged on interim bail.
Final Arguments:
18. I heard the arguments advanced by Ms. Reeta Sharma, learned Prosecutor for the State and Shri Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 19/93 N. Hari Haran, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Varun Deswal, Advocate learned counsel for the accused Sumit Kaur.
19. I have also perused the entire material available on record.
20. During the course of arguments, learned Prosecutor argued that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence. Ranjeet Singh (PW-17) had lastly seen the deceased alive in the company of the accused Sumit Kaur. The testimony of Ranjeet Singh (PW-17), Savinder Pal Singh (PW-1) and Jasbir Singh (PW-5) remained intact and could not be contradicted in any material aspect. The accused Sumit Kaur in a pre-planed manner had come to reside with the deceased on the day of incident and facilitated the entry of accused Arshdeep to the house. Both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of the deceased by inflicting knife injuries. The weapon of offence i.e. knife was later on recovered at the instance of accused Arshdeep. Both the accused persons also got recovered their blood stained clothes which they were wearing at Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 20/93 the time of commission of offence. The blood found on the clothes of the accused persons matched with the blood of the deceased in forensic examination. The recovery of blood stained clothes and weapon of offence besides other articles at the instance of accused persons are relevant u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. The defence proposed by the accused was not consistent whereas the prosecution successfully proved the motive for commission of offence i.e. to eliminate the deceased by both the accused persons in order to live together as they were carrying an affair with each other. Learned Prosecutor further argued that there are no major contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and there was no reason to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. Lastly, it was argued by the learned Prosecutor that the prosecution is bound to prove its case not beyond all doubts but only beyond all reasonable doubts, and, in the present case, prosecution successfully discharged its obligation and accordingly, accused Sumit Kaur is liable to be convicted. Learned Prosecutor relied on Raja @ Rajinder v. State of Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 21/93 Haryana - (2015) 11SCC 43, B.K Channappa v. State of Karnataka - 2006 (12) SCC 57, Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju @ Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2001) 6SCC 2005, Nathu Garam v. State of U.P- AIR 1979 SC 716, Laxman Yadav v. State of Delhi decided by the Delhi High Court on 13.09.2013 and Santosh Kumar v. State of M.P MANU/MP/0230/2007 in support of her contentions.
21. Per contra, learned Senior Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution could not establish if the accused was present with the deceased on the day of incident and for that matter the prosecution also could not establish if the last seen witness i.e. Ranjeet Singh (PW-17) was present in Delhi on the day of incident. Therefore, the testimony of Ranjeet Singh (PW-17) is of no use to the prosecution. Further, the testimony of Savinder Pal Singh (PW-
1) and Jasbir Singh (PW-5) are also not free from doubts and there are material discrepancies in the sequence of events deposed by both the witnesses which make the entire prosecution case doubtful. It was further argued that the prosecution deliberately Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 22/93 did not examine Gurdeep Singh about the presence of the accused on the spot and Gurdeep Singh was examined in defence who clearly established that Ranjeet Singh (PW-17) had not come to his house as alleged by the prosecution. Further, the prosecution did not get the clothes and purse identified in order to fasten the liability on the accused and in the entire set of circumstances, the recovery of clothes at the instance of the accused from an open park area, was full of doubts. Learned Defence Counsel also filed written submissions and submitted that prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts which entitle the accused to be acquitted. Learned Defence Counsel relied on Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan - 2001 IX AD (SC) 17, Shankerlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra - AIR 1981 SC 765, Prabhu v. State of U.P - AIR 1963 SC 1113, Rohit Dhingra & Anr v. State - 2012 II AD (Delhi) 257 and State through CBI v. Gurpal Singh - 124 (2005) DLT 282
22. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both sides.
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 23/93Statutory Provisions:
23. The substantive offence under section 302 IPC, which the accused has been charged with is referred as under:
302. Punishment for Murder- Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
24. The relevant part of Section 300 IPC which defines 'Murder' reads 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, or -
Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender 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 is aforesaid.
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 24/9325. Further, the relevant part of Section 299 IPC which defines "Culpable homicide", having reference in the definition of 'Murder' reads as follows:
299. Culpable homicide-Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
26. Long back in Reg V. Govinda (1877) ILR 1 Bom. 342, Hon'ble Justice Melvill, while laying down the essential ingredients of the offence under section 299 and 300 IPC, compared and distinguished the provisions of both the Sections. Later on, Hon'ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgment titled as State of Andhra Pradesh v. R - Punnayya & Anr - 1977 AIR 45 elaborately dealt with the essential ingredients of Section 299 and Section 300 of IPC. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is extracted as under:
From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' on Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 25/93 the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused had done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to 'culpable homicide' as defined in s.299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of s.300 Penal Code is reached. This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in s.300. If the answer to this question is in the negative, the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or second part of s.304, depending respectively on whether the second or the third clause of s.299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the Exceptions enumerated in s.300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' punishable under the First Part of s.304 Penal Code.Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 26/93
27. For better elucidation, the essential ingredients of both the sections in a tabular form is reproduced as under:-
Section 299 IPC Section 300 IPC
A person commits culpable Subject to certain exceptions,
homicide if the act by which culpable homicide is murder if
the death is caused is done - the act by which the death is
caused is done -
Intention
(a) with the intention of (1) with the intention of
causing death; causing death;
or or
(2) with the intention of
(b) with the intention of causing bodily injury as the
causing such bodily injury as offender knows to be likely to
is likely to cause death; cause the death of person to
or whom the harm is caused;
or
(3) 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
Knowledge
(c)with the knowledge that (4) with the knowledge that the
the act is likely to cause death act is so eminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and without any excuse for incurring the risk of using death or such injury as is mentioned above.
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 27/93Points for Determination:
28. In view of the above-mentioned provisions of law and the submissions advanced on both sides, following points for determination are emerging in the present case.
1. Whether Jagmohan Singh @ Jugnu s/o late Jaimal Singh died in the intervening night of 8/9.07.2009 in his House No. G-16/7A, Second Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi?
2. Whether Jagmohan Singh (deceased) suffered injuries on his person which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature?
3. Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal?
4. Whether both accused Arshdeep and Sumit Kaur were responsible for committing murder of the deceased in furtherance of their common intention?
Points for determination no. 1, 2 and 3.
29. For just decision of the above-mentioned Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 28/93 points, the testimonies of Manjeet Singh Kohli (PW-2) and Dr. Komal Singh (PW-3) are relevant which are as under:
30. Manjeet Singh Kohli, real brother of the deceased was examined as PW-2. He deposed that on 09.07.2009, his cousin Savinder Pal Singh (PW-
1) had informed him about the murder of the deceased. He also deposed about the presence of police officials on the spot and removing of dead body to DDU hospital. PW-2 had identified the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary of DDU hospital vide his statement (Ex.PW-2/A) and received the same vide receipt (Ex. PW-2/B).
31. Dr. Komal Singh, HOD Forensic DDU hospital (PW-3) had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Jagmohan Singh which was brought by the IO with the alleged history of having found dead in his house on 09.07.2009, having multiple stab injuries. PW-3 found blood stained ligature (Chunni of white colour) present around the neck of the deceased having two fixed knots on the left anterior part of neck. Further, 17 external injuries were found Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 29/93 present on the body of the deceased besides the internal injuries. The time since death was opined to be approximately 12 hours. As per the opinion of PW-3, the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock subsequent to multiple stab injuries to the vital organs of the body and prior to stabbing an attempt was made to strangulate by means of ligature (Chunni). All the injuries were ante- mortem in nature and were of same duration. Injury no. 9, 11 and 12 together and individually were found sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW-3 also opined the manner of death to be homicidal and involvement of minimum of two persons in homicide act was not ruled out.
32. Dr. Komal Singh proved the postmortem examination report (Ex.PW-3/A). PW-3 further deposed that on 22.07.2009 IO had produced a sealed parcel for seeking opinion regarding weapon of offence i.e. knife. As per his opinion (Ex.PW- 3/B), injury no. 6 to 15 could be caused with the said knife. P-3 had correctly identified knife (Ex.P7).
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 30/9333. In view of testimonies of Manjeet Singh Kohli (PW-2), real brother of the deceased and Dr. Komal Singh (PW-3) who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, it is clear that deceased was found murdered in his H. No. G-16/7A, Second Floor, Rajour Garden, Delhi in the intervening night of 8/9.07.2009. PW-2 identified the dead body of the deceased to be of his brother vide statement (Ex.PW-2/A). Dr. Komal Singh (PW-3) had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 09.07.2009 at 1.45 p.m which was concluded at 3.15 p.m.
34. In cross-examination, PW-3 stated about the time of death to be approximately around 3 a.m, however, he clarified that there may be variation of three hours on either side i.e. 12 midnight or 6 a.m.
35. In view of the testimonies of PW-2 and PW- 3, it is established that the deceased died in the intervening night of 8/9.07.2009 in his H. No. G- 16/7 A, Second Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The deceased had suffered knife injuries on his person which were sufficient to cause his death in Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 31/93 ordinary course of nature. Prior to infliction of knife injuries, an attempt was also made to strangulate the deceased with ligature material (Chunni). The death of the deceased was apparently homicidal which was caused with the involvement of minimum two persons.
36. The points for determination no.1, 2 and 3 are decided accordingly.
Point for determination no. 4:
37. To bring the guilt home to the accused, the prosecution relied on following circumstances:
1. There were strained relations between the deceased and his wife accused Sumit Kaur as the deceased would doubt the character of accused Sumit Kaur.
2. Accused Sumit Kaur was present in the house of the deceased on 08.07.2009 and Ranjeet Singh Kohli (PW-17) had seen the deceased lastly in the company of accused Sumit Kaur on the said day at around 10- Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 32/93 10.30 p.m.
3. Accused Sumit Kaur was arrested and her blood stained clothes were recovered at her instance.
4. The blood found on the recovered clothes at the instance of the accused, matched with the blood of the deceased.
5. The purse belonging to accused Arshdeep was recovered from the spot at the instance of accused Sumit Kaur.
6. Accused Arshdeep was arrested and weapon of offence i.e. knife, besides other articles including his clothes, were recovered at his instance.
7. Accused Arshdeep used the motorcycle of his friend Tarun Bahl to come to the house of deceased for commission of offence.
8. There was motive available to the accused persons as both the accused Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 33/93 persons were in relation with each other and wanted to eliminate the deceased in order to live together.
38. The above-mentioned circumstances are discussed under following heads:
1. Nature of relationship between deceased and accused Sumit Kaur.
39. In this regard, the testimonies of Savinder Pal Singh (PW-1), Jasbir Singh (PW-5) and Ranjeet Singh Kohli (PW-17) are relevant to be considered which are as under:-
40. As per the testimony of Savinder Pal Singh (PW-1), deceased was the son of his uncle (Chacha), who got married with accused Sumit Kaur D/o Gurdeep Singh on 30.01.2000. After marriage, both of them had lived at second floor of the house of PW-1 at J-3/154, Rajouri Garden for 5-6 years and thereafter shifted to their own house at G-16/7A, IInd Floor, Rajouri Garden. For the last three years, the relation between the deceased and accused Sumit Kaur were not good and the deceased used to doubt the character of accused Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 34/93 Sumit Kaur. Their maid servant had also informed the deceased about the accused Sumit Kaur using three mobile phones out of which two mobile phones were kept hidden in almirah. The deceased also found two mobile phones on checking the almirah and thereafter, both of them started sleeping in separate rooms, connected with common bathroom. One night he had also seen her talking with someone on her mobile phone. The deceased had complained about the same to the uncle of accused Sumit Kaur namely, Kulwant Singh, who scolded her and warned her not to spoil the reputation of her family. Further, the deceased had also complained regarding the character of his wife to the family members of Savinder Pal Singh (PW-1). Due to such strained relations, Sumit Kaur had been living in her parental home with her two children.
41. PW-1 further deposed that on 08.07.2009, Sumit Kaur had come to the house of the deceased leaving her children at her parental house. At about 2.45 a.m, Sumit Kaur came to his (PW-1) house and told "jaldi chalo jaldi chalo jagmohan ke sath Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 35/93 kuchh ho gaya hai". When PW-1 and his father reached the house of the deceased, all the doors were open and lights were switched off which were switched on by the accused Sumit Kaur. They found the deceased in a pool of blood in his bedroom having numerous stab injuries on his chest and right side of the stomach and the intestine was hanging from the bed. One Chunni was tied around the neck of the deceased. When they asked Sumit Kaur how it happened, she replied that four person came to the house and tied her with a rope and committed the murder of Jagmohan Singh. On having doubt on the version of Sumit Kaur, PW-1 made a call on 100 number and police officials reached the spot. PW-1 had narrated the whole incident to the police and his statement (Ex.PW- 1/A) was recorded PW-1 further deposed about lifting and seizure of blood-stained piece of floor, of blood of the deceased, which was spread on the floor (Ex.PW-1/B), two pillows, two bed sheets and shirt smeared with blood (Ex.PW-1/C), piece of intestine (Ex.PW-1/D) and a pair of black colour chappal (Ex.PW-1/E) by the police. PW-1 also Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 36/93 identified 17 photographs (Mark X1 to Mark X17) of the scene of crime and dead body of the deceased. He had identified the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary of DDU hospital vide his statement (Ex.PW-1/F). Savinder Pal Singh (PW-1) correctly identified accused Sumit Kumar, who was present in the court. PW-1 also deposed about one handwritten note dated 21.04.2009 (Ex.PW-1/M) written by deceased, which was given by his father to the IO. IO had prepared the site plan in his presence. During his further examination-in-chief, PW-1 had correctly identified the case property (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6), which were shown to him in the court.
42. Jasbir Singh, uncle (Chacha) of the deceased and father of PW-1 was examined as PW-5. As per his deposition, the deceased had been married with accused Sumit Kaur for about 8-9 years and out of the wedlock, they were having two children namely, Raunak and Khushi. Initially, the deceased had been living in the house of PW-5, however, after purchasing a house at Second floor of G-16/7- A Rajouri Garden, which was in the joint name of Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 37/93 accused Sumit Kaur and the deceased, he had shifted to his above-said house. PW-5 further deposed that the deceased had told him that after shifting to his new house, he was disturbed as whenever he used to make telephone calls to Sumit Kaur, she was not found at home. He had even wished to hire a detective to keep a watch on the movements of Sumit Kaur. The deceased had also complained that Sumit Kaur would not prepare his breakfast, lunch and dinner and she used to take her meal at her parental house. PW-5 also deposed that he was told by the deceased that his maid had told him about Sumit Kaur using two other mobile phones to talk with someone, once he had checked the almirah of Sumit Kaur and found two mobile phones other than the mobile phone with which she used to talk to him and had also caught Sumit Kaur talking secretly to someone else from the said mobile phones. The deceased had complained to the uncle of Sumit Kaur in this regard. Both of them had been sleeping in different rooms. Further, due to lack of mutual understanding, Sumit Kaur started living in her parental house alongwith her Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 38/93 children 3-4 months prior to the incident.
43. PW-5 further deposed that on 08.07.2019, one day prior to the murder of the deceased, Sumit Kaur had come to the house of her husband, leaving her children at her parental house and message in this regard was received by his son (PW-1) who informed him about it. On the night intervening 8/9.07.2009 at about 2.45 a.m, Sumit Kaur came to the house of PW-5, rang the bell and told that something had happened to the deceased. When PW-5 alongwith his Son Savinder Pal Singh (PW-1) reached at the house of the deceased, main door was found open and there was darkness. When Sumit Kaur switched on the lights, they found the deceased lying in the pool of blood on the bed of his bedroom. His neck was tied with a light cream colour Chunni. There were about 15/16 stab injuries on the chest and stomach of the deceased and his intestine had come out of the stomach. The bed-sheet, pillows etc were also blood-stained and a lot of blood was on the floor, bed etc. PW-5 had asked Sumit Kaur as to what had happened and she replied that four persons entered in the house and Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 39/93 after tieing her mouth and hands, they murdered the deceased in her presence. On having suspicion on the version of Sumit Kaur, PW-5 asked her son (PW-1) to call the police. Police officials, crime team and photographer had reached the spot, lifted the Exhibits and conducted the investigation.
44. PW-5 further deposed that about 3-4 months prior to death of the deceased probably on 21.04.2009, the deceased had come to his house and told that in the morning Sumit Kaur came to his house and forcibly got written a note to the effect that relationships between her and the deceased were normal and if anything happen with the deceased, she would be responsible. At that time, the deceased had also given PW-5 a writing to the effect that whatever Sumit Kaur had got forcibly written from him was invalid. PW-5 also deposed about handing over the said note of the deceased (Ex.PW-1/M) to the police, which was duly seized by the IO vide seizure memo (Ex.PW- 1/G). He further stated that after the murder of the deceased, the keys of his house were handed over to him and he looked after the property for 15/20 Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 40/93 days. Thereafter police got the locks of the floor changed and handed over the keys to the elder brother of the deceased and father of accused Sumit Kaur. The previous locks and keys were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-5/A). PW-5 further deposed that at the time of incident, none of the gate or window of the floor was found broken and there was no sign of any forceful entry inside the floor. None of the articles was found stolen on that day. PW-5 identified the case property (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-
15) when shown to him in the court.
45. Ranjit Singh Kohli (PW-17) deposed that he was having a business of auto mobile parts and steering parts, which he used to purchase from Delhi and Ludhiana. On 08.07.2009, he had come to Delhi for purchasing the auto mobile parts. After purchasing the parts, at about 10.00 - 10.30 p.m, he reached at the house of the deceased, son of his sister, at G-16/7 IInd Floor, Rajouri Garden where he met the deceased and his wife Sumit Kaur. He stayed in the house for sometime. During the talks, accused Sumit Kaur told PW-17 that her father had been calling him for food at his house, which was Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 41/93 in the same area at a distance of about ½ kilometer. PW-17 reached the parental house of accused Sumit Kaur and took food with her father namely, Gurdeep Singh. He wanted to come back to the house of the deceased where his bag and money was lying but on insistence of Gurdeep Singh, he (PW-17) stayed there in the night. At about 2 - 2.30 a.m, he heard some noises in the house and when he got up he came to know about the murder of the deceased. PW-17 reached at the house of the deceased where he saw the dead body of the deceased lying in his house. There, he met accused Sumit Kaur, who handed over his bag to him and told that she had taken out Rs. 50,000/-from the bag. PW-17 further deposed that police also reached at the spot in his presence and after the formalities, the dead body was taken to the hospital. He (PW-17) had also identified the dead body of the deceased before the postmortem examination and his statement (Ex.PW-17/A) was recorded to this effect.
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 42/93Analysis:
46. A perusal of the testimonies of Savinder Pal Singh (PW-1), Jasbir Singh (PW-5) and Ranjeet Singh Kohli (PW-17) reveal that the relations between the deceased and the accused were strained. The accused also admitted her strained relations with the deceased in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. However, different reasons were assigned on both the sides for such strained relations. As per prosecution version, the deceased would doubt the character of the accused who had not improved her behaviour despite the counseling and efforts made by the relatives whereas as per the accused, the deceased was a heavy drunkard who would often beat the accused and had not mended his ways despite efforts made by the relatives. Admittedly, the accused was residing with her father in her parental home alongwith her two kids for the last 3-4 months prior to the incident.
47. Savinder Pal Singh (PW-1) had occasion to observe the relationship between the deceased and the accused as after their marriage, both of them had resided for 5-6 years on the second floor of his Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 43/93 H. No. J-3/154, Rajouri Garden prior to shifting to their own house on second floor of H. No. G- 16/7A, Rajouri Garden. PW-1 deposed about the strained relations between the deceased and the accused for the last three years due to deceased doubting the character of the accused. The deceased had also complained in this regard to the family members of PW-1 and had also told about finding two mobile phones in possession of the accused about which the deceased was not having any knowledge. The deceased further told about sleeping separately in different rooms which were connected with one common bathroom and on one night, deceased had found the accused talking with someone in the night when he had come to use the bathroom. The location of two bedrooms with one common bathroom stands corroborated on perusal of scaled site plan (Ex.PW-22/A). PW-1 though had not stated these facts in his statement Ex.PW- 1/A which was recorded on the day of incident itself but he deposed in categorical terms in the court. PW-1 however, had raised doubts on the accused in his statement Ex.PW-1/A though not in Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 44/93 specific terms. On his further cross-examination, PW-1 deposed about the efforts made, about 3-4 months prior to the incident, by him, his father (PW-5), Gurdeep Singh (DW-1) father of the accused, her uncle and other family members to resolve the matrimonial dispute between the deceased and the accused regarding drinking habits of the deceased and making of telephone calls by the accused. No other substantial point could be culled out from the cross-examination of PW-1 on this circumstance.
48. Here, I agree with the submissions of learned defence counsel that the deposition of PW-1 about the maid servant informing the deceased about the use of mobile phones by the accused is not admissible in evidence being hearsay. The deposition of PW-1 about the letter Ex.PW-1/M, purportedly written by the deceased, is also not admissible for the reason that vide FSL report No. FSL 2018-D-3116 dated 21.03.2011, available on record, the handwriting of the deceased was not found matching with the handwriting of the writer of the letter Ex.PW-1/M. Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 45/93
49. Jasbir Singh (PW-5), uncle of the deceased and father of PW-1 also deposed about the doubts raised by deceased to him questioning the character of the accused. In his cross-examination, PW-5 stated to have not told all such facts to the police. Learned defence counsel argued that the testimony of PW-5 deserve to be discarded being nothing but improvement. However, I am not in agreement with this argument. In this regard, it is relevant to note that as per settled propositions of law, a witness can depose additional facts in corroboration of his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C and such additional facts deposed in the court cannot be termed as improvement. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657, Apex Court in para 30 of the judgment laid down that while appreciating the evidence, the Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions or omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially effect the trial. Further, minor contradictions inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 46/93 should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. Further, in para 37, it was held that mere marginal variations in the statements cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. Similarly, in judgment dated 23.07.2017, passed in Crl. Appeal No. 484-487 of 2008, titled as Sheikh Juman & Anr v. State of Bihar, the Apex Court laid down that oral evidence of witness could be looked with suspicion only if it contradicts the previous statements not when it is merely elaborated form of statement recorded before the police with minor contradictions. Therefore, even though PW-5 did not state facts elaborating the strained relationship between the deceased and the accused before the police, his deposition in the court in this regard, does not loose its credibility. However, the deposition of PW-5 regarding the maid servant informing the deceased about the use of mobile phones by the accused as well as his deposition about the letter Ex.PW-1/M are not admissible for the reasons mentioned earlier and cannot be taken into consideration.
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 47/9350. In defence, the accused got examined her father Gurdeep Singh (DW-1) who deposed about the deceased being a drunkard who would beat the accused mercilessly. DW-1 further deposed about efforts of the relatives on both sides who tried to resolve the matrimonial dispute between the deceased and the accused but in vain. In his cross- examination by the Ld. Prosecutor, DW-1 showed his ignorance about the fact with whom the accused would talk on telephones which goes to imply that the accused would make telephone calls to someone. Even otherwise, DW-1 would leave his house for his work place at around 10-10.30 a.m and would only return around 6-6.30 p.m and therefore, he had not much occasions to observe the behaviour and activities of the accused who had come to reside with him for 3-4 months only prior to the date of incident. DW-1 also admitted about the efforts made by Jasbir Singh (PW-5), Savinder Pal Singh (PW-1) and other relatives to settle the dispute between the deceased and the accused.
51. Thus, a combined reading of testimonies of PW-1, PW-5 and DW-1 clearly establish that the Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 48/93 strained relations between the deceased and the accused were not only due to the drinking habits of the deceased but also due to doubts entertained by the deceased about the character of accused whom he suspected of carrying an affair with someone.
2. Presence of accused Sumit Kaur with the deceased and last seen evidence:
52. As far as the presence of accused at the time of commission of offence on the spot i.e. on second floor of H. No. G-16/7A, Rajouri Garden is concerned, Ranjeet Singh Kohli (PW-17) deposed in categorical terms about her presence with the deceased when PW-17 arrived at their house at around 10-10.30 p.m on 08.07.2009. PW-17 deposed that when he arrived at their house, accused and the deceased both were present and after sometime accused told PW-17 that her father was calling him for dinner at his house located nearby. PW-17 had gone to the house of Gurdeep Singh, father of the accused and after having dinner, on the insistence of Gurdeep Singh stayed there for the night. PW-17 also deposed that after Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 49/93 hearing commotion, he had awaken up and when he arrived at the house of the deceased, the accused was already present there prior to arrival of the police. Savinder Pal Singh (PW-1) also deposed about the arrival of the accused to the house i.e. G-
16/7A, Rajouri Garden on 08.07.2009 after leaving her children with her parents. Then, both PW-1 and Jasbir Singh (PW-5) deposed about the accused coming to their house at 2.45 a.m i.e. early morning of 09.07.2009 and telling them panting that something had happened with the deceased. Consequently, both PW-1 and PW-5 rushed to the house of the deceased to find him lying murdered. Both, PW-1 and PW-5 deposed that when they arrived at the scene of crime, the main door of the house was open and it was the accused who had switched on the lights of the house. PW-1 then made a call on 100 number from his mobile number 98180 97511, finding the explanations given by the accused to be suspicious. The fact of telephonic call made by PW-1 from mobile number 98180 97511 stands corroborated by his statement Ex.PW-1/A and DD Ex.PW-27/A and Ex.PW-1/DX recorded at Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 50/93 2.55 a.m on 09.07.2009.
53. In their cross-examination both PW-1 and PW-5 were asked so many questions if they had stated to the police about the facts deposed by them in the court. As observed earlier, such additional facts deposed by both PW-1 and PW-5 which elaborate the chain of events, cannot be termed as improvement. There are no material contradictions going to the root of the case in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-5 so as to discard their testimonies.
54. Further, PW-5 deposed that the police had arrived within 20-25 minutes after he reached at the spot and thereafter the accused had left the spot. This fact was also deposed by PW-27. In his cross- examination PW-1 deposed about the distance between the house of deceased and their house to be 10-15 mtrs after crossing the park. It is also clear that uncle of the accused and his son-in-law were also residing in the same street where PW-1 and PW-5 were residing which explains about the presence of accused with Naina, daughter of her uncle when she rang the bell of the house of PW-1 and PW-5. Ajeet Singh, cousin of PW-1, one H.S Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 51/93 Chopra and the accused, all followed PW-1 to reach at the spot where father of the accused had also reached.
55. A perusal of testimony of PW-17 reveal that on 08.07.2009 he was present in Delhi in connection with purchasing automobile parts for his business. After completing the purchasing, he reached at the house of deceased who was his nephew (Bhanja) at around 10-10.30 p.m where the accused was also present. The accused asked him to go to her father's house for dinner and consequently, PW-17 had gone to the house of father of the accused to have dinner where he stayed for the night on his insistence. In cross- examination, the testimony of PW-17 could not be contradicted in any material aspect. PW-17 explained for not providing details of the transactions made by him to the IO as the same were not demanded by the IO. The submission of learned defence counsel that PW-17 had earlier stayed with his sister residing in Pitam Pura but on 08.07.2009 he chose to stay at the house of the deceased without giving any prior intimation, Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 52/93 cannot be taken to doubt the testimony of PW-17. It cannot be inferred that PW-17 during all his visits to Delhi would always stay at his sister's house and would never come to the house of deceased who was his nephew. PW-17 further explained for not giving railway tickets and particulars of his stay at Ludhiana to the IO as the same were not asked for from him. He categorically, deposed that all the bills of purchase done in Delhi were with him but the same were not got collected by the IO as the same were not considered relevant. On further cross-examination, PW-17 stated that though he had not told the police about his arrival at the house of the deceased and the accused giving him his bag containing money prior to arrival of the police at the spot, PW-17 stated to have told both Jasbir Singh (PW-5) and Savinder Pal Singh (PW-1) in this regard. He had also told Jasbir Singh and Savinder Pal Singh about going to the house of Gurdeep Singh, father of accused on the insistence of the accused.
56. As per the testimony of PW-17, he had taken dinner at around 11.30 p.m at the house of Gurdeep Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 53/93 Singh where his younger daughter, wife and mother were present. PW-17 was not asked about the presence of children of accused at her father's house otherwise, he would have clarified in this regard also. As far as submissions of learned defence counsel that PW-17 had not informed the deceased or the accused about his staying at Gurdeep Singh's house after dinner is concerned, suffice it to say that it can be reasonably inferred that after having dinner around 11.30 p.m, PW-17 would not have considered it absolutely necessary to return to the house of accused to sleep only. Moreso, when Gurdeep Singh insisted upon him to stay. At that hour of night, it is but natural for a person not to return and to sleep in one's relative's house.
57. In her defence, the accused got examined her father Gurdeep Singh (DW-1) who deposed about not meeting with Ranjeet Singh (PW-17) on 08.07.2009, however, a perusal of the entire testimony of DW-1 reveal that DW-1 had deposed purposely for not meeting PW-17 in his house. The testimony of DW-1 who apparently is an interested Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 54/93 witness, is not credible for he had not deposed who called him to inform about the incident. His deposition about the presence of accused in the house of deceased till 11 a.m and arrest of the accused in the police station could not be corroborated in any manner. Besides, DW-1 no other family member of his family was examined to lend more credence to the testimony of DW-1. Except the testimony of DW-1, no evidence was led by the accused to sustain her plea.
58. A conjoint reading of the testimonies of PW- 1, PW-5 and PW-17 would show that no doubts could be created in their respective testimonies regarding presence of the accused on the spot. The testimony of PW-17 remained unshattered and is worth believing. It is, therefore, established that PW-17 was present in the house of the deceased on 08.07.2009 and had also seen the deceased lastly in the company of the accused around 10.30 p.m. The deceased was found murdered at around 2.50 a.m in the intervening night of 8/9.07.2009. The murder was also brought to the notice of PW-1 and PW-5 by the accused herself who consequently rushed to Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 55/93 the spot. There was no other occasion for PW-1 and PW-5 to reach at the spot and for PW-1 to make a call at 100 number from the spot itself. The submission of learned defence counsel regarding discrepancy in time of making call at 100 number - at 2.47 a.m though the accused reached at his (PW-
1) house at 2.45 a.m and it would have taken around 15-20 minutes to come at the spot - cannot be considered to raise any doubt in the testimony of PW-1 for the reason that in the given scenario and when the witness is deposing after more than a year such minute calculations of time, cannot be taken to raise any doubt in his testimony, more so when all other facts deposed by PW-1 could not be controverted. The testimony of PW-1 regarding minute-to-minute and second-to-second sequence of events, cannot be expected in the entire set of circumstances where PW-1 reacted on hearing the news about some untoward incident caused to his cousin brother at that point of time.
59. Therefore, in view of above-discussed circumstances, there is no doubt that the accused was present with the deceased on 08.07.2009 till Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 56/93 the intervening night of 08/09.07.2009.
3. Arrest of accused persons and consequent recoveries:
60. The prosecution got examined Ct. Preeti (PW-13), HC MM Khan (PW-18), Inspector Ram Kishore (PW-27) and IO Inspector B.R Sankhla (PW-28) who all deposed about the arrest of accused persons and recoveries effected at their instance. The testimonies of afore-mentioned prosecution witnesses are as under:-
61. On 09.07.2009, Ct. Preeti (PW-13) had joined the investigation of the present case. As per her deposition, she alongwith IO, SI Ram Kishore Ct. Chand Prakash and Ct. MM Khan had reached at the second floor of H. No. V-31, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. Accused Sumit Kaur met on the spot, who was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW-13/A). PW- 13 conducted personal search of accused Sumit Kaur vide personal search memo (Ex.PW-13/B).
Accused Sumit Kaur made a disclouser statement (Ex.PW-13/C) wherein she disclosed about involvement of co-accused Arshdeep @ Puneet in Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 57/93 the murder of her husband. She took the police to the house of accused Arshdeep @ Puneet at A-12, Manik Vihar, Subhash Nagar, Delhi where he also confessed his guilt. PW-13 further deposed that at the instance of accused Sumit Kaur, her blood stained clothes, which she was wearing at the time of incident were recovered from the park on the side of J-12 Block, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, which were seized by the IO. Both the accused persons led the police to second floor of H. No. G-16/7A Rajouri Garden where they had committed murder of the deceased. From there, accused Sumit Kaur got recovered the purse of accused Arshdeep @ Puneet, which he had left in the bedroom by mistake on the day of incident and accused Sumit Kaur had kept the same on the top of the almirah. IO seized the purse vide seizure memo (Ex.PW- 13/E). PW-13 identified the case property i.e. one cream colour purse with its contents (Ex.P-13) (colly) and one white leggings and blood stained pink colour printed kurti (Ex.P-14) (colly), when shown to her.
62. HC MM Khan (PW-18) deposed that he Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 58/93 alongwith Ct. Sudhir, Ct. Chand, SI Ram Kishore, W/Ct. Preeti and IO joined the investigation of the present case and reached at H.No. G-16/7, Rajouri Garden where murder of the deceased was committed. PW-18 deposed about the arrest of accused Sumit Kaur from House No. V-31, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. He further deposed about arrest of accused Arshdeep @ Puneet from A-12, Manik Vihar vide arrest memo (Ex.PW-18/A) and conducting his personal search vide personal search memo (EX. PW-18/B) by the IO. PW-18 further deposed about recovery of seizure of clothes of accused Arshdeep @ Puneet (Ex.PW-18/C), recovery of knife and Rs. 50,000/- at the instance of accused Arshdeep, preparation of sketch of knife (Ex.PW-18/D), seizure of knife vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-18/E), seizure of currency notes of Rs. 50,000/- (Ex.PW-18/F) and recovery of duplicate keys of house of the deceased at the instance of accused Arshdeep @ Puneet. He also deposed about recovery and seizure of three mobile phones (Ex.PW-18/H) from the possession of accused Arshdeep @ Puneet. PW-18 further deposed about Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 59/93 recovery of one purse and its contents belonging to Arshdeep @ Puneet from the house of the deceased at the instance of accused Sumit Kaur, which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-13/E). He further deposed about recovery of clothes of accused Sumit Kaur at her instance i.e. white legging and pink kurti, which she was wearing at the time of incident, which were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-18/C). Further, PW-18 identified the case property (Ex.P-7, Ex.P-13, Ex.P-14, Ex.P-15, Ex.P-16, Ex.P-17, Ex.P-18, Ex.P-19 and Ex.P-20 i.e. knife, three keys, three mobile phones, currency notes, one black colour jeans and black colour T- Shirt, one purse having driving license and visiting cards and while colour legging & one pink kurti.
63. Inspector Ram Kishore (PW-27) was on emergency duty on 08.07.2009 from 8 p.m to 8 a.m. At about 2.55 a.m, PW-27 was handed over DD No. 7A(Ex.PW-27/A) and accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Dharambir reached at G-16/7-A, Second Floor, Rajouri Garden where he found the dead body of one Sikh person lying on the bed in the last room of the floor. PW-27 deposed that the Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 60/93 dead body was lying in the pool of blood having multiple stab injuries on chest and stomach and intestine of the deceased had come out. One lady namely, Sumit Kaur (wife of deceased) was also present there. PW-27 recorded the statement of one Savinder Pal (Ex.PW-1/A), who had made call at 100 number. He prepared rukka (Ex.PW-27/B) and handed over the same to Ct. Dharambir for registration of FIR. Thereafter, further investigation was handed over to Inspector B.R Sankhla, who inspected the scene of crime and prepared site plan and shifted the dead body to DDU hospital. From the spot, earth control and blood sample were lifted and sealed with the seal of 'BRS' in two pullandas and were seized vide memo (Ex. PW-1/B). Two blood stained pillows sealed in a pullanda with the seal of BRS, mehroon coloured bed sheet sealed in a pullanda with the seal of BRS, one blue strip shirt sealed in a pullanda with the seal of BRS were also seized vide memo Ex. PW-1/C. Further, one piece of intestine of deceased sealed with seal of BRS was seized vide memo Ex.PW-1/D and one pair of black chappal was seized vide memo Ex.PW-1/E. Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 61/93 Meanwhile, Sumit Kaur had disappeared from the spot. In the presence of PW-27, IO recorded the identification statements of Savinder Pal (Ex.PW- 1/F), Ranjit Singh (PW-17/A) and Manjit Singh (PW-2/A), who identified the dead body. After postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over to Manjit Singh vide receipt Ex.PW- 2/B. Doctor handed over three sealed pullandas, four sample seal and one envelope to the IO after postmortem examination, which were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW-19/A.
64. Further, on 10.07.2009, PW-27 alongwith IO, W/Ct. Preeti, Ct. MM Khan and Ct. Chand left the police station for further investigation and reached at V-31, Rajouri Garden where accused Sumit Kaur was interrogated upon which she confessed her guilt and was arrested vide memo Ex.PW-13/A. PW-27 further deposed that personal search of accused Sumit Kaur was got conducted vide memo (Ex.PW-13/B) and she made disclouser statement (Ex.PW-13/C). Further, at the instance of accused Sumit Kaur, they all went to A-12, Manik Vihar, Opp. Subhash Nagar where accused Punit @ Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 62/93 Arshdeep was interrogated by the IO and arrested vide memo (Ex.PW-18/A). Personal search of accused Punit @ Arshdeep was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW-18/B) and he made disclouser statement (Ex.PW-27/C). Accused Punit @ Arshdeep got recovered three duplicate keys of house of deceased from his house i.e. A-12, Manik Vihar which were sealed with the seal of BRS and seized vide memo (Ex.PW-18/G). Cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- were got recovered from the house of accused Punit @ Arshdeep, which were seized vide memo (Ex.PW-18/F). Accused further got recovered one knife i.e. weapon of offence and IO prepared sketch of knife (Ex.PW-18/E). Blood stained clothes of accused Punit @ Arshdeep were seized vide memo (Ex.PW-18/C). Three mobile phones said to be belonging to accused Sumit Kaur, recovered at the instance of accused Punit @ Arshdeep were seized vide memo (Ex.18/H). One Hero Honda motorcycle used in the commission of offence was also seized at the instance of accused Punit @ Arshdeep vide memo Ex. (PW-27/D). Thereafter, both the accused persons were taken to Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 63/93 the place of occurrence and both identified the room where they committed the murder of the deceased and IO prepared memos Ex.PW-13/D and Ex.PW-27/E. From the wooden almirah of the said house, one leather purse was also seized vide memo (Ex.PW-13/E) by the IO. At the instance of accused Sumit, one blood stained white slex and pink kurti, which she was wearing at the time of commission of offence, were recovered from the corner of J-3 Park towards J-12 block side and seized vide memo (Ex.PW-27/F). All the case property was deposited by the IO in the Malkhana. PW-27 identified the case property i.e. Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, Ex.P13 to Ex.P20 and Ex.PZ.
65. Inspector B.R Sankhla (PW-28), IO of the case deposed that on 09.07.2009 being Inspector Investigation at PS Rajouri Garden, he received DD No.10A and reached at the spot i.e. G-16/7-A, Second floor, Rajouri Garden. SI Ram Kishore, crime team incharge SI Gulshan and photographer Ct. Rakesh were already present at the spot. SI Ram Kishore handed over the copy of DD No. 7 A, rukka, copy of FIR and crime team report to PW-
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 64/9328. PW-28 inspected the site and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW-1/M) and inquest papers of the dead body (Ex.PW-28/A). From the spot, the earth control and blood around the bed from the bedroom where the dead body was lying, were lifted and seized vide memo (Ex.PW-1/B). Two blood stained pillows having yellow colour cover, one blood-stained bed sheet of green colour, one Mehroon colour bed sheet and one blue strips shirt were seized vide memo (Ex.PW-1/C). One piece of intestine of deceased lying on the floor near the bed was seized vide memo (Ex.PW-1/D). One pair of black chappal were seized vide memo (Ex.PW- 1/E). The dead body was sent to the mortuary of DDU hospital for postmortem examination. IO recorded the identification statements (Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-17/A and Ex.PW-1/A). After postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over to Manjit Singh, relative of deceased vide receipt (Ex.PW-2/B). During the course of investigation, PW-28 recorded the statements of Manjit Singh, Savinder Pal Singh, Jasbir Singh, Ranjit Singh SI Gulshan Kumar, Ct. Rakesh and SI Ram Kishore Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 65/93 and deposited the case property in the malkhana.
66. On 10.07.2009, on the information of secret informer, PW-28 alongwith other staff reached V- 31, Rajouri Garden where accused Sumit Kaur met. On interrogation, she made her disclouser statement (Ex.PW-13/C) and she was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW-13/A). Her personal search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW-13/B). At the instance of accused Sumit Kaur, accused Arshdeep @ Puneet was also interrogated and arrested vide memo (Ex.PW-18/A). His personal search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW-18/B) and his disclouser statement (Ex.PW-27/C) was recorded. At the instance of accused Arshdeep @ Puneet, cash amount of Rs. 50,000/-, three duplicate keys, one knife, three mobile phones, his blood stained clothes and one Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration no. DL9ST8680 were recovered and all were seized vide Ex.PW-18/F, Ex.PW-18/G, Ex.PW-18/E, Ex.PW-18/H, Ex.PW-18/C and Ex.PW-27/D respectively. Both the accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence i.e. bed room of second floor of H.No. G-16/7A, Rajouri Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 66/93 Garden vide pointing out memos Ex.PW-13/D and Ex.PW-27/E.
67. At the instance of accused Sumit Kaur, one gents leather purse and her blood stained clothes were recovered, which were seized by PW-28 vide seizure memo Ex.PW-13/E and Ex.PW-27/E respectively. PW-28 also recorded the statements of witnesses. On 11.07.2009, IO (PW-28) recorded the statements of HC Sukhdev (incharge of PCR van Power 25) and Shri Tarun Behl (owner of motorcycle bearing no. DLST8680) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 24.07.2009, IO seized one hand written note of deceased vide memo Ex.PW- 1/G, produced by Jasbir and his son Savinder Pal Singh and also recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
68. On 04.08.2009, Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer of Idea produced call detail record alongwith cell ID record of mobile no. 99901 88803, which were seized by PW-28 vide memo (Ex.PW-21/B) and PW-28 also recorded statement of Pawan Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the same day, Nodal Officer, Vodafone also produced CDR alongwith Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 67/93 cell ID pertaining to mobile numbers 98110 57520 and 98993 04988, which were seized by the IO vide memo (Ex.PW-21/A). On 06.08.2009, M.N.V Jayan, Nodal Officer of TATA Tele Services produced CDR and Customer Application Form pertaining to mobile number 92506 66644. IO seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-28/A) and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 12.08.2009, IO sent the seized documents to FSL through Ct. Prabhat and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, IO (PW-28) also recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C of Shri Mukesh Goyal, SI Mahesh, Savinder Pal Singh, Ct. Bijender, W/Ct. Pooja, Ct. Dal Chand and Jasvinder Singh. PW-28 deposed about filing the charge-sheet in the court after completion of the investigation.
Analysis :
69. A conjoint reading of testimonies of Ct. Preeti (PW-13), HC MM Khan (PW-18), Inspector Ram Kishore (PW-27) and Inspector B.R. Sankhla Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 68/93 (PW-18) would establish that the accused was arrested on 10.07.2009 from the house of her father Gurdeep Singh. After interrogation, accused led the police team to the house of accused Arshdeep, who was also arrested. Accused Arshdeep got recovered his washed blood stained clothes i.e. T-shirt and black jeans, cash of Rs. 50,000/-, three duplicate keys, one knife (weapon of offence) and three mobile phones. Accused Arsheep also pointed out towards one motorcycle make Hero Honda Karizma which was stationery near his house and was used in commission of the offence. The keys of the motorcycle were also produced by him. Both the accused were brought to the scene of crime wherein accused Sumit Kaur produced one gents leather purse kept in almirah which belongs to accused Arshdeep that had fallen at the time of commission of offence and was kept by accused Sumit Kaur in the almirah. It is also established that thereafter accused Sumit Kaur got recovered her blood stained clothes i.e. one white legging and pink kurti from nearby park. No material contradiction could be culled out by the learned Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 69/93 defence counsel in cross-examination of above- mentioned prosecution witnesses.
70. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned defence counsel that the recovered clothes at the instance of accused Sumit Kaur could not be connected to her as the clothes were not got identified either by PW-17 or by any of the family member, who could have seen the accused wearing those clothes. The accused was also not made to wear the clothes to establish that the clothes belonged to her. Learned defence counsel relied on Subhash Chand (supra) case, Shanker Lal Gyarasilal (supra) case and Prabhu (supra) case in support of his contentions. I am not satisfied with the submissions of learned defence counsel.
71. In this regard, the law is settled that the identification of clothes by the accused or any person or making the accused wear the clothes is not required at all as the discovery of a fact only is relevant u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. The 'fact discovered' in the present case was that accused Sumit Kaur disclosed about throwing her blood Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 70/93 stained clothes in the park and the clothes were thereafter recovered from the said place. Nothing more was required to bring this fact discovered at the instance of the accused to bring it within the purview of section 27 of the Evidence Act. The law is settled in this regard from the time of Privy Council when an Hon'ble Bench of Four Judges gave its verdict in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor on 19.12.1946. Writing the judgment for the Hon'ble Bench, John Beaumont, J. laid down that it is fallacious to treat "the fact discovered"
within the section as equivalent to the object produced. It was further laid down that the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. In its judgment dated 26.11.2014, Hon'ble Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court in Vasant Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra cited Pulukuri Kottaya (supra) case with approval to hold that the expression "fact discovered" includes not only the physical object produced but also the place from which it is Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 71/93 produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this. The Apex Court also relied on Aftab Ahmad Ansari v. State of Uttranchal (2010) 2 SCC 583 wherein the contention that the prosecution failed to prove that the clothes so recovered belongs to the deceased and, therefore, the recovery of the clothes should not be treated as an incriminating circumstance, was held to be devoid of merits. Further, referring Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admin.) (1979) 3SCC 90, the Apex Court ruled that the evidence of the circumstance that an accused person led a police officer and pointed out the place where stolen articles or weapons which might have been used in the commission of the offence were found hidden, would be admissible as conduct u/s 8 of the Evidence Act, irrespective of whether any statement by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of section 27 of the Evidence Act.
72. Moreover, as per the FSL result (Ex.PW- 29/A) and (Ex.PW-29/B), blood of 'B' group found on the legging (pyjami) matched with the blood Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 72/93 group 'B' of the deceased. Further, human blood was also found present on the clothes of accused Arshdeep as well as on the knife i.e. weapon of offence though 'ABO' grouping could not be done due to no reaction which possibly may be due to washing of clothes and knife. In the given circumstances, the ratio laid down in Vasant Sampat (supra) case and Raja alias Rajinder (supra) case, applies with full force to make the recover of blood-stained clothes and weapon of offence at the instance of the accused persons admissible u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. There is no explanation worth the name of it, furnished by the accused to suggest otherwise.
4. Use of Motorcycle by accused Arshdeep :
73. In this regard, Tarun Bahl, friend of accused Arshdeep @ Puneet was examined as PW-7. He deposed that in the night of 08.07.2009, accused Arshdeep @ Puneet had asked for his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-9ST-8680 saying that he would return the same within two hours.
However, accused Arshdeep @ Puneet had not returned his motorcycle that night despite several Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 73/93 calls made by him (PW-7). He further deposed that accused Arshdeeep @ Puneet had not returned his motorcycle even on 09.07.2009 and 10.07.2009 and in the night, he came to know about commission of murder by accused Arshdeep @ Puneet. On 11.07.2009, he was called in the police station Rajouri Garden where he had identified his above- said motorcycle. He handed over the insurance and purchase papers of the motorcycle to the police, which were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW- 7/A).
74. As per the testimony of Tarun Bahl (PW-7) his motorcycle (Ex.PZ) was taken by accused Arshdeep on the night of 08.07.2009 around 11 p.m on the pretext of some emergency work which was not returned till 10.07.2009. PW-7 had tried to call accused Arshdeep several times for returning his motorcycle but to no avail. On 11.07.2009 PW-7 was called in the police station Rajouri Garden where he identified his motorcycle. The testimony of PW-7 about lending the motorcycle (Ex.PZ) to accused Arshdeep remained intact.
5. User of mobile numbers 98993 04988 and Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 74/93 92506 66644 :
75. With regard to accused Sumit Kaur being the user of above-mentioned mobile numbers, the testimonies of relevant prosecution witnesses are as under:-
76. Anuj Bhatia, Nodal Officer Vodafone was examined as PW-9. He produced the photocopy of Customer Application Form (CAF), (Ex.PW-9/A), photocopy of PAN card (Ex.PW-9/B) and photocopy of electricity bill (Ex.PW-9/C) pertaining to subscription of mobile number 98993 04988 in the name of Jagmohan Kohli (deceased). He also produced call details w.e.f 01.07.2009 to 23.07.2009 (Ex.PW-9/D).
77. Rajiv Ranjan, Nodal Officer TATA Tele Services Limited (PW-10) produced the certified copy of Customer Application Form (Ex.PW-10/A), photocopy of voter I-Card (Ex.PW-10/B), call details w.e.f 01.04.2009 to 23.07.2009 (Ex.PW-
10/C) pertaining to mobile number 92506 66644, which was subscribed in the name of one Mukesh Goel S/o Bhupender R/o 434-A, Gali No. 2, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 75/9378. Pawan Singh (PW-11) produced the certified photocopy of Customer Application Form (Ex.PW- 11/A), photocopy of driving license (Ex.PW-11/B) and call details w.e.f 01.07.2009 to 09.07.2009 pertaining to mobile number 99901 88803, subscibed in the name of accused Arshdeep.
79. Rishi Puri (PW-12) deposed that he was running a ready made garment shop at J-78, Rajouri Garden, Main Market, Delhi. Once accused Sumit Kaur had bought a garment from his shop and later returned it. He had issued a credit note to her as he did not return the money in lieu of that garment and regarding the same, accused Sumit Kaur had called on his mobile number 99718 33283 from her mobile number 92506 66644.
80. Satpal Singh (PW-16) deposed that he knew the deceased as both of them had factories at Anand Parbat and he had business relations with him. As per his memory, the mobile number of Jagmohan Singh was 98110 57520. On 08.07.2009, he had received a missed call from 92506 66644 on his mobile phone make TATA 83073 but he did not pick the same as the same was unknown number.
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 76/93PW-16 was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, who confronted him with his statement (EX.PW-16/A). He denied the suggestion that he knew the user of mobile phone number 92506 66644 to be Sumit Kaur wife of the deceased. He also denied the suggestion that deceased also used to call him sometimes from mobile number 92506 66644. PW-16 further denied the suggestion that he had a talk with the deceased on 08.07.2009 from mobile phone number 92506 66644 on his Tata mobile phone number 92121 83073.
81. As per the prosecution case, accused Sumit Kaur was using mobile number 92506 66644 (subscribed to Mukesh Goel) and 98993 04988 (subscribed to deceased Jagmohan Singh).
82. Rishi Puri (PW-12) and Satpal Singh (PW-
16) deposed about the accused Sumit Kaur to be the user of mobile number 92506 66644. However, a perusal of their testimonies reveal that both of them could offer no reasonable explanation to show that accused Sumit Kaur was in fact using mobile number 92506 66644. Accordingly, the testimony of both PW-12 and PW-16 cannot be considered to Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 77/93 establish that accused Sumit Kaur was the user of mobile number 92506 66644. Moreover, Mukesh Goel subscriber of mobile number 92506 66644 was not examined by the prosecution who could have explained how the mobile number subscribed in his name was being used by accused Sumit Kaur. Alongside a reference to the testimony of Savinder Pal Singh (PW-1) is to be made at this juncture wherein he deposed about the accused Sumit Kaur being the user of mobile number 98993 04988 subscribed in the name of Jagmohan (deceased). The testimony of PW-1 with regard to this fact was not controverted and therefore, there is no doubt that accused Sumit Kaur was using the mobile number 98993 04988. A perusal of CDR (Ex.PW- 9/D) and (Ex.PW-11/C) would show that there were several conversations exchanged between the mobile numbers 98993 04988 and 99901 88803 (of accused Arshdeep) which goes to imply that accused Sumit Kaur and accused Arshdeep were in regular touch with each other and had a lot of conversation on 08.07.2009 till the intervening night of 08/09.07.2009.
Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 78/935. Evidence regarding friendly entry :
83. SI Mahesh Kumar, Draughtsman (PW-22) at the instance of IO, had prepared the scaled site plan of the place of incident i.e. G-16/7-A Second floor, Rajouri Garden (Ex.PW-22/A) on 03.08.2009.
84. HC Dal Chand (PW-24) joined the investigation of the present case on 30.09.2009 and reached at G-16/7 A, Second Floor, Rajouri Garden alongwith IO. PW-24 deposed that IO got the two main gate locks and one lock of balcony gate removed from a private welder, sealed them in pullanda with keys, which were duly sealed with the seal of BRS and seized by the IO vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-5/A). The keys were provided by Jasbir Singh PW-24 correctly identified the case property Ex.P7 to P12 i.e. locks and keys.
85. The deceased was found murdered in his bed room situated at the backside of the second floor of H. No. G-16/7A Rajouri Garden, Delhi which is also corroborated by the scaled site plan (Ex. PW-
22/A) prepared by SI Manish Kumar (PW-22). It is Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 79/93 also clear that there were no signs of any forceful entry in the house of the deceased. As observed earlier, a set of duplicate keys were also recovered at the instance of accused Arshdeep from his house which could not be accounted for by him. As per the testimony of HC Dal Chand (PW-24), the IO had got removed two locks of the main gate and one lock of balcony gate from H.No. G-16/7A Second floor, Rajouri Garden, Delhi with the assistance of one private welder. Jasbir Singh had also produced the keys with which the said locks were opened and locked. The said locks and keys were duly identified by PW-24 as Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-
12. Further, Inspector B.R Sankhla (PW-28) deposed about the seizure of the three locks and original keys vide memo Ex.PW-5/A. PW-28 also deposed about opening the locks with the duplicate keys recovered at the instance of accused Arshdeep. The afore-said facts goes to indicate in clear terms that accused Arshdeep effected his entry into the house of the deceased with the use of duplicate keys which as per the prosecution version were already provided to him by accused Sumit Kaur Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 80/93 and, therefore, there was no sign of any forced entry into the house of the deceased.
6. Motive :
86. In the light of testimonies of above-
mentioned prosecution witnesses particularly PW- 1, PW-5 and PW-17, it can be inferred that accused Sumit Kaur developed an intimacy with accused Arshdeep who would come to the house of the deceased being his friend. It can also be inferred that the deceased would beat accused Sumit Kaur under the influence of liquor and had also started doubting her character. Accused Sumit Kaur wanted to get rid of her relationship with the deceased. As observed earlier, no amicable solution could be found by the relatives on both sides to end the matrimonial dispute between the deceased and the accused. The accused Sumit Kaur had also started residing in her parental home alongwith her children however, she continued telephonic conversations and her relations with accused Arshdeep. In the given set of circumstances, it can be reasonable inferred that there was a motive Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 81/93 available with accused Sumit Kaur to eliminate the deceased in order to live with accused Arshdeep.
Testimonies of prosecution witnesses :
87. At this juncture, testimonies of prosecution witnesses about the formal investigation conducted also need to be referred which are as under:-
88. W/Ct. Pooja (PW-20) deposed that on 09.07.2009 at about 2.51 a.m, she received a call from Rajouri Garden regarding stabbing of caller's brother. She also proved PCR form (Ex.PW-20/A) in this regard.
89. ASI Sukhdev (PW-26), Incharge of PCR van (Power-25) deposed about receiving a call on 09.07.2009 at about 2.53 a.m regarding stabbing to caller's brother at G-16/7A, Rajouri Garden. On reaching the above-said house, on the second floor, he found one Sikh person lying dead on the bed in pool of blood and his intestine coming out of the body. Accused Sumit Kaur (wife of deceased) met on the spot, who told that four persons had come to the house and had quarrelled with her husband over the transaction of money and ran away after Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 82/93 stabbing him. In the presence of PW-26, CAT ambulance and SHO PS Rajouri Garden reached at the spot. PW-26 informed the control room about the incident and made entry in his log book (Ex.PW-26/A). His statement was recorded by the IO.
90. HC Dharambir Singh (PW-19) deposed that on 09.07.2009, he was called by the IO to reach at the place of incident i.e. G-16/7-A, Rajouri Garden where dead body of Jagmohan @ Jugnu was found lying on the bed. In his presence, SI Ram Kishore had recorded the statement of brother of the deceased and prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for getting the FIR registered. In the custody of PW-19, the dead body of the deceased was taken to DDU hospital to be deposited in the mortuary for postmortem examination. After postmortem examination, the doctor had handed over two jars of viscera and pullandas of clothes alongwith sample seal to PW-19. PW-19 handed over the same to the IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-19/A).
91. HC Hans Raj (PW-8) deposed about Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 83/93 recording FIR No. 234/09 under Section 302 IPC PS Rajouri Garden (Ex.PW-8/A) in the computer.
He made endorsement on the rukka (Ex.PW-8/B). He also deposed about copies of DD No.7A (Ex.PW-1/DX), DD No. 9-A (Ex.PW-8/C) and DD No. 10-A (Ex.PW-8/D) to be in his handwriting.
92. On 09.07.2009, Ct. Dharmender Yadav (PW-
4) had delivered the copies of FIR no. 234/09 under Section 302 IPC to Shri Dharmender Rana / learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Shri Ajay Kashyap/Joint CP, Shri Sharad Aggarwal/DCP West and ACP Rajouri Garden as special messenger.
93. SI Gulshan Kumar (PW-23) deposed that on 09.07.2009, on receipt of a call regarding murder, he reached at G-16/7-A, Rajouri Garden alongwith his team where he found a dead body lying on the bed having two stab injuries on the chest and four on the stomach out of which intestine had come out. In his presence, IO inspected the spot and photographs were taken by Ct. Rakesh. PW-23 proved his report (Ex.PW-23/A).
94. Ct. Rakesh (PW-6), photographer, Mobile Crime Team deposed about taking 17 photographs Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 84/93 (Ex.PW-6/A1 to Ex.PW-6/A17) of the place of incident, on the direction of the IO.
95. Smt. Vijaylaxmi Shukla, retired Assistant Assessor & Collector, MCD deposed as PW-14. She deposed about handing over the certified copy of mutation letter of the property no. A-12, First Floor, Manak Vihar, New Delhi (Ex.PW-14/A) to the police on 03.08.2009.
96. HC Sunil Kumar (PW-25) deposed about depositing case property in malkhana, which was handed over to him by IO/Inspector B.R Sankhla i.e. firstly on 09.07.2009, 12 sealed pullandas and one pair of chappal at serial no. 6110 in register no.19 (Ex.PW-25/A), on 10.07.2009 8 sealed pullandas, one sample seal, personal search of two accused persons, one motorcycle no. DL-9S-T-8680 at serial no. 6111 in register no.19 (EX.PW-25/B) and on 30.09.2009 three sealed pullandas at serial no. 6239 in register no.19 (Ex.PW-25/C). PW-25 further deposed that on 23.07.2009, sealed pullanda (Ex.PW-25/B) was handed over to Inspector B.R Sankhla vide RC No. 57/21/09 (Ex.PW-25/D), who took the same to the hospital and it was again Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 85/93 deposited in the malkhana at serial no. 6111 in register no. 19. Further, on 12.08.2009 two sealed pullandas vide RC No. 65/21/09 (PW-25/E) and 14 sealed pullandas vide RC No. 66/21/09 (Ex.PW- 25/F) were given to Ct. Prabhat for depositing the same in FSL Rohini, which were received back with FSL result on 18.03.2010.
97. Ct. Vijender (PW-21) deposed that on 11.09.2009, on the direction of the IO, he deposited certain documents including a passport in FSL, Rohini. Further, on 04.08.2009 on the direction of the IO, he had brought customer application form and call details from the office of Vodafone relating to mobile phone numbers 98110 57520 & 98993 04988, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-21/A) and customer application form and call details from the office of Idea Company in respect of mobile number 99901 88803, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-21/B).
98. Ct. Prabhat (PW-15) had taken the exhibit of the present case in sealed condition to the FSL Rohini vide R/C No. 65/21/09 and 66/21/09 on the Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 86/93 direction of the IO. He had deposited the same separately in biological and chemical division of FSL Rohini and handed over the acknowledgment of the same to MHC(M).
99. Naresh Kumar (PW-29), Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) FSL Rohini deposed about receiving 13 sealed parcels of the present case on 12.08.2009 which were assigned to him for examination. After examination, PW-29 prepared report Ex.PW-29/A. He also examined the Exhibits serologically and prepared serology report Ex.PW- 29/B. He further deposed about the blood group found on the Exhibits 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 12 a to be of group 'B' whereas rest of the exhibits gave no reaction of blood grouping. Further, Exhibits 7, 9a, 9b and 9c gave no reaction in origin of the blood.
100. Dr. Adesh Kumar (PW-30), Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) FSL Rohini deposed about receiving one sealed parcel of the present case on 12.08.2009 which was assigned to him for examination. PW-30 examined the Exhibits vide chemical report Ex.PW-30/A. Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 87/93 Conclusion:
101. The present is a case based on circumstantial evidence. As per the settled propositions of the law, it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashta (1984) 4 SCC 116, which is considered a locus classicus on circumstantial evidence, it was laid down that the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. Further, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
102. In Sujit Biswas V. State of Assam - (2013) 12 SCC 406, in the contextual facts constituting Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 88/93 circumstantial evidence, it was also ruled that in judging the culpability of an accused, the circumstances adduced when collectively considered must lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of a crime in question and the circumstance established must be of a conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
103. Further, in Dhan Raj @ Dhand V. State of Haryana - (2014) 6 SCC 745, while dwelling on the imperatives of circumstantial evidence, it was ruled that the same had to be of highest order to satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. It was underlined that such circumstantial evidence should establish a complete unbroken chain of events so that only an inference of guilt of the accused would ensue by excluding all possible hypothesis of his innocence. It was held further that in case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence excluding any chance of surmise or conjectures.Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 89/93
104. In the entire set of facts and circumstances as discussed above, it is established that the prosecution succeeded in completing the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused Sumit Kaur. From the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, it is established that there were strained relations between the deceased and his wife accused Sumit Kaur as the deceased would doubt the character of accused. It is also established that accused Sumit Kaur was present in the house of the deceased at the relevant time. Ranjeet Singh Kohli (PW-17) had seen the deceased lastly in the company of accused Sumit Kaur on 08.07.2009 at around 10-10.30 p.m. The deceased was found murdered at around 2.45 a.m in the intervening night of 8/9.07.2009. No plausible explanation could be furnished by accused Sumit Kaur about the murder of the deceased. The story put forward by her regarding four persons entering into the house, tieing her hands and mouth and committing murder of the deceased, has no legs to stand. The prosecution also Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 90/93 established that accused Sumit Kaur was in relationship with accused Arshdeep and to fulfill the motive for eliminating the deceased who would raise doubts on her character and would beat her, accused Sumit Kaur, in furtherance of common intention with accused Arshdeep committed murder of the deceased so that she may live together with accused Arshdeep. Accused Sumit Kaur had also facilitated friendly entry to accused Arshdeep by providing duplicate keys of the house to him.
Accused Arshdeep had used the motorcycle of one of his friends namely, Tarun Bahl to come to the house of the deceased. After her arrest, accused Sumit Kaur got recovered her clothes stained with blood, which matched with the blood of the deceased in forensic examination. Accused Arshdeep got recovered the weapon of offence which was also found stained with human blood. Therefore, all the circumstances taken together point out towards one conclusion only i.e. it was accused Sumit Kaur and accused Arshdeep who had committed murder of the deceased in the intervening night of 8/9.07.2009. The proceedings Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 91/93 of the case were abated in respect of accused Arshdeep vide order dated 20.10.2016 consequent upon his committing suicide when he was released on interim bail. Though the prosecution could not establish that the accused Sumit Kaur was the user of mobile number 92506 66644, such failure on the part of the prosecution does not break the chain of circumstances to hold the accused Sumit Kaur guilty of the offence. It was held in Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju (supra) case that one circumstance by itself may not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused but it is the cumulative result of all circumstances which would matter. There are no material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which may give rise to any reasonable doubt in the entire prosecution story.
105. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it was accused Sumit Kaur who alongwith accused Arshdeep, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of the deceased in the intervening night of 8/9.07.2009. None of the exceptions to section 300 IPC is applicable in the present case. Accused Sumit Kaur is held guilty for Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 92/93 the offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC and is hereby convicted.
106. Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Digitally signed by KULDEEPKULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2018.02.28 17:22:31 +0530 (Pronounced in the open (Kuldeep Narayan) Court on 28.02.2018 ). Addl. Sessions Judge (Pilot Court) West : Court No. 33: Tis Hazari Courts Delhi Sessions Case No. 57328/16 Page 93/93