Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Fir No. 75/09; State vs . Imrana Etc. Page 1 Of 60 on 31 July, 2014

IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS 
             JUDGE­03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 151/09

                                           FIR No. : 75/09
                                           P.S.      : Ashok Vihar 
                                           U/S:      : 302/201/211/120B/34 IPC
  
STATE 
                                           Versus

(1)     Smt. Imrana 
        w/o Nasir
        r/o D­534, Wazir Pur, 
        J.J. Colony, Delhi. 

(2)     Sunil 
        s/o Sh. Charan Singh 
        r/o Village Rajopura Sadat,
        P.S. Kotwali Dehat, 
        Distt. Bijnaur, (UP)

(3)     Mohd. Shahid
        s/o Mohd. Mohid,
        r/o Village Rajopura, 
        PS Kotwali Dehat, 
        Distt. Bijnaur, (UP)

Date of Institution:                   11­05­2009
Date of arguments:                     30­07­2014
Date of judgement:                     31­07­2014

  FIR  No. 75/09;  State Vs. Imrana etc.                                   Page 1 of 60
 JUDGMENT

1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that on 11­02­2009, on receipt of information from SI Satya Prakash through wireless, Inspector Om Prakash reached at the spot at H. no. D­534, Wazirpur JJ Colony where SI Satya Prakash, ASI Dev Raj, Ct. Naresh Kumar along with staff were present. At the spot, in the inner room one dead body was lying on a folding cot. There were strangulation marks over the neck of dead body and one towel was found under the neck. On inquiry, the name of the deceased was revealed as Nasir and wife of deceased namely Imrana was also present. District Crime team along with photographer came at the spot. The dead body and spot were photographed. The wife of deceased namely Imrana gave her statement that she was residing with her husband in rented accommodation. Her parents were residing at village Rajopur, PS Kotwali, Bijnaur, UP and about three years back her marriage was solemnised with Irshad r/o village Vehla, Sherpur, PS Nehtilaka, UP. About 1½ years back she got divorce from Irshad. About 2½ months back she conducted her second marriage with Nasir r/o village Vankhala, PS Kotwali, Distt. Bijnaur according to Muslim rites and ceremonies and with the FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 2 of 60 consent of both families. After the marriage, she remained in her in­ laws house as her husband Nasir remained with her for about 8 to 10 days and then came to Delhi by saying that his shop in Delhi was lying closed. On 08­02­2009 i.e. Sunday, her husband Nasir brought her in the rented accommodation in Delhi and they were living happily as husband and wife. On 10/11­02­2009 night, they were sleeping in the house with closed doors. The electricity of colony had gone at about 10 pm and it did not come till morning. In the night at about 12 pm­ 1 am, somebody knocked the door of the house and asked whether kabadi was there or not. Her husband woken her up. The person standing outside were saying that they had brought some articles. She told her husband not to open the door as it was late night but her husband told her that he is a junk dealer and people come with goods in the night also. The person standing outside said that they were having bronze, iron and empty wine bottles. After hearing this, Nasir opened the door and four boys came inside the house. She stood near the gate of inner room. When Nasir asked for the goods, two boys put hands on the mouth of Nasir, and one of them hold legs of Nasir and the third boy hold him from the waist and all three of them took her husband in the inner room. The fourth boy put the shawl worn by Imrana over her FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 3 of 60 mouth. When she tried to raise voice, she was stopped. Cries of Nasir of "bachao­bachao" "maar diya" etc. were coming from the inner room. Imrana asked those persons as to why they were doing that but they did not give any heed and after some time the voice of her husband stopped coming and thereafter all four boys went outside the room. When Imrana went inside the room she saw that her husband was lying on the cot and towel was wrapped around her neck and mouth. Imrana shook her husband but he did not answer. She came outside and raise voice of bachao­bachao and knocked the door of neighbour. Nobody opened the door nor anybody came outside to help her. At that time, it was raining and she sit outside the inner room. In the morning, one person knocked the door of her house and told that he wanted to give bottles to kabadi. She was weeping at that time and she told him about the death of her husband. That person asked her to inform the police and when she said that she was unaware about this place that person told her that he would inform at Chowki.

2. After some time, police came there and lot of people gathered there. Crime team was called and spot was inspected. The dead body was sent to BJRM hospital for postmortem. FIR u/s 302 IPC was got registered through Ct. Pradeep Kumar. Some FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 4 of 60 broken bangle pieces, the towel lying under the head of deceased and the watch and ring worn by the deceased were taken into police possession. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to its claimants. During investigation, the brother in law (Jija) of Nasir revealed that he saw Mohd. Shahid, the person of Imrana's village along with Sunil in JJ Colony, Wazirpur. Imrana also disclosed that the mobile phone having no. 9811423903 of deceased Nasir was also missing from the house. The call details of the said number revealed that its SIM was used in the mobile having IMEI no. 352937028044640 before the incident but on 10/11­04­2009 night, SIM no. 9639962567 was put in the mobile set of this IMEI no. This SIM was issued in the name of Shahid Mohd. Ahmad r/o Rajopur, Bijnaur, UP. On 12­02­2009, witness Irshad told IO that he saw Mohd. Shahid at bus stop of route no. 115, near Maharaja Agrasen Hospital. Mohd. Shahid was overpowered by the IO with the help of staff and he was interrogated and he confessed that he along with Sunil in collusion with Imrana murdered Nasir. Mohd. Shahid was arrested. On his search, the mobile phone of Nasir make Nokia­1650, IMEI no. 352937028042643 was recovered which was identified by Irshad. One another phone and extra SIM no. Idea 16k FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 5 of 60 8991560810548185285 NZ was found in possession of Mohd. Shahid and it was taken into possession. Accused Mohd. Shahid gave disclosure statement. During investigation, it was revealed that SIM no. 9702810355 was also in the name of accused Shahid Mohd. Ahmad and some calls were made on this number from the mobile no. of deceased Nasir. Imrana was also interrogated and she also confessed her guilt and she was also arrested in this case. The plastic rope used in the strangulation of Nasir and the cloth used to clean private parts after having sex with Mohd. Shahid after murder of Nasir were recovered at the instance of accused Imrana. Accused Sunil was also arrested in this case and from his possession the jewellery articles given by accused Imrana in exchange of Rs. 20,000/­ were also recovered and taken into police possession. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Ownership of SIM no. 9702810355 and 9639962567 recovered from accused Mohd. Shahid was obtained and as per call details both SIMs were in the name of Mohd. Shahid and Mohd. Ahmad. Accused Sunil refused for his TIP. TIP of jewellery was conduced from witness Irshad and exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini. On transfer of Inspector Om Prakash, the further investigation was handed over to Inspector Pratap Singh. After completion of investigation, FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 6 of 60 chargesheet u/s 302/201/211/120B/34 IPC was filed against accused Mohd. Shahid, Imrana and Sunil.

3. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 120B IPC and 302/120B IPC was framed against all the accused persons and charge u/s 201/34 IPC against accused Imrana and Mohd. Sahid and charge u/s 211 IPC was also framed against the accused Imrana separately to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 31 witnesses. PW1 Irshad Ahmad, in his testimony, proved the seizure memo of second mobile phone and SIM recovered from accused Mohd. Shahid as Ex. PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B, disclosure statement of accused Shahid as Ex.PW1/C, TIP of case property as Ex.PW1/D, arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Imrana as Ex.PW1/E & Ex.PW1/F respectively, disclosure statement of accused Imrana as Ex.PW1/G, seizure memo regarding dirty cloth and one plastic rope as Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW1/I, his statement regarding identification of dead body of Nasir as Ex.PW1/J, receipt of handing over the dead body as Ex.PW1/K. PW1, in his testimony further proved the arrest and personal search memo of accused Mohd. Shahid as Ex. PW1/L and Ex.PW1/M, seizure memo FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 7 of 60 regarding one towel as Ex.PW1/N and seizure memo of broken bangle pieces as Ex.PW1/O. PW1 identified the blood gauze pieces as Ex.P1, a T­Shirt of red and black colour and brown colour underwear belonging to deceased as Ex.P2 (collectively), green colour piece of cloth recovered at the instance of accused Imrana as Ex.P3, a nylon rope of yellow colour as Ex.P4, a mobile phone make Nokia of red and cream colour as Ex.P5, mobile phone make Nokia 1650 of black and cream colour having SIM card and one key ring and one separate SIM as Ex.P6 (collectively). PW1 also identified coffee colour purse and a telephone diary and some documents as Ex.P7, broken pieces of bangle of red colour as Ex.P8, one pair of silver Pazeb, two yellow colour necklace, one pair of ear rings and a white colour ring as Ex.P9 (collectively), wrist watch of silver colour make HMT and a silver ring as Ex.P10 (collectively). PW1 also proved the pointing out memo as Ex. PW1/P which was prepared on the pointing out of accused Mohd. Shahid. PW2 Ct. Dalbir, in his testimony proved the positive (photographs) as Ex.PW2/1 to 14 and their negatives as Ex.PW2/15 to Ex.PW2/28. PW3 Jabir Ahmad also exhibited the documents already proved as Ex. PW1/C and P2/I to 7. PW4 Gaurav, in his testimony proved the seizure memo of pouch containing the jewellery articles as Ex.PW4/A. PW4 identified FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 8 of 60 one pair of silver pajeb, two yellow colour necklace, one pair of ear rings/ear tops and a silver ring as Ex.P9 (collectively) PW5 Aditya Prakash, in his testimony identified one gold necklace (with thread), another gold necklace (without thread), one pair of gold jhumkas as Ex.P9 (collectively). PW6 to PW9 did not prove any document. PW10 SI Matadin, in his testimony proved the crime team report as Ex.PW10/A. PW11 HC Naresh, in his testimony proved the seizure memo of watch and ring of deceased as Ex.PW11/A. PW12 Ct. Pradeep did not prove any document. PW13 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, CMO, BJRM Hospital, in his testimony proved the MLC of Imrana as Ex.PW13/A. PW14 HC Satpal, in his testimony proved the entry No. 4098, 4099 and 4101 of register No. 19 as Ex. PW14/A, Ex. PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C respectively, photocopy of RC No. 144/21/08 as Ex.PW14/D and photocopy of RC No. 145/21/08 as Ex.PW14/E.

5. PW15 L/Ct. Nirmal, in her testimony exhibited the arrest memo of accused Imrana already proved as Ex. PW1/E and proved the personal search memo of accused Imrana as Ex.PW15/A. PW15 also proved the documents already proved as Ex. PW1/G and PW1/H. PW15 also identified the yellow colour plastic rope and one cloth piece of green and white colour as Ex.P4 and Ex.P3. PW16 SI FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 9 of 60 Manohar Lal, Draughtsman, in his testimony proved the scaled site plan as Ex. PW16/A. PW17 Ct. Om Parkash Singh, in his testimony proved the computerized copy of PCR form as Ex.PW17/A. PW18 ASI Sukhbir Singh, in his testimony proved the computerized copy of FIR as Ex.PW18/A. PW19 Sh. Hussain M. Zaidi, Nodal Officer, IDEA Cellular Ltd., in his testimony proved the CDR of mobile No. 9639962567 as Ex.PW19/A in the name of Shahid Ahmad, the self attested copy of Voter I­Card of Shahid Ahmed as Ex.PW19/B and the customer application form as Ex.PW19/C. PW20 Sh. Deepak, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., in his testimony proved the CDR of mobile no. 9811423903 as Ex. PW20/A in the name of Mohd. Farooq, the copy of customer application as Ex.PW20/B, self attested copy of Driving License as Ex.PW20/C, certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act as Ex.PW20/D and cell location chart running into 108 pages as Ex.PW20/E (collectively). PW21 Dr. Gopal Krishna, Medical Officer, BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, in his testimony proved the MLC of Mohd. Shahid prepared by Dr. Kumbhar as Ex.PW21/A and MLC Ex. PW13/A. PW22 Ct. Ram Avtar, in his testimony proved the copy of DD no. 8 verified by SHO and attested by ACP as ExPW22/A. PW23 Sh. Amar Nath Singh, Nodal Officer, IDEA Cellular Ltd., in his testimony proved the copy of FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 10 of 60 complaint dt. 30.09.2009 as Ex.PW23/A. PW25 Ms. Vandana Jain (DJS), MM Mahila Court (East), Karkardooma, in her testimony proved the TIP proceedings of accused Sunil as Ex.PW25/A, application of IO for conducting TIP proceedings as Ex.PW25/B and application for supply of copy of TIP proceedings as Ex.PW25/C. PW27 ASI Satpal, in his testimony proved the copies of the relevant entries in register No. 19 dt. 11/12/13.02.2009 as Ex.PW27/A, copy of RC no. 144/21/2008 and relevant acknowledged of FSL as Ex.PW27/B & Ex.PW27/C, copy of RC No. 145/21/2008 and relevant acknowledgement of FSL as Ex.PW27/D and Ex.PW27/E respectively. PW28 Dr. Deepak Mathur, in his testimony proved the post mortem report of Nasir as Ex. PW28/A. PW29 SI Dev Raj, in his testimony proved the statement of Imrana as Ex.PW29/A, rukka as Ex.PW29/B, identification memo Ex.PW29/C, seizure memo regarding wooden box containing viscera and sample seal as Ex.PW29/D, seizure memo of envelope containing blood sample, one pullanda containing the clothes of deceased Nasir and one sample seal as ExPW29/E, personal search memo of accused Sunil as Ex.PW29/F, disclosure statement of accused Sunil as Ex.PW29/G. PW29 identified the towel recovered from the spot under the neck of deceased as Ex.P11, the piece of cloth as Ex.P3, FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 11 of 60 nylon rope as Ex.P4, mobile phone make Nokia 1650 without SIM Card as Ex.P5, mobile phone make Nokia 1650 with SIM Card of black and cream colour and one SIM card of Idea as Ex.P6 and SIM Card as Ex.P6/1, pieces bangle as Ex.P8, two yellow coloured necklace, one pair of yellow coloured ear tops, one pair of silver Pajeb, two silver rings got recovered at the instance of accused Sunil as Ex.P9 (collectively). PW30 Inspector Satya Prakash, in his testimony identified the case property as identified by PW29. PW31 ACP Om Prakash, Sub­Division Dabri, Delhi, in his testimony proved the rough site plan prepared by him as Ex.PW31/A, brief facts as Ex.PW31/B, request form as Ex.PW31/B, death report as Ex.PW31/D, seizure memo of two pullandas and one sample seal sealed with the seal of CMO MS BJRM as Ex.PW31/E, seizure memo of one sealed pullanda and sample seal sealed with the seal of CMO MS BJRM which Ct. Naresh Kumar received from the Doctor after the medical examination of accused Mohd. Shahid as Ex.PW31/F, FSL result as Ex.PW31/G, Ex.PW31/H and its serological report as Ex.PW31/J. PW31 also identified the case property as Ex.P11, Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P6/1, Ex.P8 and Ex.P9.

6. Statements of all the accused persons were recorded u/s FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 12 of 60 313 Cr.P.C. therein they denied all the allegations made against them. Accused Mohd. Shahid and Sunil opted not to lead defence evidence while accused Imrana opted to lead defence evidence. Later on, accused Imrana also declined to lead defence evidence.

7. I have heard the Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Sunil and Mohd. Shahid and Ld. counsel for accused Imrana and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and have perused the entire records.

8. The Ld. Counsel for accused Imrana argued that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. Before arrival of police, Irshad Ahmad removed the towel from the mouth of deceased Nasir and put it below the head of deceased. The Ld. Counsel for accused Imrana referred rukka and further argued that at first, police reached at the spot and thereafter star/ material witnesses. It is nowhere stated about the broken bangles. Departure correction was also made. When accused Mohd. Shahid was arrested at 5:40 pm on 12­02­2009 from the road, bus stand of bus no. 115, near Maharaja Agrasen School, Wazirpur, JJ Colony, Delhi, why the father present was not made witness. There are contradictions in the site plan and the domestic articles have not been shown. Nothing was shown in the site plan. The MLC of accused Imrana does not bear her signature. The arrest of Imrana on 12­02­2009 is doubtful. FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 13 of 60 The recovery of clothes is also doubtful. Police officials pressurized Imrana to depose against Irshad. Police reached after 8 am and not at 8 am. No signature or thumb impression was there of PW3. PW15 stated that she joined the investigation on 13­02­2009 but she did not state about 11­02­2009 and 12­02­2009. She again stated about 13­02­2009. The doctor who examined the accused did not appear in the court. PCR in­charge as well as the person who made call at 100 no. were not made as witnesses. If only one statement was recorded then how supplementary statement was recorded. Accused Imrana stated in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that jewellery recovered did not belong to her. No witness had told that deceased Nasir was wearing watch, then how it was recovered. Mohd. Hussain is not the witness of Prosecution. Shahid was like brother of Imrana. Prosecution has not proved motive on record except the disclosure statement and only disclosure statement is not sufficient. There is good conduct of accused Imrana who did not run and made statement. There are contradictions in the testimonies of PWs. If two views are there then one favouring the accused will prevail. The Ld. Counsel for the accused Imrana, in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgements reported in the case of Dandu Jaggaraju Vs. State of A.P., AIR 2011, SC 3387 and Badhna FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 14 of 60 Kharia Vs. State of Assam, 1988 Cri.L.J. 1412.

9. The Ld. Amicus Curiae on behalf of accused Sunil argued that complaint was at the instance of accused Imrana. FIR was registered on 11­02­2009. On next day, Imrana was arrested but there is no such evidence. Irshad Ahmad/ PW1 stated the story which is contrary to the story stated by accused Imrana. PW1 identified Sunil in the PS and his conduct is doubtful. PW4 stated that salary was paid on 7th but it was not 7th on that day. There is neither recovery nor description of articles. Irshad is totally silent about jewellery. Arrest time of accused Sunil is 8:40 am whereas PW5 was called at 5 am. Surender Pawar is vital link but he has not been cited as a witness. He had not seen accused Sunil staying in the guest house. Other witnesses are not connected with accused Sunil. Whether empty cups were taken. After Irshad statement, whether Nasir viscera was done. PW31 did not seize the tea cups or utensils. There is no description or sketch of the jewellery articles or even it was not verified whether they were of gold or brass and only TIP was made. It was Imrana who should have been called for TIP. No details/ names of the persons from whom enquiries were made.

10. The Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Mohd. Shahid FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 15 of 60 argued that complainant Imrana has been turned as one of the accused persons. There is no record of service of Irshad/ PW1. How he was allowed to stay in the guest house. There is identification in PS. How case property can be identified in the absence of description. Nothing incriminating is there in the FSL. Group B is coming from the clothes of Imrana and deceased. No public witness shown at Noida. The accused Imrana is the complainant and the Prosecution has not produced any evidence to connect the accused Imrana with the other accused persons.

11. The Ld. APP for State argued that there is a chain of evidence in this case. There is recovery of one towel from underneath the head of dead body of Nasir, broken pieces of bangles, one mobile phone make Nokia 1650 having IMEI no. 352937028042643 belonging to deceased Nasir and recovered from accused Mohd. Shahid; one another mobile phone make Nokia 1650 having IMEI no. 352051025034270 having Idea 16K Sim; one sim card from the purse of accused Mohd. Shahid; one piece of cloth; one piece of plastic rope of 6' 8½''; jewellery articles recovered from the house of accused Sunil. The prosecution has proved the aforesaid articles coupled with scientific evidence against the accused persons, therefore, it can be said that men may lie but the FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 16 of 60 scientific evidence may not lie. The accused cannot take benefit of the faulty investigation, if any. Further, there are no major contradictions in the testimony of PWs. Public witnesses generally do not join the investigation in criminal cases. Ld. APP for the State, in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgements reported in the case of Kalam @ Abdul Kalam (Md.) Vs. State of Rajasthan 2008 IV AD (SC) 453; Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi 2011 III AD (Cri) (SC) 157; Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhana, AIR 2011 SC 200; State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & ors, 2010 CRI. L. J. 3889; Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920; and Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of MP, 1991 CRI.L.J. 2653(1).

12. PW1 Irshad Ahmad in his examination in chief stated that he was working as kabadi at Wazirpur JJ Colony and his sala (brother in law) was working in partnership with him. After the marriage of Nasir with Imrana (correctly identified), PW1 started residing with his bhanja Rafakat. PW1 stated that on the day of murder of Nasir i.e. 11th of 2009, in the evening, he was sitting with Nasir on the kabadi shop and accused Imrana brought three cups of tea and while taking tea, Nasir felt the taste of tea bitter and offered Imrana to taste the same but she refused. After taking the tea, Nasir FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 17 of 60 felt sleepy and they closed the shop half an hour earlier than usual and thereafter, PW1 went to the room of Nasir and after taking food, he came out of the room. Accused Mohd. Shahid and Sunil (correctly identified) met PW1 and Mohd. Shahid was known to him as earlier he had come to his shop with Nasir. Mohd. Shahid introduced Sunil as his friend. After meeting them, PW1 went to the house of Rafakat for sleeping. Next morning, a boy came and informed PW1 that a theft had taken place at the house of Nasir and he was beaten. PW1 went to the house of Nasir at about 8 am and Imrana was sitting near the gate of room and public was standing. Imrana hugged PW1 and told him while crying that four persons came at her jhuggi at night and raped her and killed Nasir and left after looting money. On entering the room, PW1 saw Nasir lying on a cot with face covered with a towel. After removing the towel, PW1 found ligature mark on his neck and his body was stiff and there was no pulse. Someone informed the police and police arrived there. Police inquired PW1, Imrana and his elder brother Javed about the incident. Police recorded statement of Imrana and took her to PS. PW1 further stated that in the evening, while going to buy food, he saw accused Mohd. Shahid sitting near the school, bus stand of route no. 115, near Nimri Colony. PW1 informed the police about FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 18 of 60 the presence of Mohd. Shahid. PW1 accompanied police to the school where Mohd. Shahid was apprehended at the instance of PW1. On search of accused Mohd. Shahid, a mobile phone make Nokia having an Idea sim card not belonging to Nasir was recovered from him. However, one more Sim of Idea was recovered from accused Mohd. Shahid. Further, one more mobile phone having the picture of fish was recovered from Mohd. Shahid. PW1 identified the mobile phone of Nasir. The second mobile phone and Sim recovered from accused Mohd. Shahid were taken into possession by the police vide memos Ex. PW1/A and PW1/B. Accused Shahid gave disclosure statement vide Ex. PW1/C. PW1 identified in the TIP two necklaces, one of gold and other of silver having gold polish, ear tops, pajeb and a ring in the court vide TIP proceedings Ex. PW1/D.

13. PW1 was cross­examined by Ld. APP for State wherein he stated that Nasir was murdered on the intervening night of 10/11­02­2009. PW1 stated that on the morning of 11­02­2009, when he visited the house of Nasir and asked for the whereabouts of Nasir's mobile phone, accused Imrana showed her ignorance for the same and also not told about the visit of accused Mohd. Shahid and Sunil at her room on previous night. PW1 stated that mobile phone FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 19 of 60 no. of Nasir was 9811423903 and it was purchased on the ID of Mohd. Farooq. PW1 stated that one Idea sim was recovered from accused Mohd. Shahid's mobile phone and another was kept in his purse. On 23­04­2009, PW1 identified accused Sunil while coming out of court along with co­accused Mohd. Shahid and Imrana. PW1 further stated that accused Imrana was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW1/E and PW1/F and her disclosure statement Ex. PW1/G was also recorded. Accused Imrana got recovered one dirty cloth and one plastic rope of yellow colour from storeroom of her house from the kabad behind the bags and the same were seized vide memos Ex. PW1/H and PW1/I. PW1 identified the dead body of Nasir vide statement Ex. PW1/J and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to him vide receipt Ex. PW1/K. PW1 stated that accused Mohd. Shahid was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW1/L and PW1/M. PW1 stated that one towel was found beneath the head of deceased Nasir at the spot which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/N. Broken bangle pieces found in the gallery at the spot were also seized vide memo Ex. PW1/O. PW1 further stated that he had told the police that on 10­02­2009, he had seen accused Sunil in JJ Colony, Wazirpur in the company of Mohd. Shahid and he was FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 20 of 60 introduced as friend of Mohd. Shahid. PW1 identified the blood gauze pieces as Ex.P1, a T­Shirt of red and black colour and brown colour underwear belonging to deceased as Ex.P2 (collectively), green colour piece of cloth recovered at the instance of accused Imrana as Ex.P3, a nylon rope of yellow colour as Ex.P4, a mobile phone make Nokia of red and cream colour as Ex.P5, mobile phone make Nokia 1650 of black and cream colour having SIM card and one key ring and one separate SIM as Ex.P6 (collectively). PW1 also identified coffee colour purse and a telephone diary and some documents as Ex.P7, broken pieces of bangle of red colour as Ex.P8, one pair of silver Pazeb, two yellow colour necklace, one pair of ear rings and a white colour ring as Ex.P9 (collectively), wrist watch of silver colour make HMT and a silver ring as Ex.P10 (collectively). PW1 also proved the pointing out memo as Ex. PW1/P which was prepared on the pointing out of accused Mohd. Shahid.

14. During cross­examination, PW1 denied the suggestion that he was sharing food with Rafakat as he was residing with him. PW1 denied that it was foggy in the evening after 7­8 pm at the time of alleged incident. PW1 also denied that there was movement of public persons in the gali/ by­lane in which house of Nasir was situated at the time of incident. PW1 denied the suggestion that he FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 21 of 60 had seen the accused Sunil for the first time in police custody at PS Jahangirpuri. PW1 denied that he was shown the jewellery articles in the PS prior to the TIP proceedings. PW1 further stated that Shahid and Sunil met him 10 to 15 days from the shop when he was going to the house on the day of incident. PW1 left the shop at around 9 pm on the day of incident. Shahid met PW1 outside bus stop of route no. 115 when he was going to purchase dinner on the date of incident and he informed the police. PW1 denied that Jabir and Rafakat also accompanied him with the police. Police apprehended Shahid from the bus stop. PW1 stated that he along with Nasir used to sit at the shop but whenever they had to purchase raddi/ kabad, they go to the houses also. PW1 denied that deceased Nasir asked him to pay Rs. 25,000/­ for his joining business with him or that he was having grudge against Mohd. Nasir when he demanded Rs. 25,000/­ for joining business. PW1 denied the suggestion that due to annoyance of Nasir, he went to sleep in the room of Rafakat. PW1 stated that he had told the police in his statement that Mohd. Shahid was known to him as earlier he had come to his shop with Nasir. PW1 stated that he did not tell the police in his statement that Idea sim card which was recovered from the mobile phone of Mohd. Shahid was not belonging to Nasir. PW1 FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 22 of 60 denied that Imrana was not interrogated in his presence or in presence of his relatives. PW1 stated that he had seen Shahid on 11­02­2009 at around 4­5 pm. PW1 denied that he was made to put his signatures mechanically on the documents and he did not even know the nature of those documents. PW1 denied that no cloth was got recovered by Imrana. PW1 also denied that jhumka and necklace belonged to him or that same were planted as case property. PW1 also denied that he and Jabbir were unhappy with the marriage of Imrana and Nasir and her arrival at Delhi. PW1 denied that Imrana did not get anything recovered or no disclosure was made by Imrana.

15. PW3 Jabbir stated in his examination in chief that deceased Nasir was his younger brother and he was residing at D­534, JJ Colony on rent and running a kabadi shop. The wife of deceased Nasir expired at the time of delivery of child. They negotiated marriage of Nasir with daughter of Patwari of village Seoa and she was widow and having a small girl child. Accused Imrana was shown to Nasir as well as dowry articles and thereafter Nasir agreed for the said proposal. PW3 objected to the marriage of Nasir with Imrana as she was not a good girl and a divorcee. The nikah ceremony of Nasir with Imrana was performed within four days of the FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 23 of 60 proposal. After the nikah, both brothers came to Delhi after 4­5 days. After one month of the marriage, deceased Nasir brought Imrana to Delhi. Irshad informed PW3 that his deceased brother Nasir was complaining regarding the taste of tea as bitter on the very morning of his arrival. Irshad told PW3 that two boys namely Sunil and Shahid were brought to the shop of his brother by the brother of Imrana and they were served lunch. Next day, PW3 received message at around 8 am that Nasir had been killed at D­534. Irshad informed PW3 that Shahid was standing at bus stop of route no.

115. PW3 identified accused Shahid and Sunil in the court. PW3 noticed ligature mark of rope around the neck of Nasir and broken bangles of Imrana were lying there.

16. During cross­examined by Ld. APP for State, PW3 stated that Nasir became greedy of dowry articles which he was to get in marriage. The marriage of Imrana and Nasir took place on 17­12­2008 and Imrana stayed with Nasir only for 8 to 10 days and during that period some differences arose between them. PW3 stated that Nasir brought Imrana at his rented accommodation at D­534, Wazirpur, JJ Colony on 08­02­2009. PW3 stated that his brother in law Irshad and nephew Rafakat were questioning Imrana regarding the cause of death of deceased Nasir and Imrana told that FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 24 of 60 four persons came in night out of them two persons caught the hands of Nasir while other two caught her and pressed her mouth. Imrana was telling that when she raised alarm, no one from the neighbourhood came to their rescue.

17. During cross­examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, PW3 denied that he was residing with his deceased brother Nasir before his marriage. PW3 volunteered that he was staying separately from his brother Nasir. PW3 further stated in his cross­ examination that Sunil and Shahid visited the house of his deceased brother about 8 days prior to the date of occurrence. PW3 also stated in his cross­examination that the neck bone of his deceased brother was broken and there were ligature marks around his neck as he touched his body. PW3 received the dead body of his brother after postmortem on the third day at around 12 noon and he narrated his statement to the police. PW3 further stated in his cross­ examination that Irshad told the police that Shahid was standing at bus stand of route no. 115, JJ Colony, in his presence at the place of occurrence and he along with Irshad accompanied to the police at bus stand of route no. 115 and he was apprehended and arrested at the aforesaid place. PW3 denied the suggestion that Shahid came after hearing the news of death of Nasir from the village. PW3 FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 25 of 60 denied the suggestion that Irshad did not approve marriage of Imrana and Nasir. PW3 further denied the suggestion that he and Nasir also dealt with stolen articles in the name of kabad which used to take place at odd hours. PW3 also denied the suggestion that he also developed animosity against her because his brother married her against his wishes. PW3 further denied that Imrana had absolutely no contact whatsoever with co­accused Sunil and Shahid. PW3 further denied that accused Shahid was falsely implicated in the present case as Imrana used to talk on the mobile phone of family of Shahid.

18. PW6 Mohd. Hussain stated that he was doing the hosiery work at Shastri Nagar and about two years ago in the morning while he came out of his house to go for work, he saw crowd gathered outside the house of a kabadi which was at a distance of 5­6 houses from his house and he came to know that kabadi had died. PW6 further stated that someone from the public took his mobile phone no. 9818781573 and gave a call to the police at 100 no. and after some time, the police came at the spot. In his cross­examination by the Ld. APP, PW6 stated that incident was of 11­02­2009 and the name of the kabadi was Nasir. PW6 admitted that his statement was recorded by the police. PW6 denied the FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 26 of 60 suggestion that he had deposed falsely that someone else from the public had given the call at 100 number.

19. PW2 Ct. Dalbir Singh stated in his examination in chief that on 11­02­2009, on receipt of call, he along with other members of Crime Team, reached at D­534, Wazirpur JJ Colony where a male dead body was lying on a cot inside the room whose name was revealed as Nasir. There were strangulation marks of rope on the neck of dead body. PW2 took 14 photographs of the body vide Ex. PW2/1 to 14 and proved the negatives as Ex. PW2/15 to 28.

20. PW11 HC Naresh stated in his examination in chief that on 11­02­2009, on receipt of DD no. 8 by ASI Dev Raj, he along with ASI Dev Raj went at H. No. D­534, Wazirpur, JJ Colony where lot of people were present. One person named Nasir kabadi was lying on a charpai having strangulation mark of rope on his neck. On wireless message of ASI Dev Raj, SI Sat Prakash ASI Praduman and Ct Pradeep came at the spot. Inspector Om Prakash, SHO, PS Ashok Vihar also reached at the spot. The body was removed to BJRM hospital mortuary through PW11. Mortuary staff handed over watch and ring of the deceased which PW11 handed over to IO and the same were seized vide memo Ex. PW11/A. In his cross­ examination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae and counsel for accused FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 27 of 60 persons, PW11 denied that public persons were inside the house when they went there. PW11 stated that he had reached the spot within 10­15 minutes of receipt of DD no. 8. PW11 denied the suggestion that no investigation was conducted in his presence or that he did not visit the spot.

21. PW12 Ct. Pardeep also stated that he along with SI Satya Prakash and ASI Parduman Kumar reached at the spot where ASI Devraj and Ct. Naresh Kumar met them. In the house, body of a person was lying on a folding charpai with strangulation mark with rope on his neck and there was crowd outside. During his cross­ examination, PW12 stated that public persons were inside as well as outside. However, PW12 again said that public persons were present only outside the house. PW12 denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot or that he did not join the investigation in the present case. PW16 SI Manohar Lal, Draftsman stated in his examination in chief that on 12­03­2009, on the call of IO Inspector Om Prakash, he reached D­534, JJ Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi with the IO and took rough notes and measurements and thereafter prepared site plan Ex. PW16/A. PW17 Ct. Om Prakash Singh stated that on 11­02­2009, he was posted as Channel Operator at Chennel No. 103 in Control Room and at about 8 am, he received a telephone FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 28 of 60 call from mobile no. 9818781573 and he filled up the PCR form Ex. PW17/A. PW17 in his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence counsel stated that he had correctly heard the information and filled up PCR form correctly. PW18 ASI Sukhbir Singh, Duty Officer proved the FIR no. 75/09 u/s 302/34 IPC as Ex. PW18/A.

22. PW4 Gaurav in his examination in chief stated that in the year 2009, he was serving in a guest house as In­charge at C­116, Sector­44, Noida, UP. He knew accused Sunil (correctly identified in the court) as he was working in another guest house of their company situated at Sector­50, Noida. On 11­02­2009, police interrogated accused Sunil in his presence and accused Sunil confessed the murder with the aid of a woman and a male person. Accused Sunil brought out a red colour pouch from his bag and gave to police and it was containing one necklace having golden thread, one necklace without thread, one pair of pajeb, two rings and one pair of ear tops and the same were sealed with the seal of OPS and taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. Accused Sunil was arrested and personally searched. PW4 identified the red colour pouch having the name of Mukesh Jewellers and containing one pair of silver pajeb, two yellow colour necklaces, one pair of ear rings/ ear tops and a silver ring as Ex. P9 (colly). In FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 29 of 60 reply to leading question put up by Ld. APP for State, PW4 stated that accused was arrested and recovery was effected at his instance on 13­02­2009 and not on 11­02­2009. PW4 further stated that name of associate of accused was Mohd. Shahid. PW4 stated that Imrana instead of paying Rs. 20,000/­ for committing murder had given her jewellery articles to accused Sunil.

23. During cross­examination, PW4 stated that he knew accused prior to the date of incident as he worked in their other branch of the guest house. PW4 further stated that accused had left the services of the guest house about one month earlier to the incident. PW4 denied the suggestion that salary was not paid at the guest house. However, he volunteered that salary was paid by the owner Sh. Aditya Prakash at the concerned guest house. PW4 further denied that he was not aware about the nature and contents of the memos and signed by him. PW4 also denied that the guest house at Section­44 was a public place. PW4 further denied that he had signed blank papers. PW4 also denied that a quarrel had taken place between him and accused when he was posted in Sector­50. PW4 further denied that he had left the services due to the quarrel. PW4 further denied that the ornaments were not recovered from the possession of the accused in his presence.

FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 30 of 60

24. PW5 Aditya Prakash stated in his examination in chief that in the year 2008, he was providing house keeping services to Corporate Guest houses in Noida including C­116, Guest House, Sector­44, Noida. PW5 employed accused Sunil (correctly identified) in sector­50 Guest House, Mahagun Apartments, Noida. After working five months, accused Sunil was removed from services by Supervisor Surender Panwar. After 15 days, accused Sunil contacted Supervisor Surender Panwar seeking permission to stay in Guest House at C­116, Noida and he was allowed to stay in Guest House no. C­116. At about 12:30 am, PW5 received a call from the staff that police was searching for Sunil and when he reached at Guest House C­116 at about 5 am, accused Sunil and other accused (witness pointed out towards accused Mohd. Shahid) were in police custody. The IO showed PW5 a bag containing jewellery articles recovered from accused Sunil from his servant room in the guest house from a bag and asked him to witness the confiscated items. Police had taken his signatures on recovery memo Ex. PW4/A. PW5 identified one gold necklace (with thread), another gold necklace (without thread) and one pair of gold jhumkas Ex. P9 (colly.) which were shown to him by the police.

25. PW8 Mohd. Farooq stated in his examination in chief FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 31 of 60 that deceased Nasir was brother in law of his brother in law Irshad. Deceased Nasir was running a kabadi shop and he requested PW8 to get issue a mobile connection on his ID proof as he was not having any ID proof of Delhi. PW8 handed over photocopy of his election card and his photograph to deceased Nasir for issuance of mobile connection and he used the said mobile connection. During cross­examination by Ld. APP for State, PW8 admitted that police recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in the present case at his house. PW8 also admitted that he had told the police in his statement that he will trace out the receipt of his Sim card no. 9811423903. PW8 denied the suggestion that he was not producing the receipt of the Sim in the court deliberately so that the accused get the benefit of the same. PW8, in his cross­examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Shahid, admitted that Nasir himself came to him for issuance of mobile connection. PW7 Sh. Pratap Singh, ACP, DIU, N/W stated that he recorded the statement of Mohd. Farooq/ PW8 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and during his statement, Mohd. Farooq informed him that deceased got issued the connection of his mobile no. 9811423903 in his name and on his ID proof. PW20 Sh. Deepak, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., in his examination in chief stated that mobile connection no. FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 32 of 60 9811423903 was issued in the name of Mohd. Farooq and he proved the call details for the period 25­12­2008 to 11­02­2009 vide Ex. PW20/A; CAF as Ex. PW20/B and self attested copy of DL as Ex. PW20/C; certificate u/s 65B as Ex. PW20/D and Cell location chart as Ex. PW20/E. During cross­examination, PW20 denied that the signature at point C on Ex. PW20/B was different from the signatures at points A & B. PW20 volunteered that as per his understanding, the signatures at points A, B & C were of the same person. PW20 denied that tempering was done with the digits in collusion with the retailer and his department including himself at the instance of IO.

26. PW10 SI Matadin stated in his examination in chief that on 11­02­2009, he was posted in Mobile Crime Team and on receipt of call, he along with photographer Ct. Dalbir reached D­534, Wazirpur, JJ Colony at around 9:10 am where SHO Om Prakash, ASI Dev Raj and other police staff were present. One dead body of a male person in the age group of 25­26 years was lying on the folding bed in a room. One towel was lying under his head and there were ligature marks around the neck of deceased. Some bangle pieces were lying in the gallery of the said premises. The spot and dead body were photographed through Ct. Dalbir. PW10 prepared FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 33 of 60 his Crime Team report vide Ex. PW10/A. PW10 in his cross­ examination denied that he prepared the Crime Team report in a mechanical manner at the instance of IO.

27. PW15 Lady Ct. Nirmal in her examination in chief stated that on 13­02­2009, she along with SHO Inspector Om Prakash reached at D­534, Wazirpur, JJ Colony where accused Imrana (correctly identified) met them and she was interrogated. During interrogation, accused Imrana disclosed that she was having love affair with accused Mohd. Shahid and wanted to marry him. PW15 further stated that accused Imrana also disclosed that her husband Mohd. Nasir opposed the said love affair and therefore, she hatched a conspiracy with Mohd. Shahid and his friend Sunil to murder her husband. Accused Imrana further disclosed that during intervening night of 10/11­02­2009, she along with Mohd. Shahid and Sunil committed murder of Mohd. Nasir by strangulating with the help of plastic rope. PW15 further stated that accused Imrana also told that after murder of Mohd. Nasir, Sunil had gone to his house and she made physical relation with accused Mohd. Shahid. After having physical relations, she had cleaned her private parts with a cloth and thereafter the said cloth and plastic rope which was used in the murder was concealed behind wires. PW15 took personal search of FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 34 of 60 accused Imrana vide memo Ex. PW15/A and nothing was recovered in her personal search. PW15 further stated that at the instance of accused Imrana, one cloth piece of white and green colour and one piece of plastic rope of yellow colour were recovered from the kabad which were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/H. PW15 also identified one yellow colour plastic rope Ex.P4 and also one cloth piece of green and white colour Ex. P3 which were recovered at the instance of accused. During cross­examination, PW15 stated that IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Imrana in her presence. PW15 denied that no disclosure statement was made by accused Imrana or that it was fabricated later on at PS. PW15 denied that no recovery was effected at the instance of accused Imrana or that alleged rope and cloth were planted on accused Imrana. PW15 further denied that no personal search was effected or that all these documents were got signed from her by the IO. PW15 also denied that all the memos and documents were prepared at PS Ashok Vihar or that she had signed the same at PS Ashok Vihar. PW15 further denied that she had not joined the investigation in the present case as deposed by her in her examination in chief or that no inquiries were made from the accused Imrana in her presence as deposed by her.

FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 35 of 60

28. PW29 SI Dev Raj stated in his examination in chief that on 11­02­2009 at about 8:10 am, on receipt of DD no. 8, PP Wazirpur JJ Colony, he along with Ct. Naresh Kumar reached at D­534, Wazirpur JJ Colony where one lady namely Imrana was sitting in front of the door of storeroom and she narrated the incident happened with her last night. PW29 along with Ct. Naresh entered the house and found one person was lying dead on the cot and ligature marks were present on the neck of dead body and one towel was found below his neck. One Irshad was also present at the spot and he informed that towel beneath the neck of dead body was kept by him after removing from the face of dead body. Some broken bangles were also found in the gallery. PW29 informed Chowki Incharge and SI Satya Prakash, Ct. Pradeep and ASI P. K. Sharma reached at the spot. PW29 recorded statement of Imrana vide Ex. PW29/A. Thereafter, PW29 prepared the rukka on the dictation of SHO vide Ex. PW29/B. On 12­02­2009, PW29 along with IO Inspector Om Prakash reached BJRM hospital where IO conducted inquest proceedings and dead body was got identified through PW Mohd. Jabir and Irshad Ahmad vide identification memo Ex. PW1/J and memo Ex. PW29/C. After postmortem, Dr. handed over PW29 a wooden box containing viscera and sample seal sealed with the FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 36 of 60 seal of FMT BJRM hospital which were seized vide memo Ex. PW29/D. Doctor also handed over one sealed envelope containing blood sample, one pullanda containing clothes of deceased Nasir and one sample seal all sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM hospital which were seized vide memo Ex. PW29/E. PW29 further stated that during investigation, Irshad Ahmad met them and informed that Mohd. Shahid who was seen on the day of incident was sitting at Bus Stop of route no. 115, near Maharaja Agrasen School, JJ Colony. At the instance of Irshad Ahmad, accused Mohd. Shahid was apprehended and he confessed his guilt and he was arrested and gave disclosure statement. One mobile phone make Nokia 1650 of red and cream colour was recovered from the right side pocket of accused and he disclosed that same belonged to deceased Nasir and its IMEI no. was found to be 3529.........42643. One another mobile phone make Nokia 1650 was also recovered from the left side pocket of accused Mohd. Shahid having a sim. During his search, one another sim of Idea 32K was recovered from his purse. Both mobiles and sim card were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, accused Imrana was also interrogated and she confessed her guilt and she was arrested. Accused Imrana got recovered one dirty cloth piece from storeroom FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 37 of 60 of her house from underneath the jute bag. Accused Imrana also got recovered the plastic rope by which murder of deceased Nasir was committed by accused Mohd. Shahid and Sunil. On measuring, the plastic rope was found 6' 8½''. PW29 further stated that on 13­02­2009, he along with SI Satya Prakash, other staff and IO along with accused Mohd. Shahid reached C­116, Sector­44, Noida from where accused Sunil was apprehended from the third floor and he confessed his guilt and he was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW29/F and he made disclosure statement Ex. PW29/G. Accused Sunil disclosed that accused Imrana had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/­ after the murder of her husband but instead of the said amount she had given him jewellery. Accused Sunil got recovered one thaili from the room which was containing two yellow coloured necklace, one pair of yellow coloured top, one pair of silver pajeb and two silver rings and all these things were taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW4/A.

29. PW29, in his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence counsel and Amicus Curiae, stated that the crime team officials firstly sprinkled the powder for search/ location of the chance prints and then the photographs of the spot were taken. PW29 remained FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 38 of 60 at the spot along with IO till 9:35 pm on the first day. PW29 further stated that his statements were recorded on 11­02­2009, 12­02­2009 and 13­02­2009 by the IO and he had read over his statements recorded by the IO. PW29 denied that he had not written rukka/ tehrir and other memos and documents in the present case in his handwriting as deposed by him during the course of investigation. PW29 further denied that all the memos and documents were manipulated subsequently in the PS or that no investigation was conducted in the manner as deposed by him in his examination in chief. PW29 also stated in his cross­examination that IO had called public persons from neighbouring houses to join the proceedings on 11­02­2009. PW29 denied that accused Imrana was detained on 11­02­2009 itself and was kept in the PS in wrongful confinement. PW29 further stated that he and IO had thoroughly inspected the spot on 11­02­2009 before they left the spot finally. PW29 also stated that IO had recorded the arrival entry on 13­02­2009 itself after their return from C­116, Sector­44, Noida. PW29 further stated that the thaili containing recovered ornaments was also seized by the IO. Seal after use was handed over to him on 13­02­2009 and he returned the same in the night of 13­02­2009 but no entry regarding the return of seal was made in the rojnamcha. FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 39 of 60 The public persons who had joined the investigation namely Aditya and Gaurav had told the IO that accused was residing as a tenant on the third floor of C­116, Sector­44, Noida. The accused was found to be residing in one room only on the third floor of C­116, Sector­44, Noida. PW29 denied that accused Sunil had not made any disclosure statement as deposed by him or that the signatures of the accused were obtained on various blank papers and forms which were subsequently converted into various memos and documents including the alleged disclosure statements. PW29 further denied that accused Sunil was not apprehended or arrested in the manner as deposed by him in his examination in chief or that accused was already kept in wrongful confinement in the PS prior to the time period mentioned in the documents/ memos or that he was subsequently falsely implicated in the present case. The place from where accused Shahid was arrested was surrounded by residential area which was at a distance of 100 meters and there was a school and in front of the same he was arrested when he was sitting at the bus stand. PW29 denied that it was a blind murder or that after due deliberation and consultation, Irshad was shown to be witness in this case or that his statement was false and fabricated and was planted to be of 11­02­2009.

FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 40 of 60

30. PW30 Inspector Satya Prakash and PW31 ACP Om Prakash also deposed more or less on the same lines as deposed by PW29. PW31 further deposed that on his instructions, ASI Devraj put the FIR no. on the documents which were prepared earlier to the receiving of FIR and he prepared rough site plan Ex. PW31/A. PW31 got prepared the brief facts Ex. PW31/B and got filled the inquest form Ex. PW31/B and filled form no. 25.35 (1) (b). PW31 further stated that lady Ct. Nirmal produced two pullandas and one sample seal sealed with the seal of CMO, MS, BJRM which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW31/E. Ct. Naresh Kumar handed over him one sealed pullanda and sample seal sealed with the seal of CMO MS BJRM which he received from the doctor after medical examination of accused Mohd. Shahid which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW31/F. PW31 also tendered in evidence FSL result Ex. PW31/G & Ex. PW31/H and serological report as Ex. PW31/J.

31. PW30 stated in his cross­examination that deceased and PW Irshad were running the same shop of kabad and Irshad used to reside separately with his relative after the marriage of deceased with accused Imrana. PW30 denied that the recovered yellow metals jewellery were planted upon the accused Sunil. PW30 FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 41 of 60 further denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused Mohd. Shahid or that they planted Mohd. Irshad later on as last seen witness or that statement of Irshad was planted to be of 11­02­2009 whereas it was recorded after 13­02­2009. PW31, in his cross­examination, stated that Irshad was already at the spot when they reached after receiving DD. PW31 made an inquiry from Irshad as well as at the spot after making an inquiry from Imrana. PW31 also stated that Sim of the deceased was not recovered from the possession of deceased. However, PW31 volunteered that the Sim was broken and thrown into the river Yamuna. The articles recovered from Noida were got TIP by SI Satya Prakash. PW31 denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused Mohd. Shahid. PW31 further stated in his cross­examination that there was no overwriting or cutting on the tehrir. PW31 denied the suggestion that accused Imrana and Irshad were taken to PS on 11­02­2009 or that accused Imrana was pressurised to give her statement against Irshad or that when she refused to give the statement against Irshad, she was falsely implicated in this case. PW31 denied that accused Imrana did not make any disclosure statement. PW31 further denied that accused Imrana and Irshad were taken to PS on 11­02­2009 or that due to this reason no FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 42 of 60 question arose about the recoveries effected at the instance of accused Imrana on 12­02­2009. PW31 also stated in his cross­ examination that he had ascertained the fact from the accused Imrana whether the recovered yellow metals/ jewellery belonged to her or not and she replied in affirmative. PW31 further denied that he had not conducted the investigation fairly and properly or that accused Sunil had no role to play in the alleged incident. PW31 also denied that nothing was recovered from the possession or at the instance of accused Sunil as deposed by him in his examination in chief or that alleged case property had been planted upon accused Sunil. PW31 further denied that accused Sunil was not apprehended and arrested in the manner as deposed by him in his examination in chief.

32. PW14 HC Satpal, MHCM proved entries no. 4098, 4099, 4101 of register no. 19 vide Ex. PW14/A to PW14/C. PW14 also proved RC no. 144/21/08 and RC no. 145/21/08 vide Ex. PW14/D and PW14/E. PW27 ASI Satpal, MHCM proved entry no. 4098, 4099 and 4101 of register no. 19 vide Ex. PW27/A. PW27 proved RC no. 144/21/2008 and relevant acknowledgement of FSL vide Ex. PW27/B and Ex. PW27/C and RC no 145/21/2008 and its acknowledgement of FSL as Ex. PW27/D and PW27/E. FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 43 of 60

33. Let us first examine the legal position in such a case. It is well settled in law that where the case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person. No doubt, it is true that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence which has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1953 Crl.L.J. 129 (SC), it was held that in dealing with circumstantial evidence, the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases, there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In cases, where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 44 of 60 hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. In Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.

34. Similarly, in the case of S. Chenga Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. (1996 (10) SCC 193), it has been observed as under:

"21.In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilty is drawn should be fully proved and as such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence."

35. In Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1990 SC FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 45 of 60

79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established.

Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."

36. In Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622), while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by a false defence or plea. The doctrine of circumstantial evidence was again discussed and summarised in Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 (1) JCC 597, it was held that it is settled law that an offence can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 46 of 60 evidence where there is no direct evidence. The court can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Of course, the circumstance from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.

37. In the present case, the learned defence counsel and Ld. Amicus Curiae argued that none of the circumstances, from which an inference of guilt of accused persons can be drawn, has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore there can be no inference that it were the accused persons who committed the murder of Nasir. Now, let us further examine in this case which is admittedly based on circumstantial evidence, whether the prosecution has been able to complete the chain of events in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. PW1 in his examination in chief categorically stated that on the day of incident i.e. murder of Nasir, he was sitting with Nasir on the kabadi shop and accused Imrana brought three cups of tea and while taking tea, Nasir felt the taste of tea bitter and offered Imrana to taste the same but she refused. PW1 also stated that after taking the tea, Nasir felt FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 47 of 60 sleepy and they closed the shop half an hour earlier than usual time and thereafter, PW1 went to the room of Nasir and after taking food he came out of the room. PW1 further categorically stated that accused Mohd. Shahid and Sunil met him and after meeting them, PW1 went to the house of Rafakat for sleeping. During cross­ examination, PW1 denied that it was foggy in the evening after 7­8 pm at the time of alleged incident or that there was movement of public persons in the gali/ bylane in which house of Nasir was situated at the time of incident. PW1 denied that he had seen the accused Sunil for the first time in police custody at PS Jahangirpuri. PW1 also stated that he left the shop at around 9 pm on the day of incident. PW3 stated in his examination in chief that Irshad/ PW1 told PW3 that the accused Sunil and Shahid were brought to the shop of his brother and by the brother of Imrana and they were served lunch. Next day, PW3 received message at around 8 am that Nasir was killed at D­534. PW3 stated in his cross­examination that accused Sunil and Shahid visited the house of his deceased brother about 8 days prior to the date of occurrence. In this context, I would also place a reliance upon the judgement reported in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kishan Pal, 2008 (8) JT 650:

2008 (11) SCALE 233, it was held that it is the quality of the FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 48 of 60 evidence and not the quantity of evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement. In Raja Vs. State (1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Del.), it was held that it is well­known principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if the court comes to a conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the Prosecution. In the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness provided his credibility is not shaken and court finds him a truthful witness. It has been further held that Section 134 categorically lays down that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove a fact. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted.

38. In the present case, the testimony of PW1 & PW3 have not only inspired the confidence but they are also trustworthy. In Gulshan Vs. State through Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2010 (1) JCC 562, it was held that identification in a court is a substantive piece of evidence. PW1 and PW3 have been cross­examined at length by the Ld. Counsel and Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons but nothing has come out in the cross­examination of PW1 and PW3 which may shake their credibility. The clear and consistent stand of FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 49 of 60 PW1 & PW3 and identification of accused persons creates no doubt in the testimony of PW1 & PW3. In State Vs. Kashi Ram AIR 2007, SC 144, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a person is accused of committing murder of another, the fact that the accused and the deceased were "last seen together" is a circumstance of an incriminating nature against the accused.

39. Further, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. It cannot be said that a witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness should not be relied upon. In taking this view, I am supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sucha Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2003 SC 3617 (1). Similarly, in the case of Harbans Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2005 SC 2989, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no proposition in law that the relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. Reason has to be shown when plea of partiality is raised to show that witnesses had reason to FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 50 of 60 shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. In the present case, accused has not shown any specific reason as to why the brother­in­law and brother of the deceased would shield the actual culprits and falsely implicate the accused persons.

40. It is also proved by way of oral testimonies and medical evidence that on 12­02­2009, PW28 Dr. Deepak Mathur, Specialist Forensic Medicine, Civil Hospital conducted postmortem on the dead body of Nasir and he proved his PM report vide Ex. PW28/A. The cause of death was given as asphyxia following ligature pressure upon the neck and viscera was preserved to rule out associated poisoning. In his cross­examination, PW28 denied that he had not conducted the postmortem or that he had prepared the report to suit the case of IO. FSL result Ex. PW31/G has proved the presence of Alprazolam in the blood of deceased Nasir. As per medical jurisprudence, Alprazolam belongs to a group of drugs called benzodiazepines. It works by slowing down the movement of chemicals in the brain that may become unbalanced. This results in a reduction in nervous tension (anxiety). Alprazolam is used to treat anxiety disorders, panic disorders and anxiety caused by depression. PW13 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, CMO, BJRM hospital proved the MLC bearing no. 2271 Ex. PW13/A in the name of FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 51 of 60 accused Imrana and prepared by Dr. Kumbhar. PW24 Dr. Seema, MO, BJRM hospital, identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Sadhna and stated that on 12­02­2009, accused Imrana was examined by Dr. Sadhna vide MLC Ex. PW13/A. Pubic hair clippings were taken and sealed. Posterior vaginal swab was taken and slide was prepared and sealed and then handed over to police constable. PW21 Dr. Gopal Krishan, MO, BJRM Hospital in his examination in chief proved MLC Ex. PW21/A in the name of accused Mohd. Shahid prepared by Dr. Kumbhar. PW26 Dr. Rohit, Junior Specialist (Surgery) BJRM Hospital identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Rakesh on the MLC Ex. PW21/A of accused Mohd. Sahid and accused Mohd. Sahid was found to be fit to perform sexual intercourse. As far as identification of accused Sunil in TIP is concerned, PW25 Ms. Vandana Jain, DJS, MM, Mahila Court, KKD stated that on 18­02­2009, she conducted TIP of accused Sunil Kumar and proved TIP proceedings Ex. PW25/A wherein accused refused for TIP. The application of IO for conducting TIP was also proved as Ex. PW25/B and application for supply of copy of TIP as Ex. PW25/C. PW19 Sh. Hussain M. Zaidi, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. also proved that mobile connection no. 9639962567 was issued in the name of Shahid Ahmad and he further proved the FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 52 of 60 call detail for the period 01­01­2009 to 11­02­2009 vide Ex. PW19/A; voter I­card as Ex. PW19/B; and CAF as Ex. PW19/C. PW23 Amar Nath Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., Noida, UP also proved the original receiving copy of complaint dated 30­09­2009 Ex. PW23/A.

41. Section 120B IPC applies to those who are the members of the conspiracy during the continuance and conspiracy has to be treated as a continuing offence and whoever is a party to the conspiracy during the period for which a person is charged and is liable under this section and this section only applies where no express provision is made for punishment of such conspiracy and prosecution has to prove that the accused agreed to do or caused to be done an act; such act was illegal or was to be done by illegal means and some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the agreement and further, it is necessary that there should be direct communication between each conspirator and every other but the criminal design alleged must be common to all. It may be noted here that direct evidence of conspiracy is almost an impossibility and it is in a rare case only that there is direct evidence of the place where the conspiracy was entered into and in almost every case, conspiracies have to be inferred from the subsequent FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 53 of 60 conduct of the parties having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Further, the offence of conspiracy can be established by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, therefore, if the conditions laid down in section 10 of the Evidence Act are satisfied, an act done by one is admissible against co­conspirators. In Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, 1999 (3) SCC 54, AIR 1999 SC 1086, it was held that to bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of section 120B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful Act. It is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence. In the present case, the accused Imrana hatched conspiracy with co­accused Mohd. Shahid and Sunil for committing murder of her husband. PW15 Lady Ct. Nirmal not only identified accused Imrana but proved by her testimony that accused Imrana hatched conspiracy with Mohd. Shahid and his friend Sunil to commit murder of her husband by strangulation with the help of plastic rope. At the instance of accused Imrana, one cloth piece of white and green colour and one piece of plastic rope of yellow colour were recovered from the kabad which were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/H. PW29 SI Dev Raj also proved that he along with Ct. Naresh entered the house and found Nasir lying dead on the cot and ligature marks were found on the neck of FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 54 of 60 Nasir and one towel was found below his neck. Some broken bangles were also found in the gallery. At the instance of PW1/ Irshad Ahmad, accused Mohd. Shahid was arrested and one mobile phone make Nokia 1650 of red and cream colour was recovered from the right side pocket of accused and he disclosed that same belonged to deceased Nasir. One another mobile phone make Nokia 1650 was also recovered from the left side pocket of accused Mohd. Shahid having a sim. During his search, one another sim of Idea 32K was recovered from his purse. Accused Imrana got recovered one dirty cloth piece from storeroom of her house from underneath the jute bag and a plastic rope by which murder of deceased Nasir was committed by accused Mohd. Shahid and Sunil. The accused Sunil was also arrested and he disclosed that accused Imrana had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/­ after the murder of her husband but instead of the said amount she had given him jewellery. Accused Sunil got recovered one thaili from the room which was containing two yellow coloured necklace, one pair of yellow coloured top, one pair of silver pajeb and two silver rings. PW30 Inspector Satya Prakash and PW31 ACP Om Prakash also by way of their oral testimonies proved the evidence on the same lines which has also been proved by PW29. PW19 Sh. Hussain M. Zaidi, FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 55 of 60 Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. also stated that mobile connection no. 9639962567 was issued in the name of Shahid Ahmad and he proved the call detail for the period 01­01­2009 to 11­02­2009 vide Ex. PW19/A; voter I­card as Ex. PW19/B; and CAF as Ex. PW19/C. PW23 Amar Nath Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., Noida, UP also proved the original receiving copy of complaint dated 30­09­2009 Ex. PW23/A.

42. Let us further examine whether there are contradictions in the testimonies of PWs. I have found that there are some contradictions in the testimonies of the aforesaid PWs yet these contradictions are minor contradictions and do not go to the root or core of this case. In this regard, a reliance can be placed upon the judgement reported in the case of State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & ors. 2010 Cri. L. J. 3889, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor discrepancies, not touching core of case, cannot be ground for rejection of evidence in entirety. As far as independent public persons joining the investigation are concerned, the public persons are reluctant to become witnesses of criminal trial. Therefore, law is not that testimony of police officers apart from the eyewitness is absolutely untrustworthy or that it can never be acted upon. It has been held in a catena of judgements of the Hon'ble FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 56 of 60 Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that merely because independent public witnesses are not joined in a case, the Prosecution case cannot be thrown out. In such circumstances, no benefit can be given to the accused for non­joining of independent public witnesses. In this context, I am supported with the judgements reported in the case of State of UP Vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998; Ambika Prasad & Anr. Vs. State 2002 (2) Crimes 63 (SC); Dr. Krishna Pal & Anr. Vs. State of UP 1996 (7) SCC

194.

43. The Ld. Amicus Curiae and Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the police has not fairly investigated the case and the investigation is defective. Ld. APP for State argued that if there is a defective investigation, the accused persons cannot also take the benefit of it. It is relevant to mention here that even if the investigation is defective or faulty, the accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective or faulty investigation. In this regard, I would place reliance upon the Judgment reported in the case of State of UP Vs. Hari Mohan and others., AIR 2001 SC 142, it was held that if the investigation is defective in nature, it cannot be made a basis for acquitting accused. In Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920, the appellants had FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 57 of 60 been convicted for offence punishable u/s 302 r/w section 34 IPC. It was held that accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective investigation. To do so, would tantamount to playing into the hands of investigating officer if investigation is designedly defective.

44. Ld. Amicus Curiae and Ld. defence counsel for the accused persons argued that prosecution has failed to prove motive for the murder. The defence, to my view, cannot dig out any advantage from the fact that motive has not been proved. No doubt, the court generally tries to asses the motive behind any murder but most often only the perpetrator of crime alone knows as to what circumstances prompted him/ her to certain course of action. Motive is in the mind of accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy. Therefore, absence of motive cannot dislodge the entire prosecution story. In this context, I would place a reliance upon the judgement reported in the case of State of UP Vs. Babu Ram 2000 (II) AD 285, it was held that:

"Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of eyewitnesses or circumstantial evidence. The question in this regard is whether a prosecution must fail because it failed to prove the motive or even whether inability to prove motive would weaken the prosecution to any perceptible limit. No doubt, if the Prosecution proves the existence of a motive it would be well and good FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 58 of 60 for it, particularly in a case depending on circumstantial evidence, for, such motive could then be counted as one of the circumstances. However, it cannot be forgotten that it is generally a difficult area for any prosecution to bring on record what was in the mind of the respondent. Even if the Investigating Officer would have succeeded in knowing it through interrogation that cannot be put in evidence by them due to the ban imposed by law. In this context, we would reiterate what this court has said about the value of motive evidence and the consequences of prosecution failing to prove it, in Nathuni Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, [1998 (9) SCC 238] and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jeet Singh [1998 (4 SCC 370)].

Following passage can be quoted from the latter decision:

No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the Prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the Prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental imposition of an offender towards the person whom he offered."

45. In their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused persons have merely denied all the incriminating evidence. The Prosecution has satisfactorily proved the various links and the accused persons did not offer any explanation consistent with their innocence and therefore the absence of such explanation itself is an additional link FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 59 of 60 which completes the chain. In my considered view, the Prosecution has been able to prove the other circumstances which unerringly point to the guilt of accused persons and the chain of evidence is complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused persons and shall in all probability that the offence was committed by the accused persons and none else. The aforesaid judgements relied upon by the Ld. defence counsel are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. I, therefore, hold all the accused persons guilty and convict them for the offence u/s 302/120B IPC. Accused Imrana and Mohd. Shahid are also convicted for the offence u/s 201/34 IPC and accused Imrana is further convicted for the offence u/s 211 IPC. Copy of judgement be given to the convicts free of cost.

(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW­03:ROHINI:DELHI.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 31­07­2014 FIR No. 75/09; State Vs. Imrana etc. Page 60 of 60