Delhi District Court
State vs :- 1- Kumari Reena, on 15 January, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT PARASHAR: ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
S.C.NO.140/07
STATE VERSUS:- 1- KUMARI REENA,
D/O SH. PARKASH CHAND,
R/O R-828, RAGHUBIR NAGAR,
DELHI.
2- PRAKASH CHAND,
S/O SH. KISHORI LAL,
R/O R-828, RAGHUBIR NAGAR,
DELHI.
FIR NO.1025/02
U/S 201 & 302, r/W Section 34 IPC.
PS RAJOURI GARDEN.
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the report U/S 173 Cr.PC is as under :
On the morning of 8-12-02, at about 7am, an information was received at police post - Raghubir Nagar vide DD No.30 about murder of a lady. Accordingly, SI Vijay Pal Singh, ICPP, Raghubir Nagar went to the place of incident i.e R-828, Raghubir Nagar, near 'Sai Baba Mandir'. At the spot, the police found the dead body of a female, aged about 40 years, namely, Smt. Urmila, wife of one Parkash Chand lying over there having multiple stabbed injuries and blood scattered all around the room and on the bed lying over there. The husband of deceased, namely, Parkash Chand and her two children, namely, Reena and Hari Shanker were also present over there but, none could give any clue to the police as to the cause of death of Urmila. SI Vijay Pal Singh accordingly prepared 2 a rukka and got a case registered at PS Rajouri Garden for the offence U/S 302 IPC. The subsequent investigation was thereafter taken over by Inspt. ML Sharma, the then SHO, PS Rajouri Garden. He also went to the spot and called the crime team over there but, no finger prints etc. could be lifted from the spot. He thereafter collected the blood stained sample from the spot besides the blood stained mattresses etc. He also collected the earth control sample over there and carried out the inquest proceedings. The body was sent thereafter for postmortem examination. However, on 9-12-02, during the course of further investigation when the answers given by Parkash Chand and his two children, namely, Reena and Hari Shanker were found to be contradictory in nature then, they were subjected to sustain interrogation and during the course of which they broke down and made disclosure statements to the police admitting their guilt in the present matter. It was stated by Reena that she and her brother Hari Shanker had developed illicit relations between them and their mother i.e deceased Urmila had seen both of them indulging in such kind of activities and she had given beating to both of them. She also stated that her mother had stated that in the morning she will tell all the facts to their father and upon which she and her brother both thought of a plan to do away with their mother by committing her murder. Accordingly they both in furtherance of their common intention repeatedly stabbed their mother and thereby committed her murder. She 3 further stated that after committing the alleged act Hari Shanker then informed his father about their misdeed and who out of sympathy tried to destroy the evidence of the offence by washing away the knife used in the commission of murder of Urmila as well as the underwear of Parkash Chand. Parkash Chand accordingly after washing them kept them on the roof of the house near the water tank. In the morning, matter was reported to the police. Accordingly, Reena, Parkash Chand and Hari Shanker were all arrested in this case. Parkash Chand also led the police party to the roof of his house and got recovered the impugned knife and underwear which he had washed. Thereafter, the various clothes which were found on the body of deceased as well as the mattresses etc. were seized from the spot besides the blood stained earth sample and the earth control sample. They all were thereafter sent to FSL. Upon completion of necessary further investigation, challan as regards accused Reena and Parkash Chand was filed before the concerned area Magistrate but, as regards accused Hari Shanker the same was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board for on the date of offence, he was found to be minor.
Upon committal of the case to the court of sessions while charge for the offence U/S 302/34 IPC was framed against accused Reena but accused Parkash Chand was charged for the offence U/S 201 IPC. Both the accused persons however pleaded not guilty to the 4 charge and claimed trial.
Prosecution thereafter in order to prove its case examined 23 witnesses. The two accused persons were thereafter examined U/S 313 Cr.PC. They however refused to lead any evidence in their defence.
PW1 Bhagwan Dass and PW3 Dau Dayal were the two brothers of deceased Urmila, who had identified her dead body.
PW2 Neelam Chopra was a Clerk from Saraswati Balmandir, Rajouri Garden School and she proved the birth record of accused Hari Shanker which was recorded over there as '26-9-1986'.
PW4 HC Vijay Kumar was the photographer, who took the photographs of the spot and proved the same as Ex.PW4/1 to 22 with corresponding negatives as Ex.PW4/23 to 44.
PW6 Ct. Jaswinder had taken the copy of the FIR to the area Magistrate and to senior police officers.
PW7 SI Suresh Kumar had merely produced delinquent Hari Shanker before Juvenile Court after his arrest.
PW9 Ravinder Kumar had taken delinquent Hari Shanker for medical examination.
PW10 L.Ct. Somita had taken accused Reena for medical examination to DDU Hospital upon her arrest.
PW12 SI Udai Singh was the duty officer, PS Raghubir Nagar, who had recorded FIR Ex.PW12/A in the present matter. 5
PW14 SI Narender Singh was the In-charge Mobile Crime Team, who had inspected the spot vide his report Ex.PW14/A but, could not find any finger print from over there.
PW15 Ct. Sanjay Kumar was the DD writer, Police Post Raghubir Nagar, who had received the initial information about the incident vide DD No.30 and had handed it over to SI Vijay Pal Singh for necessary action.
PW17 L.Ct. Babita was the PCR official, who had received the initial information about murder of wife and children of the occupant of H.No.828, Raghubir Nagar. She accordingly filled-up the PCR form in this regard and forwarded the same to the concerned district net.
PW18 Rajinder was allegedly a public independent witness, who was a neighbourer of the accused persons. He deposed that after the arrest of the accused persons when he was passing from near Police Post Raghubir Nagar then he saw a crowd gathered over there. Upon going inside the crowd, he found accused Reena and her brother present over there. He further stated that upon inquiry accused Reena stated before him that she has committed a mistake. He further stated that underwear of brother of accused Reena was taken into possession by police but, he claimed ignorance as to any other proceedings carried out by the police in his presence. He was accordingly declared hostile by ld. APP and was cross-examined at length but, even in his cross examination 6 by ld. APP he did not support the case of the prosecution on the material aspects.
PW19 Inspt. Devender Singh was the Draftsman, who prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW19/A. PW20 Dr. VM Saini had medically examined accused Reena as well as accused Hari Shanker vide MLC Ex.PW20/A and B. PW21 Dr. Swati Devikar proved the medical examination notes of accused Reena as were in the hand of one Dr. Rohini, who was no longer available. She proved the said medical notes as Ex.PW21/A on the MLC of Reena.
PW22 Dr. Rajender Kumar was the FSL expert, who examined the various exhibits sent to him by the IO and he proved his report as Ex.PW22/A and B. PW23 Dr. BN Mishra proved the postmortem examination report of deceased Urmila as was in the hand of Dr. Manoj Nagpal, who was no longer available. He also saw the impugned weapon of offence viz the 'knife' during the course of his deposition in the court and opined that the injuries as were mentioned on the postmortem report Ex.PW23/A were possible with the said knife.
PW16 Inspt. Vijay Pal Singh was the initial IO of the case, who had gone to the spot upon receipt of DD No.30. He proved the rukka prepared by him and stated that after registration of the case, the 7 investigation was taken over by Inspt. ML Sharma.
PW13 Inspt. Mohan Lal Sharma was the main IO of the case. In his deposition, he reiterated the investigation carried out by him besides proving various documents/memos prepared by him during the course of investigation.
PW5 HC Sitaram, PW8 SI Ziley Singh and PW11 Ct. Raghunath were the various police officials, who had accompanied the investigating officers in the present case at different stages of the proceedings. They accordingly corroborated their deposition in material particulars while deposing about the various documents/memos prepared in their presence.
In their statements U/S 313 Cr.PC both the accused persons however stated the case of the prosecution to be false and the prosecution witnesses to be deposing falsely.
I have heard the arguments as addressed by ld. APP as well as by ld. counsel Sh. PK Dham for both persons at length.
It has been submitted by ld. defence counsel for both the accused persons that the prosecution case is bridled with a number of inherent contradictions and lacunas which raises grave shadows of doubts as to its veracity. It was submitted by him that Inspt. Mohal Lal did not handover the seal to any independent person after preparing the various pullandas. It was thus stated that the vary purpose of preparing 8 pullandas and sealing with his seal by the IO thus stood defeated. It was also stated that the prosecution witnesses have contradicted each other as to the exact place from where the knife or the underwear allegedly of accused Hari Shanker were recovered in as much as IO/Inspt. ML Sharma stated that the same were recovered from near the water tank but, the other witnesses stated that they were recovered from over the water tank. It was further stated that PW18 Rajinder stated that accused Reena had made a disclosure statement to him but, it was pointed out that none of the two investigating officers, namely, PW13 Inspt. Mohan Lal Sharma and PW16 Inspt. Vijay Pal Singh stated anything in this regard. It was also stated that no recovery of any article was effected from the present two accused persons and accordingly their alleged disclosure statements were not admissible in evidence. It was also stated that the FSL result qua the knife, salvar of Reena and underwear of Hari Shanker as seized by the IO also does not support the prosecution story as neither any blood stains, nor any semen stains were found upon them. It was also pointed out that PW14 SI Narender Singh, the crime team in-charge specifically stated that in the fist of the deceased, no hairs were found by him. It was also pointed out that even in the postmortem report, the doctor has not mentioned anything about the seizure of any such hair. It was thus submitted that these documents thereby contradicted the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and the FSL report. It was also submitted by learned defence 9 counsel that in the inquest proceedings in Form No.: 25.35, coloumn no 15 which talks about the presence of any external material with the body was lying blank and which also discredits the deposition of the prosecution witnesses as to the presence of any hair. It was thus stated that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case against both the accused persons. They were thus prayed to be acquitted.
On the other hand, ld. APP strongly opposed the contentions of learned defence counsel stating that the disclosure statement made by accused Reena to PW18 Rajinder amounted to a confession on her part and does not stand hit by Section 25 Evidence Act for it was not made before a police officer. It was further stated that PW16 Inspt. Vijay Pal Singh in his initial endorsement made on the rukka had stated that the family members of deceased Urmila were not able to divulge proper facts. It was thus stated that this conduct of the family members of deceased Urmila speaks volume about their guilty intention. As regards the absence of blood stains or semen stains on the underwear, knife etc it was submitted that accused Hari Parkash had admittedly already washed them before they were seized by the IO. The prosecution was thus stated to have been successful in proving its case against both the accused persons They were thus prayed to be convicted.
I have carefully perused the record.
In order to better appreciate the case of the prosecution, it will 10 be appropriate to first delineate the nature of incriminating evidence brought on record against the two accused persons by the prosecution.
As regards accused Kumari Reena, the only piece of incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution is her alleged disclosure statement besides that of her co-accused persons. Another fact has been sought to be harped upon by the prosecution is the alleged presence of the accused persons inside the same very house where Smt. Urmila was found to have been murdered. As regards accused Parkash Chand, who has been charged only for the offence u/S 201 IPC, the only incriminating piece of evidence brought on record by the prosecution is his alleged disclosure statement.
Admittedly, pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Kumari Reena, no recovery of any article whatsoever was effected. Thus, her statement is clearly inadmissible in evidence being hit by Section 25 Evidence Act. As per the prosecution case itself the alleged recovery of an underwear and a knife belonging to Hari Shanker, the brother of accused Kumari Reena was effected pursuant to the disclosure statement of Hari Shanker. Though, Hari Shanker is facing trial before Juvenile Justice Board but, I shall be also touching as to the recovery of the said two incriminating articles at his instance also before parting away with this judgment in order to show that even the said two articles are insufficient to connect the present accused persons with the offence in question. No- 11 doubt, the presence of accused Kumari Reena or for that matter the other accused persons in the same very house during the course of night where Smt. Urmila was found to have been murdered could have amounted to an incriminating fact against them calling upon them to explain the circumstances of the murder of Smt. Urmila but, this burden cannot be so easily shifted upon them by the prosecution. Admittedly, Smt. Urmila was sleeping in a different room of the house and accused Kumari Reena along with Hari Shanker was sleeping in another room of the house. Accused Parkash Chand was sleeping in yet another portion of the house on the ground floor and thus merely on account of their presence in the same house at the time of incident without there being any other evidence having been led by the prosecution to show that no one from outside could have any access to the room where Smt. Urmila was sleeping, it cannot be concluded that the burden to explain the facts pertaining to murder of Smt. Urmila stands shifted upon accused Kumari Reena.
Ld. APP did point out that in the rukka SI Vijay Pal has stated that when he visited the spot for the first time then none of the family members were found by him in a position to give a proper statement. Again, not much can be read into this assertion by SI Vijay Pal as it is quite natural for the family members to be in a perturbed state of mind upon finding the lady of the house having been murdered during the course of 12 night. Thus, this fact in itself also cannot lead to any adverse inference against the accused persons. However, the endorsement in the rukka made by SI Vijay Pal shows that at that very point of time, it was informed to him that Smt. Urmila was sleeping in a separate room in the house and other persons were sleeping in different room of the house.
In fact, in the present case, no proper scientific investigation seems to have been made so as to obtain any scientific clue from the scene of occurrence be it in the form of chance print or of any other nature. Even, the impugned underwear and knife which were allegedly recovered from the house of the accused persons was found to be having no blood or semen stains upon them when sent for examination to FSL. Thus, it cannot be presumed merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises that the said knife was the very weapon of offence which was used in the commission of murder of Smt. Urmila. Once again except for obtaining an opinion from the doctor that the injuries on the person of Smt. Urmila were caused by some sharp edged weapon, no further opinion was obtained vis-a-vis the said knife as to the depth of the injury or the nature of edges of the injuries etc. The investigating agency seems to have put the cart before the horse and merely proceeded to solve a murder case on the basis of disclosure statement of the alleged accused persons. The investigation seems to have been carried out more on the basis of belief then on the basis of any scientific nature of investigation. 13
Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that the disclosure statement of neither Kumari Reena, nor of Parkash Chand are admissible in evidence in the absence of any recovery having been effected pursuant to it. In these circumstances various other contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as pointed out by learned defence counsel viz seal after preparation of pullanda having been not entrusted to anyone by the IO or the witnesses having contradicted each other as to the exact place from where the impugned underwear and the knife were recovered or when and where the disclosure statement of the accused persons were recorded need not be gone into. In fact, in the inquest proceedings carried out by the IO, there is nothing mentioned in coloumn no.15 of form No.25.35 and the said coloumn has been left blank by the IO. Thus, it also does not stand explained on record as to how certain strands of hair came to be seized by the IO and were sent to FSL for examination.
Lastly, the contention of ld. APP that accused Kumari Reena made a disclosure statement before PW18 Rajinder, I may state is also of no use. Firstly, PW18 Rajinder stated that Kumari Reena only stated to him that she has committed a mistake. He did not elaborate anything further as to what kind of mistake she was talking about. In fact, PW18 Rajinder did not prefer to support the case of the prosecution on any further details and was even declared hostile by ld. APP. Even, in his cross-examination 14 by ld. APP nothing material could be further elicited which could favour the case of the prosecution even remotely. Thus, it is clear that the mere statement of accused Kumari Reena to him that she has committed a mistake while she was sitting in the police station is even otherwise of no help to the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused. This argument thus does not require any further discussion to be brushed aside.
Be that as it may be, from my aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case against accused Kumari Reena for the offence U/S 302/34 IPC and also against accused Parkash Chand for the offence U/S 201 IPC.
I accordingly giving benefit of doubt to accused Kumari Reena acquit her of the offence U/S 302/34 IPC and accused Parkash Chand of the offence U/S 201 IPC. Their bail bonds stands cancelled and their sureties are discharged.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15-1-2008 (BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI COURTS D E L H I. 15 FIR NO.1025/02 U/S 201 & 302, r/W Section 34 IPC.
PS RAJOURI GARDEN.
15-1-08 Pr. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused Kumari Reena and Prakash Chand are present on bail.
Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 15-1-08 accused Kumari Reena has been acquitted of the offence U/S 302/34 IPC and accused Parkash Chand has been acquitted of the offence U/S 201 IPC. Their bail bonds stands cancelled and their sureties are discharged. Documents of their sureties, if any be returned forthwith.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15-1-2008 (BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI COURTS D E L H I.