Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sc No.44439/2015: Fir No.476/2013: Ps ... vs Zulfikar @ Bobby Dod: 19.02.2021 on 19 February, 2021

SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby   DOD: 19.02.2021



         IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE­03:
        (NORTH­EAST): KARKARDOOMA DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI

                                    (SIX YEARS' OLD CASE)

(Sessions Case No.44439/2015)
State        V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby
FIR No.      :     476/2013
U/s          :     306/114/120­B IPC
P.S.         :     Seelampur

State          V/s     Zulfikar @ Bobby,
                       S/o Shri Razi Hasan,
                       R/o C­47/7, Gali No.12/4, Chauhan Banger, Delhi­110053.

Date of institution of case                    :       24.09.2014
Date of hearing of final arguments             :       17.02.2021
Date of pronouncement of judgment              :       19.02.2021


                                  JUDGMENT

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

Mothers are precious gifts from God. Mother is not only a word but the basis of our living. Without mothers, life would certainly be dark and gloomy. Mothers have been the glue that hold a family together because it is up to them to provide the loving care and support needed by growing children. Why I am saying so because accused in this case namely Zulfikar @ Bobby has been chargesheeted for abetting the suicide of none else, but the person who brought him into this world, i.e, his own mother.

2. The facts of the case, as borne out from the record are that on 25.10.2013 on receipt of DD No.36­B, SI Rizwan alongwith Constable Rakesh Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 1 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 reached at MCD Primary School, D­Block, Seelampur, Delhi­53 where they came to know that one lady had set herself on fire and was removed to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital (in short "LNJP Hospital") by the PCR van. After leaving Constable Rakesh at the spot, SI Rizwan rushed to LNJP Hospital where he met the injured, whose name was revealed as Smt.Azaz Fatima, W/o Shri Razi Hasan and he collected her MLC. Smt.Azaz Fatima was declared fit by the doctors for giving statement, however, she refused to give any statement. Accordingly, SI Rizwan came back to the spot, where he met eye witness Shri Iftekhar Ali, who gave his statement that on 25.10.2013 at about 2.30 PM Smt.Ezaz Fatima alongwith her son Zulfikar @ Bobby (accused herein) had come to the said school and set herself on fire in the compound/playground of said school after taking out a plastic bottle and pouring the contents (which could be kerosene oil or petrol) thereof upon her and his son (accused herein) had handed over a lighter to her for the same. The accused raised hue and cry pursuant whereto teachers and other staff members rushed to the spot. Somebody from the crowd dialed number 100; PCR van came at the spot and took the injured and accused to LNJP Hospital. On the basis of statement of Shri Iftikhar Ali, SI Rizwan prepared rukka and got the present case FIR registered against the accused. During the course of medical treatment, injured Smt.Ezaz Fatima expired at LNJP Hospital on 05.11.2013 (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") due to burn injuries suffered by her. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, post­mortem upon the dead body of deceased was got conducted, wherein cause of death was opined as, "septicemia consequent upon infected burn injuries"; exhibits of the case were sealed, seized and accused was arrested in the matter. After completion of investigation, accused stood chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 306/114/120­B IPC.

Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 2 of 58

SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021

3. Since offence U/s 306 IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide his order dated 12.09.2014 committed the case to this Court. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, my learned Predecessor vide order dated 17.11.2014 held that prima facie ingredients of Charge under Section 306 IPC were made out, as such, charge was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined as many as thirty four (34) witnesses, whereafter PE in the matter was closed and statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the matter. He took a categorical plea that on the date of incident he alongwith the deceased (i.e his mother) had gone to the school in question, where his father Razi Hasan (PW­19) was present inside. He remained standing outside the school while his deceased mother went inside. After sometime, he heard the cries of his deceased mother, who was screaming that Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 (husband of deceased) with the help of Shri Pyamber Raza (PW­16) and Nade Ali (PW­17) had beaten her, poured petrol over her and lit her on fire, as a result of which she sustained severe burn injuries and resultantly died. He further stated that in a bid to save her mother, he had also sustained burn injuries. Accused sought to lead defence evidence in the matter. However, despite repeated opportunities when he did not bring any witness in his defence, my learned Predecessor vide order dated 07.07.2017 ordered for closure of DE in the matter.

5. I have heard arguments advanced at bar by learned Additional PP, Shri D.K Singh and Shri Hafiz Mohd. Rizwan, Advocate, learned counsel for the accused Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 3 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 and perused the entire material on record. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of accused. Before adverting to adjudication upon the arguments advanced at bar, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter which is as under.

6. The evidence recorded in the matter/witnesses examined can be broadly classified under five categories, i.e:

               (a)     Eye witnesses/witnesses present at the school
                (b)    Other independent public witnesses
               (c)     Witnesses of investigation;
               (d)     Witness of medical evidence and;
               (e)     Formal witnesses.


                                  Evidence recorded in the matter
                       Eye witnesses/witnesses present at the school

7. PW­3, Shri Madan, is the watchman of MCD Primary School, D­ Block, Seelampur, Delhi, i.e the school where the incident in question had taken place. He in his evidence stated that on 25.10.2013 at about 02/02.30 PM he was present on duty at the main gate of the school. Principal of school namely Shri Razi Hasan (PW­19) was not present in the school as he had gone to some village, while Incharge namely Shri Rajpal was present. He further stated that teacher namely Nade Ali (PW­17) was present in his classroom on the said day. He further stated that he knew the wife (deceased herein) and son (accused herein) of principal Razi Hasan (PW­19) prior to the incident in question. He further stated that on the date of incident, i.e on 25.10.2013, the wife and son of principal Shri Razi Hasan had come to school gate; son of Razi Hasan was carrying a polythene containing a green colour bottle. He further stated that he stopped them at the gate and they Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 4 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 wanted to meet principal/PW­19. When he informed that principal/PW­19 was not present inside the school, they forcibly entered inside and reached in open space/park located inside the school. He further stated that he saw son (accused herein) of Razi Hasan/PW­19 pouring some liquid from the bottle on the body of his mother (deceased herein) and thereafter set her on fire. On hearing her screams, the staff of school rushed towards the injured. He further stated that teacher namely Shri Nade Ali (PW­17) had made a call at number 100, pursuant to which PCR van came at the spot and took injured to Hospital.

On the point of pouring of liquid and litting on fire of deceased, this witness was declared hostile and cross­examined by learned Additional PP. In his cross­examination by learned Additional PP, this witness admitted the contents of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the IO on 04.11.2013; said statement has been exhibited as Ex.PW3/1. He categorically stated in his cross­ examination by learned Additional PP that deceased had poured oil on herself, while accused handed over a lighter to her and she put herself on fire with the said lighter.

In his cross­examination by learned Amicus Curiae, this witness stated that Shri Nade Ali (PW­17) was the first person to reach at the spot. He further stated that he had not made any call on number 100 on the said date.

8. PW­17, Shri Nade Ali, who was lying posted as Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the school in question on the date of incident in his evidence stated that on 25.10.2013, the Principal/Head Master namely Shri Razi Hasan (PW­19) was on leave as had he gone to attend some marriage. He further stated that on the said day, i.e on 25.10.2013, at about 2.30 PM he was present outside Classroom No.3, when he saw deceased and her son (accused herein) entering school premises Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 5 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 from the main gate and reaching playground. He further stated that at that time deceased was carrying a white colour bag (thaili) containing a two litre plastic bottle and she poured the liquid (either kerosene oil or pertrol) on herself; in the meantime accused took out lighter from the pocket of his pant and lit the deceased on fire and started shouting loudly "mere baap ne meri maa ko aag laga di". He further stated that accused made a call at number 100; teachers on duty gathered at the spot; PCR van also reached the spot and removed injured as well as accused to hospital. He further stated that he noticed lighter, plastic bottle having some liquid and burnt clothes of deceased at the spot. He further stated that photographs of the spot were clicked, which have been identified by him as Ex.PW12/A­1 to Ex.PW12/A­13. He has further identified the lighter and plastic bottle carried by the deceased as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 respectively.

In his cross­examination, this witness stated that he knew Razi Hasan (PW­19) since long being his uncle. He further admitted Shri Payamber Raza (PW­

16) being a teacher in the said school. He further admitted that deceased was the real wife of Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 and accused is their real son. He further admitted that Razi Haasn/PW­19 was living separately from the deceased. He categorically stated that on 25.10.2013 he had seen the accused with deceased. He further stated that he had made a call at number 100 on the date of incident.

9. PW­18, Shri Iftikhar Ali was also lying posted as Primary Teacher (on contract basis) in the school in question on the date of incident. He in his evidence stated that Shri Razi Hasan (PW­19) was lying posted as Head Master in the school in question and was on leave on 25.10.2013 as he had gone out of station. He further stated that on 25.10.2013, at about 2.30 PM he noticed accused alongwith Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 6 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 his mother (deceased herein) coming towards the playground of the school from the main gate and he knew the accused and deceased from earlier. He further stated that at that time deceased was carrying one plastic bag (thaili) in her hand from which she took out a two litre plastic bottle and poured the contents thereof (either petrol or kerosene oil) over her. He further stated that he tried to intervene but deceased told him not to intervene and in the meantime, deceased took a lighter from the accused and set herself on fire and accused started shouting, "meri maa ko mere papa ne aag laga di". He further stated that Nade Ali/PW­17 made a call at number 100, pursuant to which PCR van came at the spot and took deceased and accused to hospital. He has proved on record his statement recorded by IO, SI Rizwan/(PW­

33) as Ex.PW18/1. He further stated that in his statement Ex..PW18/1, he had categorically told the police that accused and deceased tried to implicate Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 in a false case. He further stated the scene of crime was got photographed and the plastic bottle, lighter, burnt clothes etc. were seized, converted into a pulanda and sealed with seal of RK and thereafter taken into possession vide Seizure Memo already Ex.PW10/2. He further identified the green coloured plastic bottle and lighter as Ex.P7 and Ex.P6 respectively.

In his cross­examination, this witness categorically stated that he knew the accused and his deceased mother since childhood as they belonged to same village. He further stated that when accused alongwith his mother had entered inside the school premises, he himself approached them and told deceased that Shri Razi Hasan (Masterji)/PW­19 was not present inside the school, on which deceased told her not to indulge in her matter. He was confronted with his statement recorded by the IO, i.e Ex.PW18/1, wherein he had stated that accused had told him, "hat jao, he hamara mamla hai". He further stated that site plan was not prepared Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 7 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 in his presence. He clarified that deceased had taken lighter from the accused and set herself on fire and accused was shouting "ammi mar gayi". He further stated that Shri Nade Ali (PW­17) had made a call to police on number 100.

10. PW­20, Shri Shiv Om Tiwari, who was also lying posted as Assistant Teacher in the school in question on the date of incident categorically denied having witnessed the incident in question. He did not support the prosecution case at all. He was declared hostile by the learned Additional PP and thoroughly cross­ examined by him. In his cross­examination by learned Additional PP, this witness denied the contents of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the IO as Ex.PW20/1 in toto.

In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, this witness categorically stated that Incharge of the school had told him about Shri Razi Hasan (PW­19) being on leave on 25.10.2013.. He further stated that he had neither seen the deceased alongwith her son (accused herein) coming to school nor he is aware as to who had set on fire the deceased.

11. PW­22, Shri Maqsood Ali was lying posted as "Contract Teacher" in the school in question on the date of incident, i.e on 25.10.2013. He could not tell the date, month and year when the incident in question had taken place. He simply stated that on the fateful day (without mentioning the exact date or the year thereof) at about 2.00 PM he heard a noise coming out from the playground of the school and saw one lady in flames. He has identified his signatures upon the Dead Body Identification Memo of deceased at point C; Dead Body Identification Memo is Ex.PW9/1.

Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 8 of 58

SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 This witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution and thoroughly cross­examined by the learned Additional PP. The learned Additional PP extensively confronted this witness with his statement recorded by the IO under Section 161 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW22/A), but he completely denied the contents thereof.

In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, this witness categorically stated that except the Principal of school namely Shri Razi Hasan (PW­19) all the teachers were present in the school on the date of incident, though he could not tell the reason as to why Principal was not present in the school on the date of incident.

12. PW­24, Shri Maneesh Kumar Jayant is also a teacher, who was present in the school in question on the date of incident. He stated that on 25.10.2013 at about 2/2.30 PM, he was present in class 3 rd (situated at first floor) when he heard a noise (halla) coming from the playground of school. He went there and came to know that one lady had sustained burn injuries, but he could not tell her name. He categorically stated that Principal of school namely Shri Razi Hasan (PW­19) was on leave on the said date.

This witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution and thoroughly cross­examined by the learned Additional PP. In his cross­examination by learned Additional PP, this witness categorically denied the suggestion that on the date of incident at about 2.30 PM he had seen the deceased and her son Zulfikar (accused herein) coming to the school and deceased carrying a bag in her hand containing a bottle of kerosene which she poured over her and her son handed over a lighter to her and she set herself ablaze. The learned Additional PP extensively confronted this witness with his statement recorded by the IO under Section 161 Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 9 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW24/A), but he denied the contents thereof in toto.

13. PW­31, Mohd. Hasan was also posted as Assistant Teacher in MCD Primary School, D­Block, Seelampur, Delhi­53 (2nd Shift) on the date of incident, i.e on 25.10.2013. He in his evidence has stated that he knew accused prior to the date of incident being son of Principal/PW­19/Razi Hasan. He further stated that on 25.10.2013 at about 1.30 PM, accused had made him a telephonic call and enquired about his whereabouts. He further stated that at about 1.45 PM he heard a noise from the playground of school and saw the deceased caught in flames while accused was standing there, somebody informed the police, PCR officials came at the spot and took injured to hospital. He categorically stated that Principal/PW­19/Razi Hasan was on leave on that day (i.e on 25.10.2013) as he had gone to Hasanpur to attend a marriage function.

In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, he stated that he is very well aware of the family of PW­19/Razi Hasan. He categorically stated that he knew the accused prior to the date of incident as he is in his relation. He admitted that when he reached the playground of school, he saw the deceased in flames and accused was also present there and further other teachers namely Jai Prakash, Rajpal and Iktikhar Ali/PW­18 were also present at the spot. He categorically denied the suggestion that PW­19/Razi Hasan was present in the store room of school on the date of incident, i.e on 25.10.2013.

Other independent public witnesses

14. PW­1, Shri R.C Sharma was posted as Cluster Resource Centre Co­ Ordinator (CRCC) under Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan Project, Delhi Government at the Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 10 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 relevant time. He stated in his evidence that on 25.10.2013 at about 1.20 PM he had paid a visit (as per his schedule) to MCD Primary School, D­Block, Seelampur, wherein Head Master/Principal namely Shri Razi Hasan (PW­19) was not found present and on enquiry from Shri Rajpal (School Incharge), it was revealed that the Principal/PW­19 was on leave on that day, as he had gone to Hasanpur, Uttar Pradesh. He further stated thereafter he had made a telephonic call to Shri Razi Hasan from his mobile phone bearing SIM number 9350156886.

In his cross­examination, he stated that he had made a telephonic call to Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 on 25.10.2013 between 01.20 PM to 01.30 PM.

15. PW­2, Shri Ram Kishan Bharti, the School Inspector in his evidence stated that he was the Casual Leave Sanctioning Authority of Head Master/ Principal and in the year 2013, Shri Razi Hasan (PW­19) was lying posted as Principal/Head Master of MC Primary School, D­Block, Seelampur (2 nd shift). He further stated that on 24.10.2013, Shri Razi Hasan (PW­19), Principal of said school had moved an application for Casual Leave for 25.10.2013 on the ground of attending a marriage function and he had duly sanctioned the same vide Mark PW2/A, thereby categorically identifying his signature thereupon at point A. In his cross­examination by learned Amicus Curiae, this witness categorically stated that Shri Razi Hasan (PW­19) had personally come to his office on 24.10.2013 for submitting his leave application Mark PW2/A. (Note: The cross­examination of this witness was concluded by the learned Amicus Curiae on 12.02.2015. However, thereafter the learned defence counsel moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, inter alia praying for further cross­examination of certain witnesses on the ground that they were not Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 11 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 properly/ thoroughly cross­examined by the learned Amicus Curiae. My learned Predecessor vide his order dated 30.09.2015 only allowed PW­2 to be further cross­ examined by the learned defence counsel.) In his cross­examination, the learned defence counsel put before him compilation of certain Circulars and Orders Related to Education, wherein the Duties of School Inspectors have been specified, same has been proved on record as Mark PW2/DA (Colly).

This witness categorically stated that after receiving the application for leave, wherein specific permission is sought for leaving the station, then the said application is forwarded further in Dak Regiter. After seeing Mark PW2/A (i.e the leave application of PW­19), this witness admitted that the same does not bear any Diary Number.

The learned defence counsel further put copy of Diary Register [being maintained at the office of Assistant Director Education (Physical), Shahdara (North­Zone)] to this witness which has been exhibited as Ex.PW2/DA.

[Court Observation: In Ex.PW2/DA, which is the copy of Diary Register containing details of dak received, it is noted that the details qua receipt of leave application (Mark PW2/A) of PW­19/Shri Razi Hasan is found mentioned at S.No.3233 and time of receipt of leave application/Mark PW2/A is mentioned as 5.25 PM. Ex.PW2/DA is duly signed by Shri Sanjay Goel, Assistant Director Edu. (Physical), Education Department, Shahdara (North­Zone).] This witness admitted in his cross­examination that he sanctioned the leave of Principal Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 vide his endorsement at point A on Mark PW2/A (also Ex.PW2/B) as he was the sanctioning authority for Casual Leave. He denied the suggestion that document Ex.PW2/B (also Mark PW2/A) is forged one Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 12 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 or that he was not the sanctioning authority for granting Casual Leave(s) to the Principal(s) of schools coming under his jurisdiction.

16. PW­6, Shri Badar Qureshi, S/o Shri Abdul Sattar in his evidence stated that he got married on 24.01.2013, while his sister Ms.Nisha got married on 25.01.2013. He further stated that Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 had attended the marriage of his sister Nisha on 25.10.2013, the function of which was held at Kamaal Palace, Hasanpur, District Amroha (UP). He categorically stated that Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 had reached Kamaal Place, Hasanpur, District Amroha (UP) at about 10.00 AM on 25.10.2013 and remained present in the said marriage function till 5.00 PM and he/PW­19 had also taken lunch with him and other relatives. He further stated that at about 1.00/1.30 PM on the said day, i.e, on 25.10.2013 Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 had attended a phone call made from Delhi and thereafter he came to know that wife of Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 had set herself on fire in the field of school where he/PW­19 was lying posted. He further stated that thereafter Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 had made a call at number 100.

In his cross­examination, this witness could not tell the name of person who had telephonically informed Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 about the incident in question.

17. PW­7 Shri Ali Hasan, S/o Shri Salar Baksh in his evidence stated that he had attended the marriage function of daughter of Shri Adbul Sattar namely Ms.Neha (sister of PW­6) on 25.10.2013, which had taken place at Kamaal Place, Hasanpur, District Amroha. He categorically stated that Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 had also attended the said marriage on 25.10.2013 and he remained present there Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 13 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 from 10.00 AM till 5.00 PM.

18. PW­11, Shri Hasan Daniyal is the son of Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19, born from his second wife Smt.Fatima Hasan. He in his evidence stated that in the year 2013, his father/PW­19 was lying posted as Principal in MC Primary School, Seelampur, Delhi. He further stated that on 25.10.2013 he alongwith his father/PW­19 had gone to District Amroha to attend marriage function in the house of Shri Badar Qureshi (PW­6). They reached at the marriage venue at about 10.30 AMM and remained present there till 5.00 PM. At about 3.00 PM, his father/PW­19 informed him about receiving a phone call regarding setting ablaze of deceased with the help of accused and thereafter his father made a call at number 100 which was attended by local PCR Control Room. He further stated that after completion of marriage function they reached back Delhi at about 8.00 PM.

This witness was declared hostile and thoroughly cross­examined by learned Additional PP. In his cross­examination by learned Additional PP, this witness admitted his statement having been recorded by the police on 28.10.2013. He also identified the eleven photographs of the marriage function attended by them on 25.10.2013 at District Amroha (UP) and stated that the said photographs were given by him to the police. The said photographs have been proved on record as Ex.PW11/1 to Ex.PW11/11. He further stated that he had also handed over one toll tax receipt dated 25.10.2013, which has been proved on record as Mark PW11/12. He further stated that on 28.10.2013, IO, SI Rizwan/PW­32 had seized copy of leave application of his father dated 24.10.2013; toll tax receipt; photographs and CD of marriage function dated 25.10.2013 (which was attended by him and his father at Hasanpur, District Amroha, UP) vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/A. He has identified Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 14 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 DVD and CD (containing 397 photographs) of marriage function dated 25.10.2013, wherein he and his father/PW­19 is clearly seen attending the said function as Ex.PW19/Article 1 and Ex.PW19/Article 2.

In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, this witness admitted that he knew accused as he is the son of first wife (deceased herein) of his father/PW­19 and many years ago, accused had resided with them for about 2­3 years. He further stated that his father/PW­19 had told him about visit to Hasanpur 1­2 days before 25.10.2013. He further stated that while going to Hasanpur on 25.10.2013, he drove the car while toll tax was paid by his father/PW­19 and they reached Hasanpur at about 11.00 AM on 25.10.2013. He further stated that he had handed over the CD (Ex.PW11/1) of marriage function to the IO after 2­3 days of the incident.

19. PW­19, Shri Razi Hasan, who is the father of accused and husband of deceased in his evidence stated that he was lying posted as Head Master/Principal of MC Primary School, D­Block, Seelampur, Delhi at the relevant time. He further stated that his marriage was solemonized with deceased according to muslim rites and ceremonies in village Shakri and accused was born from the said wedlock. He further stated that after 10­12 years of his marriage, deceased started torturing and harassing him on petty issues and she was not ready to live with his parents at his native village and she left her matrimonial home without his consent when accused was merely 2 or 3 years of age. He further stated that as per the desire of deceased, he pronounced divorce with her in the year 2012.

He further stated that he married with Smt.Fatima Hasan (his second wife) in the year 1987 at Farash Khana, Delhi according to muslim rites and Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 15 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 customs and four children were born from the said wedlock.

As regards the date of incident, he stated that on 25.10.2013 he was on leave and had gone to attend marriage of one Nisha Parveen at Hasanpur, District Amroha, Uttar Pradesh alongwith his son Hasan Daniyal/PW­11. He had duly applied for one day Casual Leave for 25.10.2013 with the concerned School Inspector. He further stated that on 25.10.2013 he had attended the said marriage function at Hasanpur, District Amroha, Uttar Pradesh from 11.00 AM till 5.00 PM. He further stated that at about 1.30 PM on 25.10.2013, when he present in the marriage function, he received a telephonic call from one Sharmaji (School Inspector) seeking certain official information from him and he informed him about his presence at Hasanpur. He further stated that at about 2.30 PM on the said date itself, he further received a telephonic call from one of the teachers informing him about the incident in question, whereafter he made a call at number 100 and same was connected to SSP Office, Amroha. He further stated that he returned back to Delhi at about 9/9.30 PM on the same day. He further stated that IO of the case had seized his mobile phone containing dual SIM connection numbers 9873128779 and 9013256264, the CAF and CDRs whereof have been proved on record Ex.PW19/1 and Ex.PW19/2. He has further identified the photographs of marriage function of Nisha Parveen, which was attended by him and his son Hasan Daniyal/PW­11 at Hasanpur (Amroha) on 25.10.2013, already lying Ex.PW11/1 to Ex.PW11/11. He also identified the two CDs of the said marriage function as Ex.PW19/Article 1 and Ex.PW19/Article 2.

In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, he admitted that he married with Fatima Hasan without taking divorce from his first wife Smt.Ezaz Fatima (i.e, deceased herein). He denied the suggestion that he used to assault deceased and accused during his early days of marriage and a complaint in Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 16 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 this regard was also lodged at PS Usmanpur. Instead, he volunteered to state that on 22.09.2013 when he was sitting outside his house, accused alongwith deceased came there and accused suddenly hit him with his bike and police was informed, however, the matter was later on compromised in the police station after the deceased demanded 1.75 Kg silver and 100 pairs of clothes from him, but he assured to give her money in lieu thereof, but thereafter deceased never came back to receive the money from him.

He categorically stated that on 25.10.2013 he had gone to Hasanpur to attend a marriage function, after duly meeting and informing the School Inspector in this regard on 24.10.2013 itself and had also handed over to him an application, seeking station leave permission also. He categorically denied the suggestion that as per Dak Register Ex.PW2/DA, he got received his leave application (Mark PW2/A) at 5.25 PM on 25.10.2013 itself. He further denied the suggestion that on the date of incident, i.e on 25.10.2013 he was present at the Zonal Office at Shahdara and had not gone to Hasanpur (Amroha) to attend the alleged marriage function. He further stated that he had gone to Hasanpur (Amroha) on 25.10.2013 in a Maruti 800 Car, which he had taken from his friend Mumtaz. He denied the suggestion that CDR location of his mobile phones were was in Delhi between 8 AM to 9 AM on 25.10.2013. He further stated that on their way to Hasanpur (Amroha), he had not paid any toll tax and the same was paid by his son Hasan Daniyal/PW­11 vide toll tax receipt Ex.PW11/12. He further stated that he had handed over the photocopy of Wedding Invitation to the IO; same has been proved on record as Mark PW19/A. Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 17 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021

20. PW­21, Shri Mukhtiyar Hussain, is the nephew of deceased. In his evidence, he narrated about various incidents of dispute/quarrel which had taken place between deceased and her husband/PW­19, but none of them are related to the incident in question. He further stated that after coming to know of the incident in question on 25.10.2013, he had reached at LNJP Hospital where condition of his buaji (deceased herein) was found to be serious. He had identified the dead body of deceased in LNJP Hospital on 06.11.2013 vide Dead Body Identification Memo already Ex.PW9/A and thereafter received the same for burial vide Receipt Ex.PW21/1.

In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, this witness stated that during her treatment at LNJP Hospital, deceased had told him that her husband Razi Hasan/PW­19 alongwith his nephews namely Nade Ali/PW­17 and Pyamber Raza/PW­16 had caused burn injuries to her and he had recorded her statement in his mobile phone bearing number 9350850156 and thereafter transferred the same in a CD. The said CD was ordered to be kept in record (after duly recording the objections of learned Additional PP in this regard) vide Mark PW21/DA.

21. PW­25, Shri Zeeshan, S/o Shri Abdul Sattar, who has been running business of selling fruits and vegetables in Naven Mandi, Hasanpur in his evidence has stated that he knew Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 from earlier. He further stated that on 25.10.2013 he had seen Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 attending the marriage function of Ms.Nisha at Kamaal Place, Bye Pass Road, Hasanpur (Amroha). He further stated that he met Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 at about 11.00 AM on the said date and he remained present there till 4.00 PM.

In his cross­examination by learned Additional PP, this witness Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 18 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 denied the suggestion of defence that he had never met Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 prior to 25.10.2013.

22. PW­27, Shri Rashid, S/o Shri Shaukat Ali in his evidence has stated that he had also seen Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 and his son Hasan Daniyal/PW­11 attending the marriage function of sister of Shri Badar Quershi/PW­6 namely Ms.Nisha Praveen at Kamal Place, Hasanpur on 25.10.2013 and he remained present there from 10.00 AM till 3.00 PM.

In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, this witness denied the suggestion that photographs Ex.PW11/1 to Ex.PW11/11 does not pertain to a marriage function and same point out towards the function of a political party.

23. PW­28, Shri Naeem Ahmed, S/o Shri Anwaar Ahmed in his evidence stated that on 25.10.2013 he was managing the marriage function of the sister of Shri Badar Qureshi/PW­6, being his neighbour and PW­6 has introduced him to Shri Razi Hasan, who also attended the said marriage function on the aforesaid date.

In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, this witness admitted that he did not know Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 prior to 25.10.2013 and never met him thereafter. He further identified the photographs Mark PW11/1 to Mark PW11/11 as of the said marriage and photograph Mark PW11/9 is depicting his photo. As regards the banner of a political party being depicted in some photograph(s), he clarified that the said photographs were of outside the pandaal. He categorically denied the suggestion that Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 had not attended the said marriage function on 25.10.2013 at Hasanpur (Amroha).

Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 19 of 58

SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 Witnesses of investigation

24. PW­5, Inspector Ravi Kumar was posted as Incharge of Mobile Crime Team, North­East District on 25.10.2013. He in his evidence stated that on 25.10.2013, on receipt of a call at about 2.45 PM, he alongwith his team consisting of SI Madan Lal, Constable Ajeet and SI Om Prakash (driver) visited the playground of MCD Primary School, D­Block, New Seelampur, Delhi, where he found one plastic bottle containing some liquid, one pair of chappal, burnt pieces of clothes with skin and one shirt. He further stated the photographs of the spot were taken and finger print expert tried to lift chance prints. He prepared Scene of Crime (SOC) Report Ex.PW5/1 and handed over the same to SI Rizwan (PW­33).

In his cross­examination, he stated that no chance prints were taken from the lighter.

25. PW­10, Constable Rakesh Kumar in his evidence stated that on 25.10.2013 at about 2.30 PM, on receipt of DD (this could not tell the number of DD Entry) he alongwith SI Rizwan (PW­33) reached at MCD Primary School, Seelampur, where they came to know that injured had already been removed to LNJP Hospital by PCR officials. He further stated that some burnt clothes, one burnt footwear, one burnt burqa, one grey­blue coloure salwar, one green colour oil bottle and one green lighter were found lying in the field/ground of school. He further stated that after leaving him at the spot, SI Rizwan/PW­32 went to LNJP Hospital and he/PW­32 returned to the spot at about 3.30 PM whereafter he made enquiries from the teacher and other staff members present in the school. He further stated that on teacher namely Iftikhar (PW­18) was interrogated and his statement was recorded pursuant whereto, IO prepared rukka and he got the present case FIR Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 20 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 (already Ex.PW8/2) registered from PS and thereafter came back at the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to SI Rizwan/PW­32. He further stated that IO had prepared site plan in his presence, sealed and seized one white shirt having blue stripes vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/1 and he had also seized one female footwear (zalidaar), some burnt cloth pieces, burnt burqa, one grey­blue coloured salwar, one green coloured oil bottle and one green colour lighter after after converting them into cloth parcel and sealing with seal of RK vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/2 and the same were later on deposited with MHC(M) by the IO.

This witness identified the piece of burqa as Ex.P­1; salwar as Ex.P­2; ladies footwear as Ex.P­3; burnt cloth pieces as Ex.P­4; white shirt with blue stripes as Ex.P­5; lighter as Ex.P­6; and green coloured plastic bottle as Ex.P­7.

This witness was thoroughly cross­examined by the learned defence counsel. In his cross­examination, he stated that he was informed by IO/PW­32 that call at number 100 was made by Iftikhar Ali (PW­18). He further stated that he did not meet the Principal of school on the said date. He feigned his ignorance about the presence of Principal in the school on the said date.

26. PW­12, Constable Ajeet was member of Mobile Crime Team that had reached at the spot on 25.10.2013 under the leadership of PW­5. This witness had taken 27 photographs of the spot and articles lying there, which have been proved on record by him as Ex.PW12/A1 to Ex.PW12/A27 and negatives thereof have been proved on record as Ex.PW12/B1 to Ex.PW12/B27.

In his cross­examination, he stated that the Crime Team reached at the spot at about 3.15 PM where SI Rizwan/PW­33 was found present. He further proved Entry No.895/13, dated 25.10.2013 in SOC Register qua the present case Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 21 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 vide Ex.PW12/DA. He further stated that he had taken photographs of the spot on the instructions of IO/PW­32 and he had left the spot at about 3.45 PM.

27. PW­15, SI Madan Lal was also member of Mobile Crime Team that had reached at the spot on 25.10.2013 under the leadership of Inspector Ravi Kumar/PW­5. This witness had lifted on chance print from the plastic bottle and proved his Finger Print Expert Report in this regard as Ex.PW15/1.

In his cross­examination, he admitted that only chance print was found over the plastic bottle.

28. PW­33, SI Rizwan, IO of the case, in his evidence deposed on the lines of PW­10/Constable Rakesh Kumar. He has proved on record copy of DD No.36­B as already Ex.PW8/4. He further stated that pursuant to receipt of Ex.PW8/4 (which was regarding mother of caller had been put on fire by the father of caller) when he alongwith Constable Rakesh/PW­10 had reached at MCD Primary School, D­Block, Seelampur on 25.10.2013, he found some teachers of the school present there and had also noticed one partly burnt burqa, partly burnt salwar, other clothes, one green colour gas lighter, one plastic bottle of two litre containing some liquid and one pair of chappal. He further stated that Principal of school namely Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 was not found present in the school as he was stated to be on leave on that day and had gone out of Delhi to attend some marriage. He interrogated the teachers present at the spot and came to know that injured had already been removed to LNJP Hospital by PCR officials. He further stated that thereafter he left Constable Rakesh/PW­10 at the spot and went to LNJP Hospital where he met injured, whose name was revealed as Smt.Aizaa Fatima, W/o Shri Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 22 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 Razi Hasan/PW­19. He collected the MLC of injured Ex.PW31/A and interrogated her, who was found fit for recording of statement, but she refused to give her statement. He further stated that thereafter he left the hospital and reached back at the spot where PW Iftikhar Ali/PW­18 met him and recorded his statement Ex.PW18/1, made his endorsement thereupon vide Ex.PW8/1 and got the present case FIR registered through Constable Rakesh/PW­10. He further stated that during the course of investigation, it came into his notice that injured had herself poured oil from the bottle over her and her son (accused herein) had handed over a lighter and instigated her pursuant to which injured had lit herself on fire. He further stated that Crime Team officials also reached at the spot, who thoroughly inspected the spot, got the same photographed, chance prints were taken and SOC report/Ex.PW5/A was prepared by PW­5. He further stated that he had prepared site plan at the instance of complainant PW­18/Iftikhar Ali. He has proved on record site plan Ex.PW33/A. This witness also identified the photographs Ex.PW12/A1 to Ex.PW12/A27. He further stated that he had also recorded the supplementary statement of said Shri Iftikhar Ali. He further stated that various articles lying at the spot were sealed, converted into pulanda and seized vide Exs.PW10/1 and Ex.PW10/2.

He further stated that on 26.10.2013 also, he had visited LNJP Hospital to record the statement of deceased, but she did not give the same, however she was conscious and oriented.

He further stated that on 27.10.2013 he had again gone to LNJP Hospital where he recorded statement of deceased vide Ex.PW33/B in presence of her sister.

He further stated on 28.10.2013 he had called Principal Razi Hasan/PW­19 and interrogated him, who told him that on the day of incident (i.e on Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 23 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 25.10.2013 at about 8/9 AM) he/PW­19 alongwith his son namely Hasan Daniyal/PW­11 had gone to Hasanpur (Amroha) to attend a marriage function and returned back to Delhi at about 8.00/9.00 PM. He further stated that they had produced one toll tax receipt (Mark PW11/12) dated 25.10.2013, which was seized by him and placed on file. He further stated that on the same day he went to the Office of School Inspector/PW­2 and recorded his statement.

He further stated that on 04.11.2013 he visited the residence of School Inspector and came to know that Principal Razi Hasan (PW­19) was on leave on 25.01.2013.

He further stated that on 05.11.2013 vide DD No.28A (Ex.PW33/C) he came to know that deceased had expired during treatment; he completed the inquest proceedings; recorded the statement of Mukhtiyar Hussain/PW­21; filled up Inquest Form Ex.PW33/D; and made his endorsement vid Ex.PW3/F, filled up form for request of post­mortem upon the dead body of deceased vide Ex.PW33/E; copy of FIR as Ex.PW33/F­1; copy of DD No.28­A as Ex.PW33/C; and copy of post­ mortem report vide Ex.PW41/1.

He further stated that on 02.12.2013 he had recorded the statement of Shri Abdul Sattar and Shri Ali Hasan/PW­7 under Section 161 Cr.P.C, wherein both of them categorically stated that on 25.10.2013, Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 had attended the marriage function at Hasanpur (Amroha), UP.

He further stated that thereafter during the course of investigation he collected the finger print report(s) Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW33/F, as per which no finger print(s) were found on the articles lifted by him and also collected post­ mortem report (Ex.PW4/1) from LNJP Hospital on 28.01.2014. He further stated that during the course of investigation of instant case, he had also visited Hasanpur (District Amroha, UP) on 08.02.2014 to verify the factum whether Shri Razi Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 24 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 Hasan/PW­19 had attended the marriage function at Kamal Place on 25.10.2013 or not. At Hasanpur, he met Shri Badar Qureshi/PW­6 and recorded his statement.

He further stated that during the course of investigation, he had sent the exhibits of the case to FSL, Rohini through Constable Mukesh/PW­14 vide RC No.94/21/14 (Ex.PW13/3) and obtained the Acknowledgment vide Ex.PW13/4. He further stated that on 26.03.2014 he had arrested the accused in the matter and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW33/H­1 and Ex.PW33/H­2 and thereafter seized his mobile phone on 17.04.2014 vide seizure memo Ex.PW33/I. He has further proved on record copy of DD No.36A, dated 22.09.2013 from PS Usmanpur (which was regarding some call made at number 100 by accused) vide Ex.PW33/J; copy of PCR Form in respect of said DD as Ex.PW33/K; copy of DD No.10­B, dated 23.09.2013 (recorded by ASI Raghuraj/PW­34 after recording DD No.36A/Ex.PW33J) as Ex.PW33/L; copy of CDR with respect to the mobile of accused vide Ex.PW33/M; FSL report(s) as Ex.PW33/M and Ex.PW33/O; FSL report in respect of DVD­R as Ex.PW33/P. When photographs of the marriage (which was attended by Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 at Hasanpur, District Amroha) Ex.PW11/1 to Ex.PW11/11 were put before this witness, he categorically identified PW­19/Razi Hasan in the said photographs and stated that the said photographs pertain to marriage function dated 25.10.2013.

He has further identified the case property(ies) in the matter as under:

(i) One burnt burqa (synthetic cloth material) (lifted from the spot) belonging to deceased as Ex.P­1;

(ii) One partly burnt grey salwar (belonging to deceased) (lifted from the spot) as Ex.P­2;

(iii) Black coloured slippers (lifted from the spot) as Ex.P­3;

(iv) Burn ash (lifted from the spot) as Ex.P­4;

Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 25 of 58

SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021

(v) One partly torn white shirt (lifted from the spot) as Ex.P­5;

(vi) One cloth piece, belonging to deceased (lifted from the spot) as Ex.P­6;

(vii) One green colour plastic bottle as Ex.P­7;

(viii) One Samsung make mobile phone (belonging to Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19) as Ex.P­8;

(ix) One lighter as Ex.P­9 and;

(x) One DVD­R, make Writex (containing photographs of marriage function dated 25.10.2013) as Ex.PW­19/Article 1.

This witness was extensively grilled by the defence, which is evident from the record as he was cross­examined by the learned defence counsel for two whole days. In his cross­ examination, he categorically denied the suggestion that he knew Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 prior to the date of incident. He admitted that as per DD Entry No.36­B/Ex.PW8/4 (dated 25.10.2013), the caller who had made call at number 100 had informed that his father had put his mother on fire in MCD Primary School, D­Block, Seelampur. He further stated that prior to his reaching at the spot on 25.10.2013, one beat constable staff was already present at the scene of crime, but he could not tell his name. He further stated that he had made enquiry about the Principal/Incharge of the school from Nade Ali/PW­17 and Iftikhar Ali/PW­18 and he was stated to be on leave. He further stated that after interrogation/enquiring from Iftikhar Ali/PW­18, he came to know that deceased had herself set on fire. He categorically stated that when he had met the deceased in LNJP Hospital, she had not named either her husband or nephews as the person who had set her on fire. He volunteered to state instead the deceased had refused to make any statement.

This witness admitted in his cross­examination that he did not register the present case FIR based on the version of PCR caller/or the contents contained in Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 26 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 DD No.36­B/(Ex.PW8/4) or PCR Form (Ex.PW33/M) and instead registered the same on the basis of statement given by eye witness/teacher Iftikhar Ali/PW­18. He further admitted that after two days of the incident in question, i.e on 27.10.2013 accused had made a call at number 100 with regard to no investigation being carried out in the case and pursuant to the said call he had reached at LNJP Hospital where deceased disclosed him that she had been set on fire by her husband/PW­19. However, he denied the suggestion that on 27.10.2013 deceased had also named Payamber Raza/PW­16 and Nade Ali/PW­17 as the persons who alongwith her husband had set her on fire.

He further stated that pursuant to the disclosure of deceased made to him on 27.10.2013 at LNJP Hospital, he had interrogated Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 and his son Hasan Daniyal/PW­11 on 28.10.2013, who categorically told him that they had gone to Hasanpur (Amroha) on 25.10.2013 to attend a marriage function.

He admitted that the toll tax receipt/Mark PW11/12 do not bear the vehicle number. He further admitted that he did not collect any document with respect to the vehicle used by Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 for commuting from Delhi to Hasanpur, District Amroha, UP (to attend a marriage function) on 25.10.2013 and vice­versa.

During his cross­examination, a certified copy of complaint (which was filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C in Karkardooma Courts with regard to non­ registration of FIR in the matter initially) was put to him, which has been exhibited as Ex.PW33/DA (Colly). Pursuant to the said complaint, this witness had filed a Status Report (duly forwarded by SHO, PS Seelampur) in the said complaint case, which is Ex.PW33/A. He admitted that leave application dated 24.10.2013 (Mark PW2/A) of Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 27 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 do not bear any reference number, however, he clarified that the said leave application was duly sanctioned by the School Inspector. He stated that the said leave application was handed over to him by Hasan Daniyal/PW11. He further admitted that he did not interrogate the owner of Kamaal Palace, which is situated at Hasanpur, District Amroha, Uttar Pradesh with regard to the marriage function which was organized on 25.10.2013.

Witnesses of Medical Evidence

29. PW­4, Dr.Suraj Ohan, JR, Department of Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College had conducted post­mortem upon the dead body of deceased and he has proved on record the post­mortem report prepared by him as Ex.PW4/1 (running into five pages). Cause of death was opined as "septicemia consequent upon infected burn injuries".

30. PW­30, Dr.Irfan Khan, who was lying posted as JR at LNJP Hospital on 05.11.2013 had prepared the Death Summary of the deceased. The Death Summary has been proved on record as Ex.PW30/A. As per him, the cause of death was "40% total burn surface area, homicidal flame burn with cardiopulmonary arrest".

31. PW­31 (wrongly mentioned), Dr.Ritu, CCMO, LNJP Hospital has proved on record the MLC dated 25.10.2013 prepared in respect of deceased, which was prepared by Dr.Vinod, JR under her supervision as Ex.PW31/A. This witness has stated that Dr.Vinod, JR has now left the services of hospital and his present whereabouts are not known to her. She has identified the signatures of Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 28 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 Dr.Vinod, JR on the said MLC (Ex.PW31/A) at point A. She further stated that on local examination, the patient was found having superificial to deep burns over lower limbs, lower abdomen, lower back and both forearms with approx. 50% to 55% total burnt body surface area.

Formal Witnesses

32. PW­8, W/HC Usha Kumari was lying posted as Duty Officer at PS Seelampur at the relevant time (i.e on 25.10.2013) and she proved on record rukka sent by SI Rizwan/PW­33 as Ex.PW8/1; computerized copy of FIR recorded by her in the matter as Ex.PW8/2; endorsement made by her on rukka as Ex.PW8/3; and copy of DD No.36­B, dated 25.10.2013 recorded by her in the matter as Ex.PW8/4.

In her cross­examination, she stated that DD No.36­B/Ex.PW8/4 was assigned to SI Rizwan/PW­33 for necessary action.

33. PW­9, Constable Jitender in his evidence stated that on 06.11.2013 he had gone to LNJP Hospital with SI Rizwan/PW­33 where dead body of deceased was identified by Mukhtiyar Hussain/PW­21 and Maqsood Ali/PW­22 and after post­mortem the dead body was handed over to legal heirs of deceased. He has identified his signatures at point A on Dead Body Identification Memo Ex.PW9/1.

This witness could not tell as to what was received from the doctor after post­mortem, as such he was cross­examined by learned Additional PP. In his cross­examination by learned Additional PP, he admitted that his statement was recorded by SI Rizwan/PW­33 and the doctor had handed over to him a sealed parcel containing scalp hair and sample seal, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW9/2.

Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 29 of 58

SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, this witness feigned his ignorance about the contents of sealed parcel which was handed over to him by the doctor at LNJP Hospital.

34. PW­13, HC Nisar Ahmed, was lying posted as MHC(M) at PS Seelampur 25.10.2013 and he has proved on record the entries made by him in Register No.19 with regard to deposition of eight sealed parcels containing exhibits of the case in Malkhana by the IO as Ex.PW13/1. He has further proved on record Entry made by him at S.No.3980 of Register No.19 with regard to deposition of one sealed parcel by the IO/PW­33 in Malkahana on 06.11.2013 as Ex.PW13/2.

He further stated that on 04.03.2014, nine sealed parcels containing exhibits of the case were sent to FSL through Constable Mukesh Kumar/PW­14 vide RC No.94/21/14 (Ex.PW13/3); copy of Acknowledgment as Ex.PW13/4; and further endorsement made in Register No.19 as Ex.PW13/5.

He further stated that on 10.03.2015 expert opinion was received from FSL in the malkahan, which was later on handed over SI Rizwan/PW­33 for placing the same on record. He has proved on record the endorsement made in this regard as Ex.PW13/6.

He further stated that on 05.06.2014, one sealed parcel containing CD of marriage party and relevant documents thereto were also sent to FSL, Rohini for analysis vide RC No.130/21/14 through Constable Sachin Kumar. Copy of said RC in this regard has been proved on record as Ex.PW13/7, while Acknowledgment thereof has been proved on record as Ex.PW13/8.

In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, this witness categorically denied the suggestion that the entries in Register No.19 were not made Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 30 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 by him properly or that that same were made as per the whims and fancies of IO/PW­33.

35. PW­14 Constable Mukesh had taken nine sealed parcels containing exhibits of the case, sample seal and forwarding letter to FSL Rohini on 04.03.2014 after taking the custody thereof from the MHC(M) vide RC No.94/21/14 (already Ex.PW13/3) and copy of Acknowledgment thereof has been proved on record as already Ex.PW13/4.

36. PW­16, Shri Payamberaza, who was posted as Assistant Teacher in MCD Primary School, D­Block, Seelampur on 25.10.2013 in his evidence has stated that he had left the school on the said day at about 12.45 PM and went to his residence. He further stated that at about 2.45 PM on the said day, he was informed of the incident in question by his father. He further stated that police had recorded his statement in this regard on 28.03.2014.

37. PW­23, Shri Israr Babu is the Alternate Nodal Officer of M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. He proved on record the request letter dated 11.02.2014 of the IO/PW­33 for providing details of certain mobile numbers/connections as Ex.PW23/A. He has further proved on record the CAF, CDR details (for the period from 24.10.2013 till 26.11.2013) and Certificate of Correctness in respect of mobile phone number 9911733188 as Ex.PW23/B to Ex.PW23/F. He stated that mobile phone bearing SIM connection number 9911733188 was found issued in the name of Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19.

He has further proved on record the CAF, CDR details (for the period Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 31 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 from 24.10.2013 till 26.10.2013) and Certificate of Correctness in respect of mobile phone number 9873128779 as Ex.PW23/2, Ex.PW23/F and Ex.PW23/G. He stated that mobile phone bearing SIM connection number 9873128779 was found issued in the name of Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19.

He has further proved on record the CAF, Voter I­Card, CDR details (for the period from 24.10.2013 till 26.10.2013) and Certificate of Correctness in respect of mobile phone number 9899503267 as Mark PW23/3, Ex.PW23/I and Ex.PW23/J. He stated that mobile phone bearing SIM connection number 9899503267 was found issued in the name of accused.

He has further proved on record CAF, Voter I­Card and CDR details in respect of mobile phone number 9899503067 (prepaid connection) as Ex.PW23/K, Mark PW23/4 and Mark PW23/5, Ex.PW23/L and Ex.PW23/M. He stated that mobile phone bearing SIM connection number 9899503067 was found issued in the name of one Tajamul.

He has further proved on record Cell ID­Chart (location chart) of Vodafone for Delhi and NCR (running into 103 pages) as Ex.PW23/N. In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, he denied the suggestion that details of mobile phone bearing SIM number 9911733188 (pertaining to Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19) have been provided without any request of IO received in respect thereof.

[Court Observation: It is relevant to note here that the examination­in­chief and cross­examination of this witness was conducted in detail on 29.09.2015, whereby this witness has proved on record the relevant details in respect of four mobile numbers, i.e, 9873128779, 9911733188 (both belonging to Shri Razi Hasan/PW­

19); mobile number 9899503267 (belonging to accused) and mobile number Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 32 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 9899503067 (belonging to one Tajamul). However, this witness was again recalled for recording of his examination­in­chief on 05.07.2018 by my learned Predecessor. On 05.07.2018 he further proved the CAF, identity proof and CDR details (pertaining for the period 24.10.2013 to 26.11.2013) in respect of mobile phone number 9911733188 (belonging to Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19) as Ex.PW23/AA, Ex.PW23/BB and Ex.PW23/CC and Ex.PW23/DD.

He categorically stated that as per aforesaid CDR records, mobile phone bearing SIM connection 9911733188 (belonging to Shri Razi Hasan/PW­

19) was active in the area of UP (West) from 09.01 AM (09:01:16) on 25.10.2013 till 06.55 PM (18:55:31) on 25.10.2013.

He further stated that the said phone was also active in the area of UP (West) from 20:49:44 on 20.11.2013 to 19:07:56 on 22.11.2013 to 19:07:56 on 22.11.2013. The Cell ID­Chart and Certificate issued under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act has been proved on record as Ex.PW23/EE and Ex.PW23/FF.]

38. PW­26, Shri Vinod Kumar, Nodal Officer, MTNL in his evidence stated that mobile phone connection bearing SIM number 9013256264 was allotted by MTNL on 30.11.2009 in the name of Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19. He has proved on record the CAF, identity documents, CDR details (for the period 24.10.2013 to 26.10.2013), Certificate issued under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act, location chart etc. in respect of aforesaid mobile number as already Ex.PW9/2, Mark PW26/1 to Mark PW26/3 and Ex.PW26/A to Ex.PW26/D. In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, this witness stated that as per location Chart ID, the location of said phone number (9013256264) was found to be in the area of Chauhan Banger at about 8.00 AM Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 33 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 and in the area of Shastri Park at about 9.00 AM on 25.10.2013. He further stated that the last location of aforesaid number at about 9.55 AM on 25.10.2013 was noticed in the area of Shastri Park and thereafter no call was made from the said number on 25.10.2013. The said location chart­ID is Ex.PW26/C.

39. PW­29, Sunil Kumar Yadav is the photographer, who had clicked photographs in the marriage function of Ms.Nisha Parveen (sister of Shri Badar Qureshi/PW­6), held on 25.10.2013 at Kamaal Palace, Hasanpur, District Amroha, UP and eleven photographs in this regard have been proved on record by him as Ex.PW29/1 to Ex.PW29/11 (earlier marked as Mark PW11/1 to Mark PW11/11).

Two video cassette(s) recorded by him in the aforesaid marriage function were also played before this witness in the Court. After seeing the video, he duly identified Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 and his son Hasan Daniyal/PW­11 taking meal in the said function. The said video cassette(s) with photographs of participants therein have been proved on record as Ex.P8 and Ex.P9.

In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, this witness stated that he had handed over the photographs Ex.PW29/1 to Ex.PW29/11 and CDs/cassettes Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 to Shri Badar Qureshi/PW­6 after 20 days of the marriage function. He admitted that in the aforesaid CDs no banner of any marriage is being depicted. He further admitted that the aforesaid CDs do not bear the date on which the same were clicked/recorded.

40. PW­32, ACP Anand Sagar proved on record the Certificate issued under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of FIR (Ex.PW8/2) registered in the matter at PS Seelampur as Ex.PW32/A. Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 34 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021

41. PW­34 ASI (Retd.) Raghu Raj proved on record DD No.36A, dated 22.09.2013 and DD No.10B, dated 23.09.2013. DD No.36A (already Ex.PW33/J) was recorded by this witness on 22.09.2013 (i.e about one month prior to the incident in question in this case) at about 8.20 PM pursuant to receipt of a call, whereby the caller had informed him that his mother had been set on fire by his father at House No.826, Gali No.19, Brahampuri, Delhi­19. When this witness reached at the aforesaid house, the caller (accused herein) and his parents (i.e deceased and PW­19) had told him that no incident of alleged burning had taken place and instead a quarrel had taken place with regard to distribution of household articles and they disapproved of any legal action as compromise had taken place between them. Thereafter, this witness returned to PS and made his arrival entry vide DD No.10B (Ex.PW33/L) on 23.09.2013.

In his cross­examination by learned defence counsel, this witness stated that on 22.09.2013, the caller of number 100 (accused herein) and his parents had told him that a quarrel had taken place between them with regard to distribution of goods/household articles and they did not want any legal action.

42. This is all as far as prosecution evidence in the matter is concerned. Thereafter, statement of accused Zulfikar @ Bobby under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the matter. He took a categorical plea that on the date of incident he alongwith his deceased mother had gone to the school in question, where his father Razi Hasan (PW­19) was present inside. He remained standing outside the school while his deceased mother went inside. After sometime, he heard the cries of his deceased mother, who was screaming that Shri Razi Hasan/PW­23 (his father and husband of deceased) with the help of Shri Payamberaza (PW­16) and Nadir (Nade) Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 35 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 Ali (PW­17) had beaten her, poured petrol over her and lit her on fire, as a result of which she sustained severe burn injuries and resultantly died. He further stated that in a bid to save her mother, he had also sustained burn injuries, but his MLC was not prepared on the same day and instead it was prepared on the next day. Accused sought to lead defence evidence in the matter. However, despite repeated opportunities when he did not bring any witness in his defence, my learned Predecessor vide order dated 07.07.2017 ordered for closure of DE in the matter.

Arguments advanced at bar

43. While opening the arguments, the learned Additional PP for the State has very vehemently argued that there is overwhelming material on record in the form of evidence of two independent public witnesses, i.e, PW­17/Nade Ali and PW­18/Iftikhar Ali, both of whom have categorically stated that they were present inside the school in question on the date and time of incident and had seen the deceased alongwith her son (i.e accused herein) coming inside the school premises and deceased pouring the contents of the plastic bottle over her (which might be containing either petrol or kerosene) and thereafter the applicant litting her on fire with the help of a lighter and started screaming "meri maa ko mere papa ne aag laga di" just to save his skin and falsely implicate his father/PW­19 Shri Razi Hasan. He has argued that evidence of both the aforesaid witnesses is clear, categorical, inspires confidence and is enough to hold conviction of the accused for the offence charged.

44. The learned Additional PP has further extensively read over to me the evidence of PW­1/Shri R.C Sharma, CRCC (Cluster Resource Centre Co­Ordinator) Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 36 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 and PW­2/Shri Ram Kishan Bharti, School Inspector and argued that if the evidence of aforesaid two witnesses is read in juxtaposition with each other, then it is clearly apparent that PW­19/Shri Razi Hasan (Principal/Head Master of the school in question and father of accused) was on Casual Leave (duly sanctioned) on 25.10.2013 (when the incident in question had taken place at MCD Primary School, D­Block, Seelampur, Delhi) and was not present in the said school. He has further argued that from the conjoint reading of the evidence of PW­6/Badar Qureshi, PW­ 7/Ali Hasan, PW­25/Zeeshan, PW­27/Rashid and PW­28/Naeem Ahmed it is firmly established that father of accused, i.e PW­19/Shri Razi Hasan alongwith his son Shri Hasan Daniyal/PW­11 were busy attending the marriage function of the sister of PW­6/Badar Qureshi at Hasanpur (District Amroha) on the date and time of the incident in question and the said factum is being getting corroborated from the photographs of marriage Ex.PW29/1 to Ex.PW29/11 vis­à­vis the Cell ID Chart and CDR records of PW­19 which have been proved on record Ex.PW23/EE and Ex.PW23/FF.

45. Per contra, the learned defence counsel has very vehemently argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the matter. He has submitted that for the invocation of Section 306 IPC, ingredients of Section 107 IPC have to be satisfied and it has to be established that there was instigation, provocation, incitement or encouragement from the side of accused to the deceased for committing the alleged act of such a desperate nature. He has built his castle of arguments on the following foundations:

(a) Biased Investigation:

Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 37 of 58

SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021

(i) The learned defence counsel has very vehemently argued that the investigation conducted in the matter by IO, SI Rizwan/PW­33 is totally biased, as right from the inception he/IO has been under the influence of father of accused, i.e PW­19/Razi Hasan. To lend credence to his aforesaid contention, he has submitted that accused was the first person who had made call at number 100 (on 25.10.2013), immediately on seeing his deceased mother in flames and the said factum is evident by DD No.36­B/Ex.PW8/4, dated 25.10.2013 (wherein the mobile number of accused is clearly mentioned); even IO/PW­33 SI Rizwan Ali alongwith Constable Rakesh/PW­10 had reached at the scene of crime (SOC) pursuant to receipt of aforesaid DD/Ex.PW8/4 only, but surprisingly, the IO/PW­33 neither got the case FIR in the matter registered on the basis of said DD No.36­ B/Ex.PW8/4 nor did he ever try to make any telephonic call on 25.10.2013 itself to caller of number 100, i.e the accused herein to get first hand account of the incident in question and instead the IO/PW­33 after meeting the mother of accused at LNJP hospital came back to the scene of crime and recorded the statement of Shri Iftikhar Ali/PW­18 and got the case FIR in the matter registered on the basis of his statement. The IO even did not bother to inform the deceased about registration of FIR in the matter on the basis of statement given by PW­ 18/Iftikhar Ali, who was merely a contractual employee and admittedly related to Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19/father of accused.

(ii) It is further argued that IO/PW­33 SI Rizwan Ali neither made any attempt to enquire about the whereabouts of father of accused, i.e Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 38 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 on 25.10.2013 from School Incharge namely Shri Rajpal; nor did he make any call to Shri Razi Hasan/PW­19 on 25.10.2013 itself to know about his whereabouts, which is a grave lapse on his part. Considering the peculiarity and seriousness of the situation, it was incumbent upon the IO/PW­33 to have confirmed the location of PW­19/Shri Razi Hasan on 25.10.2013 itself. To put weight behind his aforesaid contention, he has taken me through the evidence of PW­26/Vinod Kumar (Nodal Officer, MTNL) to highlight the point that admittedly mobile phone bearing SIM number 9013256264 (MTNL number) belongs to PW­19/Razi Hasan and the location of said phone was found in the area of Chauhan Banger (Delhi) at about 8.00 AM and the last location thereof was noticed in the area Shastri Park (Delhi) at about 9.55 AM on 25.10.2013 (as per location chart­ ID/Ex.PW26/C), meaning thereby that PW­19/Razi Hasan was very well present in Delhi on the date of incident and just to misled the Court, he/PW­19 has wrongly stated in his cross­examination that he had left Delhi on 25.10.2013 at about 6.30 AM.

(iii) It is further very vehemently argued that on 27.10.2013 also the IO/PW­33 had visited LNJP Hospital, where he met mother of accused (deceased herein) and recorded her statement Ex.PW33/B; wherein, she had categorically named her husband/PW­19/Razi Hasan as the person who had set her on fire in connivance with his relatives namely Nade Ali/PW­17 and Payamberaza/PW­16, but the IO/PW­33 took no action on the said statement of deceased which confirms the fact that the IO/PW­33 was in hand in glove with PW­19/Razi Hasan and thus Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 39 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 the investigation in the matter has been carried out in totally biased manner. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon Criminal Appeal No.608/2001titled as, "Laxman V/s State of Maharashtra" decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 27.02.2002 to put forth the contention that statement of deceased cannot be ignored.

(iv) It is submitted that aggrieved by the biased investigation conducted by IO/PW­33, the accused and his deceased mother had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, wherein the police submitted its status report (Ex.PW33/A). In its status report, the IO/PW­33 categorically mentioned that PW­19/Razi Hasan had taken divorce from the deceased, whereas in actual it was not so. At no point of time, PW­19/Razi Hasan had obtained divorce from the deceased. Thus, IO/PW­33 clearly favoured PW­19/Razi Hasan by wrongly stating in Status Report (Ex.PW33/A) that he had taken divorce from the deceased, which clearly smells of biasness on his part.

               (b)     Arguments on factual matrix:
               (i)     It is argued that PW­19/Razi Hasan was the legally wedded

husband of deceased. It is submitted that on account of illicit relations of PW­19/Razi Hasan with a young girl in Delhi, he was not having cordial relations with the deceased and same is apparent from the fact the he never gave any financial assistance to deceased and she herself had brought up the accused. He has argued that on the date of alleged incident, i.e, on 25.10.2013 deceased alongwith accused had gone to Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 40 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 the school in question on the specific instructions of PW­19/Razi Hasan and while the accused stayed outside, she went inside to meet PW­19, where he/PW­19 with the help of his relatives PW­17/Nade Ali and PW­16/Payamberaza set her ablaze, as PW­19 was fed up with the repeated demand(s) of financial assistance/maintenance by deceased from him.

(ii) While drawing my attention to Ex.PW2/DA, which is the copy of Diary Register containing details of dak(s) received, it is argued that the date and time of receipt of one day Casual Leave (CL) application (Mark PW2/A also Ex.PW2/DB) of PW­19/Razi Hasan has been mentioned therein as 25.10.2013 at 5.25 PM against Entry No.3233. It is submitted that in Ex.PW2/DA there are about 17 entries (starting from Entry No.3218 and ending at 3234) and in none of the said entries the time of receipt has been mentioned, however, against Entry No.3233 (which contains details of receipt of leave application/Mark PW2/A of PW­19/Razi Hasan) specifically time 5.25 PM has been mentioned, which proves the manipulation of records in order to save PW­19 from prosecution.

               (c)    Contradictions & confrontations in the evidence
                      /statements of P.Ws:

It is argued that there are several contradictions and confrontations in the evidence of material witnesses examined by the prosecution which go to the root of the factual matrix and as such the benefit thereof should be accorded to the accused. The contradictions and confrontations so pointed out are enumerated as under.

Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 41 of 58

SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 Contradictions pointed out in the evidence of PW­11/Hasan Daniyal and PW­19/Razi Hasan Version of PW­11/Hasan Daniyal Version of PW­19/Razi Hasan (son of PW­19) PW­11/Hasan Daniyal in his cross­ PW­19 in his cross­examination stated examination stated that while going from that while going from Delhi to Hasanpur Delhi to Hasanpur (District Amorha) on (District Amroha) on 25.02.2013, toll tax 25.02.2013, toll tax receipt receipt (Ex.PW11/12) was paid by his (Ex.PW11/12) was paid by his son Hasan Daniyal/PW­11.

father/PW­19.

PW­11/Hasan Daniyal stated in his PW­19/Razi Hasan stated in his cross­ cross­examination that after attending examination that after attending the the marriage at Hasanpur (Amroha), they marriage at Hasanpur (Amroha) they reached Delhi at about 9.00 PM on reached Delhi at about 10.00 PM on 25.10.2013 (date of incident). 25.10.2013 (date of incident).

Contradictions & confrontations pointed out in the statement(s) of eye witnesses PW­17/Nade Ali and PW­18/Iftikhar Ali/complainant Version of PW­17/Nade Ali Version of PW­18/Iftikhar Ali PW­17/Nade Ali, the alleged eye witness PW­18/Iftikhar Ali, the alleged eye in his examination­in­chief stated that witness on whose statement the FIR in accused Zulfikar had taken out a lighter the matter was registered, categorically from the pocket of his pant and lit the stated in his examination­in­chief (as also deceased on fire. in his cross­examination) that deceased/Ezaz Fatima had taken the lighter from the hands of accused and set herself on fire.

The learned defence counsel The learned defence counsel further categorically pointed out that during his submitted that this witness during his cross­examination, this witness was examination­in­chief stated that when he confronted with his statement came out from the classroom to Ex.PW17/DA where the aforesaid inform/tell the deceased and accused that factum was not so recorded. PW­19 was not present inside the school, Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 42 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 then deceased had stated to him not to indulge in her matter (said portion has been highlighted from point A to A in examination­in­chief of PW­18).

However, during his cross­examination this witness was confronted with his aforesaid statement from the contents of FIR (Ex.PW1/DA), wherein this witness had stated that accused had told him "hat jao ye hamara mamla hai".

Contradictions pointed out in the evidence of PW­11/Hasan Daniyal and PW­29/Sunil Yadav (photographer) Version of PW­11/Hasan Daniyal Version of PW­29/Sunil Yadav (son of PW­19 Razi Hasan) (Photographer) PW­11 in his cross­examination by PW­29 in his cross­examination by defence stated that he had handed over defence stated that he had handed over the CD (Ex.PW11/1) to the police after the photographs (Mark PW11/1 to Mark 2­3 days of the incident and the said CD PW11/11) and CDs (Ex.P8 & P9) to Shri was handed over to him by Badar Qureshi/PW­6 after 20 days from photographer/PW­11 through Badar the day of marriage function. Qureshi/PW­6.

(d) The learned defence counsel has further argued that in order to prove its case prosecution has examined as many as seven alleged eye witnesses in the matter namely, (i) PW­3/Madan (Watchman of the school); (ii) PW­17/Nade Ali (teacher); (iii) PW­18 (Iftikhar Ali) (teacher); (iv) PW­20/Shiv Om Tiwari (teacher); (v) PW­22/Maqsood Ali (teacher); (vi) PW­24/Maneesh Kumar Jayant (teacher); and PW­7 Mohd. Hasan; however, out of these seven alleged eye witnesses three witnesses, i.e PW­20, PW­22 and PW­24 have turned completely Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 43 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 hostile and not supported the case of prosecution at all. The evidence of PW­7 is also of no consequences to the prosecution as this witness has nowhere stated in his evidence that he had seen the accused handing over lighter to the deceased or setting her on fire after pouring the contents of bottle over her. Even the evidence of PW­3/Madan (Watchman) is of no help to the prosecution as this witness has continuously changed his statements, same is full of contradictions and thus do not inspire any confidence. The contradictions pointed out by him in the statement of PW­3/Madan are tabled as under:

Version of PW­3 during Version of PW­3 during Version of PW­3 during examination­in­chief cross­examination by cross­examination by learned Additional PP defence PW­3 stated that accused PW­3 stated in his cross­ Deceased herself had had poured some liquid examination by learned poured the oil over her and from the bottle on the Additional PP that body his deceased mother deceased had herself put herself on fire.

and thereafter set her on poured the contents of
fire.                     bottle over her and
                          thereafter accused handed
                          over a lighter to her and
                          she herself put her on fire
                          with the help of said
                          lighter.


                                   (The learned defence
                                   counsel    has    further
                                   pointed out this witness
                                   was even confronted with
                                   his statement recorded
                                   under Section 161 Cr.P.C
                                   (Ex.PW3/1).


Convicted under Section 306 IPC                                               Page 44 of 58

SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 PW­3 stated in his ­­­­­ In his cross­examination examination­in­chief that he stated that he came to he knew the deceased and know about the status of her son (accused herein) deceased and accused prior to the incident in being wife and son question. respectively of PW­ 19/Razi Hasan only after they introduced themselves to him. Accordingly, he was confronted with his examination­in­chief where he stated otherwise.

Legal position and conclusion

46. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and carefully gone through the entire material on record, including the evidence recorded in the matter.

47. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.

Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. In a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian in case reported as, "AIR 2017 SC 74", titled as, "Gurcharan Singh V/s State of Punjab", the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that the basic ingredients of provision of Section 306 of IPC are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 45 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalizes the sustained incitement for suicide.

48. Furthermore, in judgment reported as, "(2001) 9 SCC 618", titled as, "Ramesh Kumar V/s State of Chhattisgarh", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of Section 306 and the ingredients which are essential for abetment as set out in Section 107 IPC. While interpreting the word "instigation", it is held in paragraph 20 as under:

xxxxx "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence.

Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

xxxxx

49. The expression "abetment" has been defined under Section 107 IPC. A Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 46 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 person is said to abet the commission of suicide when he instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clauses second and third of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Therefore, the issue that arises for consideration is whether any of the aforesaid clauses of Section 107 IPC is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case, so as to bring the present case within the purview of Section 306 IPC.

50. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as, "(2010) 12 SCC 190", titled as, "S.S Chheena V/s Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr.", made remarkable observations on the law pertaining to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:

xxxxx Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

xxxxx

51. On a close reading of the above provisions of IPC and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions referred hereinabove, it is apparent that in a case under Section 306 IPC, there should be clear mens­rea to Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 47 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 commit the offence under this Section and there should be direct or active act by the accused, which led the deceased to commit suicide, that is to say, there must be some evidence of "instigation", "cooperation" or "initial assistance" by the accused to commit suicide by the deceased.

52. Now, adverting back to the case in hand. My findings on the issues/ arguments raised by the learned defence counsel are as under.

Findings qua biased investigation

53. As regards, the allegations of learned defence counsel that IO/PW­33 SI Rizwan had conducted the investigation in a totally biased manner under the influence of PW­19/Razi Hasan as firstly he got FIR registered in the matter on the basis of statement of PW­18/Iftikhar Ali (who is admittedly relative of PW­19) and secondly he did not contact the accused (who was the first person to made call at number 100); it is relevant to note here that the learned counsel has not been able to give any explanation whatsoever as to why deceased had refused to give any statement to the IO/PW­33 on 25.10.2013 itself, when he had met her at LNJP Hospital. Deceased had been declared fit by the doctors at LNJP Hospital for giving her statement to the police on 25.10.2013 itself, but from the perusal of record it is clearly evident that she had blatantly refused to give any statement to IO/PW­33 on the said date. That was the golden opportunity available with the deceased to have named her husband/PW­19 and his associates, who had allegedly set her on fire on 25.10.2013 in the playground of MCD school, but her refusal to give any statement not only casts a serious doubt on her credibility but also completely washes away the allegations raised by her in her subsequent statement (Ex.PW33/B) recorded by Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 48 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 the IO/PW­33 on 27.10.2013. It has nowhere been the case of defence that IO/PW­ 33 had not met the deceased at LNJP Hospital on 25.10.2013 or he had not asked her to give any statement or she was not fit enough on 25.10.2013 to give her statement to the IO. What could have the IO done in such circumstance(s). He rightly went back to the school, searched for eye witnesses and in the process recorded the statement of PW­18/Iftikhar Ali, who was the first to notice accused and his deceased mother coming inside the school premises on the date on incident, i.e, on 25.10.2013. Even the accused was also present at LNJP Hospital on 25.10.2013, he also did not press the IO to record the statement of his mother. Had the IO/PW­33 been biased, then he would not have placed the statement of deceased recorded by him on 27.10.2013 (Ex.PW33/B) on record, but he did not do so.

54. As regards the contention of defence that the accused and his deceased mother had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C with regard to the biased investigation conducted by IO/PW­33 in the matter, it is noted that police had also filed a status report (Ex.PW33/A Colly) in the said complaint. A perusal of said status report dated 23.04.2014 reflects the conduct of accused and deceased in the matter. In para 4 thereof, it has been specifically mentioned by the IO, to quote:

xxxxx During the course of investigation, it was also discovered that accused Bobby and his mother also made a false call at PS Usmanpur one month before the incident that his "father set ablaze his mother", but on enquiry the call was found false. Razi Hasan made many complaints against Bobby Hassan regarding apprehension about implicating him in any false case."

xxxxx

55. The evidence tendered by PW­34/ASI (Retd.) Raghu Raj supports the Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 49 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 aforesaid status report of the IO. From the evidence of PW­34 it is clearly apparent that pursuant to recording of DD No.36­A, dated 22.09.2013 (Ex.PW33/J) (whereby the caller had informed that his mother had been set on fire by his father at House No.826, Gali No.19, Brahampuri, Delhi­19), PW­34 had reached at the said spot, where no such incident was found to have taken place. This reflects poorly on the conduct of accused and his deceased mother.

56. From the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the argument of learned defence counsel that investigation in the matter has been conducted by IO/PW­33 SI Rizwan in a biased manner as the defence has not been able to accord explanation whatsoever, as to why deceased had "refused" to give her statement to the IO/PW­33 on 25.10.2013 when he had met her at LNJP Hospital on the said date.

Findings qua three eye witnesses turning hostile

57. Though, it is a matter of record that three eye­witnesses in the matter namely PW­20/Shiv Om Tiwari, PW­22/Maqsood Ali and PW­24/Maneesh Kumar Jayant (who all were lying posted as teachers in the school in question on the date of incident) have turned hostile in the matter and did not support the prosecution case. PW­31/Mohd. Hasan has not uttered a single word about having witnessed the incident in question. Even the statement of PW­3/Madan (Watchman) is of no help to the prosecution as same is full of contradictions (as pointed out by learned defence counsel and noted down in previous paragraphs); however, this Court cannot loose sight of the evidence of two more eye witnesses recorded in the matter namely PW­17/Nade Ali and PW­18/Iftikhar Ali, who were also lying posted as teachers in the MCD school on the date of incident. They have categorically stated in their evidence that they knew the deceased and accused from prior to the date of Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 50 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 incident and on the date of incident they had seen deceased alongwith her son (accused herein) coming to the school and deceased carrying a one plastic bag (thaili) in her hand from which she took out a plastic bottle and poured its contents over her and thereafter accused handing over one lighter to her and she setting herself on fire. Except for one minor contradiction in their evidence, wherein PW­ 17 stated that accused had taken out a lighter from the pocket of his pant and lit the deceased on fire; whereas, PW­18/Iftikhar Ali stated that deceased had taken the lighter from the hands of accused and set herself on fire; their evidence has remained consistent, trustworthy and inspires confidence and the same cannot be discredited merely on account of said minuscule contradiction. Even though, PW­ 17/Nade Ali and PW­18/Iftikhar Ali are related to PW­19/Razi Hasan, but that doesn't mean that their evidence can be brushed aside on this account only. These witnesses have no axe to grind against the accused. It has not been disputed by the defence that both the aforesaid witnesses were not employed as teachers in the school in question or they were not present in the said school on the date of incident. Both the aforesaid witnesses in their evidence have categorically spelt out the blow­ by­blow account of the incident in question by narrating that the deceased (who was carrying a plastic bag (thaili) in her hand) alongwith her son (accused herein) entered the school premises at about 2.30 PM on 25.10.2013 and thereafter she took out a plastic bottle from the bag and poured the contents thereof upon her and in the meanwhile accused handed over her the lighter. There is no contradiction in the evidence of both the aforesaid witnesses that it was the accused who was carrying the lighter and had handed over the same to his deceased mother after she had poured the contents of plastic bottle over her. This action of the accused can certainly be termed as instigation on his part to abet her mother to commit suicide, otherwise for what purpose a person would handover lighter to another person who Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 51 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 had poured inflammable material over him/her.

58. It is settled law that conviction of an accused can be based on the testimony of single eye witness even if the remaining eye witnesses turn hostile as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as, "1996 Crl.L.J 889" titled as, "Kartik Malhar V/s State of Bihar, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to lay down as under:

xxxxx " We have already discussed above that it is open to the courts to record a conviction on the basis of the statement of a single witness provided the evidence of that witness is reliable, unshaken and consistent with the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved by only one eye­ witness, nor can it be insisted that the corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by other eye­ witnesses. The instant case, it may be pointed out, does not strictly fall within the category of those cases where only one witness is present and the case of the prosecution is sought to be proved by the statement of that witness alone. Here, three of the witnesses were produced, but two of them turned hostile leaving the third alone and , therefore , on the principles already discussed, if the remaining eye­ witness is found to be trustworthy, it becomes the duty of the Court to convict the accused".

xxxxx

59. As regards the contradictions pointed out by the learned defence counsel in the evidence of PW­11/Hasan Daniyal and his father, i.e PW­19/Razi Hasan and the contradictions pointed out in the evidence of PW­11/Hasan Daniyal and PW­29 Sunil Yadav (photographer), which are detailed as under:

Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 52 of 58

SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 Version of PW­11/Hasan Daniyal Version of PW­19/Razi Hasan (son of PW­19) PW­11/Hasan Daniyal in his cross­ PW­19 in his cross­examination stated examination stated that while going from that while going from Delhi to Hasanpur Delhi to Hasanpur (District Amorha) on (District Amroha) on 25.02.2013, toll tax 25.02.2013, toll tax receipt receipt (Ex.PW11/12) was paid by his (Ex.PW11/12) was paid by his son Hasan Daniyal/PW­11.

father/PW­19.

PW­11/Hasan Daniyal stated in his PW­19/Razi Hasan stated in his cross­ cross­examination that after attending examination that after attending the the marriage at Hasanpur (Amroha), they marriage at Hasanpur (Amroha) they reached Delhi at about 9.00 PM on reached Delhi at about 10.00 PM on 25.10.2013 (date of incident). 25.10.2013 (date of incident).

Contradictions pointed out in the evidence of PW­11/Hasan Daniyal and PW­29/Sunil Yadav (photographer) Version of PW­11/Hasan Daniyal Version of PW­29/Sunil Yadav (son of PW­19 Razi Hasan) (Photographer) PW­11 in his cross­examination by PW­29 in his cross­examination by defence stated that he had handed over defence stated that he had handed over the CD (Ex.PW11/1) to the police after the photographs (Mark PW11/1 to Mark 2­3 days of the incident and the said CD PW11/11) and CDs (Ex.P8 & P9) to Shri was handed over to him by Badar Qureshi/PW­6 after 20 days from photographer/PW­11 through Badar the day of marriage function. Qureshi/PW­6.

It is noted that the same are minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the matter and are not of much value. It is relevant to note that here that in all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition, however, where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 53 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 evidence cannot be safe to rely upon, but minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.

Presence of PW­19/Razi Hasan at the scene of crime (SOC) on the date of incident (25.10.2013)

60. Harping heavily upon the location chart­ID (Ex.PW26/C) in respect of mobile number bearing MTNL Sim number 9013256264 which admittedly belongs to PW­19/Razi Hasan, it is very vehemently argued by the learned defence counsel that location of said phone number was found in the area of Chauhan Banger at about 8.00 AM and in the area of Shastri Park at about 9.00 AM on 25.10.2013. He has further argued that the last location of aforesaid number at about 9.55 AM on 25.10.2013 was noticed in the area of Shastri Park and thereafter no call was made from the said number on 25.10.2013, meaning thereby that PW­19/Razi Hasan was very much present in Delhi or to be specific at the scene of crime (SOC) on the date of incident and his story about going to Hasanpur (District Amroha) on the said date is concocted one just to save his skin from the legal consequences. I am afraid this argument of the learned defence counsel does not hold much water on account of the overwhelming evidence in the form of statements of PW­6/Badar Qureshi; PW­ 7/Ali Hasan; PW­25/Zeeshan; PW­27/Rashid and PW­28/Naeem Ahmed, all of whom have categorically stated in unison that they had seen PW­19/Razi Hasan and his son PW­11/Hasan Daniyal attending the marriage of Ms.Nisha (sister of PW­6) on 25.10.2013 at Kamaal Palace, Hasanpur (District Amroha) from 10.00 AM till 4.00 PM. PW­19/Razi Hasan is even depicted in the photographs (Ex.PW11/1 to Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 54 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 Ex.PW11/11) and DVD/CDs (Ex.PW19/Article 1 and Ex.PW19/Article 2), which were clicked by PW­29/Sunil Kumar Yadav (photographer) at Kamaal Palace, Hasanpur (District Amroha) on 25.10.2013. Even if it is believed that location of PW­19/Razi Hasan as per location chart­ID/ Ex.PW26/C is at Delhi at about 10.00 AM on 25.10.2013, but this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the incident in question occurred at about 2.30 PM and there is no CDR which could show the location of PW­19/Razi Hasan at the scene of crime (SOC) at or around the said time. Thus, this argument is also of no help to the accused. The defence has miserably failed in proving the location of PW­19 at the scene of crime (SOC) at or around the time of incident on 25.10.2013.

Manipulation in Dak/Diary Register

61. The learned defence counsel has very vehemently argued that the entries made in Dak/Diary Register maintained at the end of School Inspector has been manipulated in order to accommodate the one day Casual Leave (CL) application (Ex.PW2/DB also Mark PW2/A) of PW­19/Razi Hasan for 25.10.2013. He has drawn my specific attention to Entry No.3233 made in Dak/Diary Register (Ex.PW2/DA) and has argued that that in Ex.PW2/DA there are about 17 entries (starting from Entry No.3218 and ending at 3234) and in none of the said entries the time of receipt has been mentioned, however, against Entry No.3233 (which contains details of receipt of leave application/Mark PW2/A of PW­19/Razi Hasan) specifically time 5.25 PM has been mentioned, which proves the manipulation of records at the end of School Inspector/PW­2 in order to save PW­19/Razi Hasan from prosecution.

Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 55 of 58

SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021

62. Firstly, to understand the crux of the issue raised hereinabove by learned defence counsel, let me put the record straight. PW­19/Razi Hassan vide his leave application dated 24.10.2013, applied for one day Casual Leave for 25.10.2013 with permission to leave the station for Hasanpur (District Amroha). The said leave was addressed to School Inspector (PW­2/Ram Kishan Bharti) and is Ex.PW2/DB (also Mark PW2/A). PW­2/Ram Kishan Bharti (School Inspector) made his endorsement upon the said application (Ex.PW2/DB also Mark PW2/A) at point A on 24.10.2013 itself, thereby duly sanctioning the leave of PW­19 for 25.10.2013.

63. Now coming to Ex.PW2/DA, i.e the Dak Register/Diary Register. A careful perusal of the Dak/Diary Register (Ex.PW2/DA) reveals that the same was not being maintained at the end of School Inspector/PW­2, but it is the Dak/Diary Register pertaining to the O/o Assistant Director Edu. (Phy.), Education District (Shahdara). I am afraid the learned defence counsel has been totally mistaken in referring to Dak/Diary Register (Ex.PW2/DA) to be maintained at the Office of School Inspector/PW­2. It appears that the School Inspector/PW­2 after sanctioning the Casual Leave (Ex..PW2/DB) of PW­19/Razi Hasan, he might have forwarded the same to its next immediate higher officer, which happens to be Assistant Director. Incidentally, the application (Ex.PW2/DB) might have reached the O/o Assistant Director Edu. (Phy.) on 25.10.2013 at about 5.25 PM. The reason of putting time of 5.25 PM against Entry No.3233 could be that the officials of Assistant Director Edu. (Phy..) might have come to know about the incident in question which admittedly occurred in the afternoon at about 2.30 PM on 25.10.2020 and that's why the concerned clerk/official might have put the time of 5.25 PM against the said entry to be on a safer wicket in case of any legal Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 56 of 58 SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021 complication arising later on. Be that as it may, one thing is crystal clear that Dak/Diary Register (Ex.PW2/DA) was not being maintained at the office of School Inspector/PW­2 and as such, no question of any manipulation at his end arises in the case. So, this line of defence is also of no consequences to the accused.

64. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clearly apparent that PW­19/Razi Hasan was not present at the scene of crime (SOC) on the date and time of incident, i.e on 25.10.2013 as he was on duly sanctioned Casual Leave on the said date and away at Hasanpur (District Amroha, UP) in attending the marriage of sister of PW­

6. On the other hand, prosecution through the unimpeachable evidence of PW­ 17/Nade Ali and complainant/PW­18/Iftikhar Ali has been able to prove that deceased alongwith her son (i.e accused herein) had visited MCD School, D­Block, Seelampur, Delhi on 25.10.2013. The deceased was carrying a plastic bag (thaili) in her hand which contained a plastic bottle and later on she poured the contents of said plastic bottle over her. The action of accused in providing a lighter to her in such a condition is clear cut case of instigation, provocation, incitement or encouragement on the part of accused to the deceased for committing the alleged act of such a desperate nature. Thus, by his aforesaid action, the accused has clearly provided the cannon fodder in abetting the deceased to set herself on fire. As such, from the overwhelming evidence produced on record by the prosecution, it has been successful in proving the ingredients of Section 306 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Accused Zulfikar @ Bobby accordingly stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 57 of 58

SC No.44439/2015: FIR No.476/2013: PS Seelampur: State V/s Zulfikar @ Bobby DOD: 19.02.2021

65. Let he be heard on the quantum of sentence on 22.02.2021. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict forthwith.

Announced in the Open Court on 19.02.2021 (Vinod Yadav) Addl. Sessions Judge­03 (North­East):

Karkardooma District Courts: Delhi Convicted under Section 306 IPC Page 58 of 58