Delhi District Court
State vs Ashok on 21 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. BABRU BHAN: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 : NORTH WEST DISTRICT :
ROHINI : DELHI
FIR No. 452/15
U/s. 302 IPC
PS Sultanpuri
State Vs. Ashok
(a) Session Case No. 51904/2016
(b) Date of offence 10.05.2015
(c) Accused Ashok
S/o. Kile Singh
R/o. C-3/365, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
(d) Offence U/s. 302 IPC
(e) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(f) Final Order Conviction
(g) Date of 10.09.2015
institution
(h) Date when 06.12.2024
judgment was
reserved
(i) Date of judgment 21.02.2025
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.02.22
12:54:26
+0530
State Vs. Ashok Page no. 1 of 32
1. The brief facts of the case as per prosecution are that on 10.05.2015, HC Sohan Lal PW-10 was working as duty officer at PS Sultan Puri. At about 03:30 pm, one person visited the PS and disclosed his name as Ashok Kumar and stated that he had murdered his wife at about 11:00 am that day by strangulating her with a rope. He further stated that he had locked his house and thereafter, went to house of in-laws to drop his daughter Dhani there. Ashok handed over two keys to HC Sohan Lal PW-10.
2. HC Sohan Lal PW-10 reduced the aforesaid information in form of DD No.29A Ex.PW10/A.
3. The aforesaid DD was assigned to SI Ravi Kumar PW- 11 for further necessary action. SI Ravi Kumar PW-11, Ct. Yogender PW-15 and Ct. Raj Kamal PW-16 took the accused Ashok Kumar to his residence situated at C- 3/365, Sultan Puri, Delhi. The concerned SHO directed Ct. Kuldeep PW-9 to conduct the videography of the proceedings with the government camera. Two public persons namely Anil Kumar PW-3 and Sohan Lal PW-4 were also joined in the proceeding.
4. Accused Ashok Kumar pointed out his residential house which was situated at first floor. The lock of the main gate of staircase leading to first floor was got opened Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 Date:
12:54:37 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 2 of 32 through the keys handed over by accused Ashok Kumar. Accused Ashok Kumar pointed out the room in which dead body of a lady was lying on the bed. A plastic rope was wrapped around her neck.
5. Crime team was called at the spot. SI Ajeet Singh PW-5 was leading the crime team. He inspected the spot and prepared his report Ex.PW5/A. Ct. Abhishek PW-12 was photographer of the mobile crime team. He took the photographs Ex.PW12/B-1 to Ex.PW12/B-7 (negatives are Ex.PW12/A-1 to Ex.PW12/A-7).
6. Thereafter, SI Ravi Kumar PW-11 prepared rukka Ex.PW11/A on DD No.29 and handed over the same to Ct. Yogender PW-15 for registration of FIR.
7. Dead body of the deceased lady was removed to mortuary of SGM hospital through Ct. Ashok PW-2 and was preserved.
8. In the meanwhile, Ct. Yogender PW-15 took the rukka to the PS Sultan Puri. At PS Sultan Puri, HC Krishan Kumar PW-1 was discharging duty of duty officer. On arrival of Ct. Yogender, he made arrival entry vide DD No.31A Ex.PW1/A and registered the FIR Ex.PW1/C. After registration of FIR, HC Krishan Kumar made a Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:54:43 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 3 of 32 corresponding endorsement Ex.PW1/B on rukka. He also issued a certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW1/D. The process of recording of FIR was closed vide DD No.32/A Ex.PW1/E. The copy of FIR was sent to Ilaka Magistrate. Thereafter, copy of FIR was handed over to Ct. Yogender PW-15 for handing over the same to Insp. Krishan Kumar PW-21, who carried out the further investigation.
9. During further course of investigation, Insp. Krishan Kumar PW-21 prepared the site plan Ex.PW21/A. He interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW16/C and formally arrested him vide memo Ex.PW16/A. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW16/B.
10. On 11.05.2015, IO moved an application Ex.PW21/2 for the postmortem of the deceased. He prepared death report Ex.PW21/4. The dead body of the deceased was got identified though her brother Neeraj and statement Ex.PW20/1 was recorded in this regard.
11. Dr. Munish Wadhawan PW-13 conducted the postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased vide his report Ex.PW13/A. During postmortem examination, ligature mark 2 cm wide completely encircling the neck Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2025.02.22 12:54:49 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 4 of 32 was found. On exploration, effusion of blood was seen in the underline neck muscles. On 01.06.2015, IO moved an application Ex.PW13/B for opinion about the cause of death. On this application, Dr. Munish Wadhawan opined that strangulation was antemortem and homicidal in nature. The subsequent opinion in this regard is Ex.PW13/C.
12. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to relatives of the deceased vide handing over handing over receipt Ex.PW21/6.
13. The pulandas handed over to IO along-with sample seal were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW2/A. The exhibits were sent to FSL for examination.
14. After the completion of investigation, final chargesheet accusing the accused for the offence u/s 302 IPC was filed in the Court, which was committed to this Court for trial as per procedure.
15. A formal charge for the offence U/s 302 IPC was framed against accused Ashok Kumar on 26.09.2015, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
16. In order to prove the case against the accused, the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:54:55 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 5 of 32 prosecution has examined 24 witnesses. Many of the witnesses examined are the police officials, who had participated in formal process of investigation. Their respective brief roles have already been mentioned in the foregoing part of the judgment, therefore, for sake of brevity, their detailed testimony is not being reproduced again. The brief of the testimonies of remaining material witnesses are given below.
17. Anil PW-3 was produced to prove the recovery of dead body at instance of the accused but initially, this witness did not support the case of the prosecution. In his initial statement, he went to state that he neither joined the recovery of the dead body nor the police had recorded his statement. Subsequently, PW-3 was confronted with a CD Ex.PW9/B wherein this witness was seen present during the recovery proceedings. After the CD was confronted to this witness, witness went to admit the suggestions given by Ld. Addl. PP for State that he alongwith other public persons and police might had gone upstairs and seen the dead body of the lady lying on the bed.
18. Sohan Pal PW-4 had also joined the recovery of dead body like PW-3 Anil. Like PW Anil, this witness initially denied having joined the recovery proceedings Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:55:02 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 6 of 32 but subsequently when he was also confronted with the CD Ex.PW9/B and he went to admit that he had joined the proceedings with the police. He sought to explain that he refused having joined the recovery proceedings during examination-in-chief because he could not remember the same due to his fading memory.
19. Ct. Jagdish Kumar PW-6 had taken some exhibits to the FSL on 10.06.2015 vide RC Mark PW6/A.
20. Similarly, Ct. Vijay PW-7 has deposed that on 26.05.2015, MHC(M) handed over him a sealed pulanda and he deposited the same in FSL vide RC Ex.PW7/A.
21. Raj Rani PW-8 is mother of the deceased. She has deposed that her daughter Preeti @ Pinki was married to Ashok Kumar in 2002. Preeti was being ill treated by her in-laws. Accused Ashok was never happy with her daughter and he usually used to beat her up. Due to the ill treatment by the accused, Preeti used to stay with her (mother) for 15 days in a month. She further deposed that out of the wedlock of Preeti and Ashok, two daughters were born and due to birth of two daughters, the dispute between accused and deceased Preeti further increased. Ashok had also demanded Rs.50,000/- from her as a dowry. She had lodged a complaint with CAW cell in this Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2025.02.22 12:55:16 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 7 of 32 regard. Accused would also threatened Preeti to divorce her. The complaint lodged with CAW cell was ultimately compromised because Preeti did not want to get divorced as she already had two daughters. This witness further stated that one day, after killing her daughter, Ashok came to her house to drop his younger daughter with her (witness). When this witness inquired about her daughter Preeti, he told that he was taking her for treatment. Later that day, this witness came to know that her daughter had been killed.
22. Insp. Mahesh Kumar PW-14 had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW14/A at instance of the IO.
23. PW-17 is a child witness who has been examined with the assumed name 'S' to conceal her identity. She is daughter of deceased and accused. She deposed that at the time of incident, she was studying in 6th class. Her father was not doing any work and used to assault and abuse her mother. He would often threaten her in anger that he will kill her. Witness further stated that her mother was the only bread earner of her family. Her mother was also working as a Sweeper in school. Further stated that her father was suspicious about the character of her mother and used to assault her for this reason. He would even call her a lady of promiscuous character. She further Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:55:23 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 8 of 32 stated that her father also had illicit relation with some lady. On 10.05.2015, her father came to her Nani's house with her younger sister. He dropped the younger sister of the witness with her Nani saying that he was taking Preeti for getting medicines.
24. HC Saravjeet Singh PW-18 was posted as MHC(M) at PS Sultan Puri at relevant point of time. He has produced record of depositing and taking out of the property relating to this case in malkhana. The record produced by this witness is Ex.PW18/A to Ex.PW18/D.
25. W/ SI Raj Devi PW-19 has deposed that in year 2006, she was posted in CAW cell, Pitampura and during her tenure, she had received a complaint from Preeti which she had filed against her husband. However, matter was subsequently settled.
26. Neeraj PW-20 is brother of the deceased. He has deposed in sync with Raj Rani PW-8.
27. Sh. M.L. Meena, Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini PW -22 had examined the viscera of the deceased vide his report Ex.PW22/A. During examination, no foreign element was detected in the body of the deceased.
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.02.22
12:55:29
+0530
State Vs. Ashok Page no. 9 of 32
28. ASI Sohan Lal PW- 24 has deposed that on 21.05.2015, he was posted as DO and his duty hours were 08:00 am to 04:00 pm. On that day, at about 02:30 pm, Insp. Krishan Kumar entered DD no.26A in rojnamcha which is Ex.PW21/10.
29. The prosecution evidence was followed by statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein all the incriminating evidence brought against the accused was put to him. Accused denied the same and pleaded innocence stating that he had nothing to do with the offence in question and he was falsely implicated by the IO in connivance with relatives of the deceased. On 20.05.2015, he was called in the PS on the pretext of some enquiry relating to murder his wife.
30. He opted to lead defence evidence but no DE was lead despite given opportunity.
31. This Court has heard arguments from Ld. Counsel for the accused and Ld. Addl. PP for State and has also perused the record.
32. The murder in question was not witnessed by anyone. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The important aspects and the circumstances Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:55:36 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 10 of 32 relied upon by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused shall be dealt with separately under the different headings for the sake of convenience and proper appreciation of the evidence. Before that, it would be appropriate to have a glance at the legal position as to the cases based on circumstantial evidence.
33. The law on the circumstantial evidence has been well settled. The principles of law governing the proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court available on the issue the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstance, circumstances against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstances must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime.
34. In case titled as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) SC, the Apex Court has laid down following guiding principles while appreciating evidence in a case based upon circumstantial evidence :
i) The circumstances from which the conclusion is Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2025.02.22 12:56:30 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 11 of 32 drawn should be fully established.
ii) The circumstances should be conclusive in nature.
iii) All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and should also be in-consistence with the innocence of the accused.
iv) The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused."
35. While discussing the quality of evidence required in cases based upon circumstantial evidence, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has made following observations in case titled as Sameer @ Mustakim Vs. State, 2018, Delhi High Court :
"45. when a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role. In Nibaran Chandra Roy Vs. King Emperor, it was held that the fact that an accused person was found with a gun in his hand immediately after a gun was fired and a man was killed on the spot from which the gun was fired may be strong circumstantial evidence against the accused, but it is an error of law to hold that the burden of proving innocence lies upon the accused under such circumstances. It seems, therefore, to follow that whatever force a presumption arising u/s 106 of the Evidence Act may have in civil or less serious criminal cases, in trial for murder it is Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:56:38 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 12 of 32 extremely weak comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence."
36. So, the burden to prove the circumstances from which an inference of guilt of the accused is sought to be drawn, always lies upon the prosecution. The circumstances should be of definite tendency conclusively pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Once the prosecution discharges the aforesaid burden, the role of presumption u/s.106 Indian Evidence Act comes into play. In the trial of serious cases like murder, this presumption is extremely weak in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence.
37. In backdrop of the legal position as to the criminal cases based upon circumstantial evidence, the different important aspects of the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused are being examined as follows :
MOTIVE -
38. As has been discussed above, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, there has to be a complete and unbreakable chain of events to prove the guilt of the accused. Where a series of circumstances are dependent on one another, they are to be read as one ingredient as a whole and not separately as it is not possible for the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:56:44 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 13 of 32 Court to truncate and break the chain of circumstances as the very concept of chain of circumstances would be defeated. In that event and where the circumstantial evidence consist of chain of circumstances linked with one another, the Court has to take cumulative evidence of the prosecution before acquitting and convicting the accused. Motive assumes importance in the case bases upon circumstantial evidence for it is motive which complete the chain of events.
39. In Suresh Chandra Bahri vs State Of Bihar on 13 July, 1994, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the importance of motive as a compelling force to commit a crime. The relevant observations are :
"21.At the very outset we may mention that sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with. But it has to be remembered that the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
BHAN 2025.02.22 12:57:24 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 14 of 32 accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime. In the present case before us the prosecution has adduced evidence that the appellant Suresh Bahri had strong motive to eliminate his wife and two children from his way which evidence has been accepted by both the courts below. We shall, therefore, have a look at the said evidence to see whether the two courts are justified or not in taking the view that the appellant Suresh Bahri had a strong motive to hatch a conspiracy with the assistance of the other two appellants, namely, Raj Pal Sharma and Gurbachan Singh to commit the murder of his wife and the two children."
40. Based upon the aforesaid preposition of law, this Court shall now examine the motive for the murder in question because in absence of any motive why the accused would murder his own wife. Here in this case, the prosecution has claimed that after birth of two daughters, the relationship between accused and deceased had deteriorated to such an extent that deceased had even filed a complaint against her husband in CAW cell.
41. To prove the aforesaid motive, the prosecution has placed reliance upon the testimony of PW-8 Raj Rani, PW-17 child witness 'S', PW-19 W/SI Raj Devi and PW-
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2025.02.22 12:57:31 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 15 of 32 20 Neeraj.
42. PW-8 Raj Rani who is mother of the deceased has deposed that all the in-laws of the deceased used to harass her daughter and deceased was not happy at her matrimonial home. Due to the harassment, her daughter used to live with her (PW-8) for about 15 days a month. The relationship between the accused and the deceased was further deteriorated after birth of two daughters. She also stated that accused Ashok had once demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/-. During cross-examination of this witness, she was confronted with her statement Mark P-8/DA which was recorded by the IO u/s 161 Cr.PC. After comparison of the statements given the Court, it appears that this witness has made some improvements in her court statement. However, the general allegations that accused Ashok was not happy with his marriage with deceased are there. In both the statements, PW-8 has stated that accused used to quarrel and beat the deceased and due to this reason, deceased often used to reside at her parental home for most of the time. Thus, although, PW-8 did not elaborate all the details of the disputes between the accused and deceased in her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC but broadly the allegations are same in both the statements i.e. recorded in the Court and recorded by the IO. Thus, this court does not see any material Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:57:37 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 16 of 32 improvement in the previous statement.
43. The law relating to material contradiction in witness's testimony has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Rammi vs State of MP 1999 8 SCC 649. It was held that:
"(25 )It is common practice in trial court to make out contradictions from the previous statements. Merely Because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No Doubt Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of an inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the section would indicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. Only such of the inconsistent statement which is capable to be "contradicted" would affect the credit of the witness''
44. The abovementioned settled position of law was again reiterated by Supreme Court in the judgment of Birbal Nath vs State of Rajasthan 2023 INSC 957 wherein it was held as under:
"(19)No doubt statement given before police during investigation under section 161 are "previous statements" under section 145 of the Evidence Act and therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But this only for a limited purpose, to "contradict" such a witness. Even if the defense is successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:57:42 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 17 of 32 contradiction in her two statements would result in totally discrediting this witness. It is ere that we feel that the learned judges of the High Court have gone wrong."
45. Further, in the landmark case of Tehshildar Singh v State of UP AIR 1959 SC 1012, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to contradict a witness would mean to "discredit" a witness. Therefore, unless and until the former statement of this witness is capable of "discrediting" a witness, it would have little relevance. A mere variation in the two statements would not be enough to discredit a witness. This has been followed consistently by this Court in its later judgement, including Rammi (Supra)".
46. Bearing in mind the above-mentioned settled position of law, this court is of the considered opinion that though there is some variance in the statements of Raj Rani PW-8, but same are minor and not of such a nature which would drive her testimony untrustworthy. This court finds the deposition of witnesses Raj Rani PW- 8 to be honest, truthful, and trustworthy.
47. Further, it is also relevant to mention here that during cross-examination of PW-8, Ld. Defence Counsel made a suggestion to the witness that sometime before her death, Preeti had developed friendship with a Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2025.02.22 12:57:49 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 18 of 32 neighborer namely Sonu. In case titled as Balu Sudam Khalde Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC355 where Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a suggestion made by the defence Counsel to a witness in the cross-examination, if found to be incriminating in nature in any manner, would definitely bind the accused and the accused cannot get away on the plea that his counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions in the nature of admission against the client. Now, by making the aforesaid suggestion, the defence went to admit that deceased Preeti had developed intimacy with a neighborer namely Sonu. Now, since the accused, who was otherwise not happy with his wife, would have been further infuriated by the alleged extramarital affair of the deceased, therefore, this fact can also be considered as one of the reason which could have motivated the accused for the murder.
48. Similarly, while deposing in sync with PW-8, PW- 20 Neeraj, brother of the deceased has also deposed that soon after the marriage, relationship between the accused and the deceased deteriorated because of birth of two daughters. This witness was also subjected to a detailed cross-examination, however, besides some suggestions given, nothing material in favour of accused came during the cross-examination of PW-20 also.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2025.02.22 12:57:55 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 19 of 32
49. Another witness examined in this regard is PW-19 W/ SI Raj Devi. She has deposed in her court statement that in the year 2006, she was posted in CAW cell, Pitampura. At that time, the deceased had filed a complaint against her husband wherein she had levelled allegations of demand of dowry and harassment. The copy of the said complaint is Mark PW19/A. HC Satyavir Singh PW-23 had also proved an application Ex.PW23/A which was given by deceased to ACP Sultan Puri in 2008 wherein she had levelled allegations of harassment and death threats upon the accused and his relatives.
50. To prove the motive, the prosecution has also placed reliance upon testimony of child witness 'S' PW-17. She is daughter of deceased and accused. She deposed that at the time of incident, she was studying in 6th class. Her father was not doing any work and used to assault and abuse her mother. He would often threaten her in anger that I will kill you. Witness further stated that her mother was the only bread earner of her family. Her mother was also working as a Sweeper in school. Further stated that her father was suspicious about the character of her mother and used to assault her for this reason. He would even call her a lady of promiscuous character. She further stated that her father also had illicit relation with some Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:58:01 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 20 of 32 lady. On 10.05.2015, her father came to her Nani's house with their younger sister. He dropped the younger sister of the witness with her Nani saying that he was taking Preeti for medicines.
51. This Court is not inclined to give much weightage to the evidence given by this witness because at the time of incident, PW-17 was studying in class 6th only.
Surprisingly, in her court statement, she has disclosed facts like her father was not doing any work, her mother was sole bread earner, his father was suspicious about character of her mother and her father had illicit relations with other ladies. In considered opinion of this Court, a child of 10 to 11 years old could not have known these facts as no parents are expected to discuss such issues in presence of young children. In opinion of this Court, these facts could not have come to the knowledge of the child, had she not been tutored. So, the testimony of PW- 17 cannot be relied as she has visibly deposed the facts which might had been tutored to her.
52. Be that as it may, the evidence given by PW-8 Raj Rani, PW-19 W/ SI Raj Devi, PW-20 Neeraj and PW-23 HC Satyavir is sufficient to indicate that relationship between deceased and the accused were not cordial. The deceased had also lodged complaints against the accused Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
BHAN 2025.02.22
12:58:13
+0530
State Vs. Ashok Page no. 21 of 32
on many previous occasions. Further, admittedly, the
deceased had developed intimacy with some neighbourer. Thus, it is possible that the continuous frustration and strained relationship motivated the accused to commit the crime in question. The motive accordingly stands proved.
RECOVERY OF DEAD BODY FROM HOUSE OF THE ACCUSED -
53. PW-10 HC Sohan Lal has deposed that on 10.05.2015, at about 03:30 pm, accused Ashok Kumar visited the PS and made a confession that he had killed his wife by strangulating her with a rope. He also handed over two keys to HC Sohan Lal. HC Sohan Lal reduced the information in form of DD No.29A Ex.PW10/A and handed over the same to SI Ravi PW-11 who alongwith Ct. Yogender PW-15, Raj Kamal PW-16 and SHO left for the spot. Thereafter, police party reached at 3/365, Sultan Puri, Delhi. The lock of the main gate was opened with the key provided by the accused and the dead body of the deceased was recovered.
54. About the recovery of the dead body, ASI Ravi PW- 11, Ct. Yogender PW-15, Ct. Raj Kamal PW-16, Insp. Krishan Kumar PW-21 have deposed the same facts. During cross-examination of these witnesses, Ld. Defence Counsel made a feeble attempt to impeach the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:58:21 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 22 of 32 credit of these witnesses by asking some general questions about departure and arrival entries. Ld. Defence Counsel also made some suggestions to the police witnesses that the entire plot of recovery of dead body was staged by the police. Needless to say, aforesaid police witnesses denied these suggestions. It is relevant to mention here that during the entire cross-examination of Ravi Kumar PW-11, Ct. Yogender PW-15, Ct. Raj Kamal PW-16 and Insp. Krishan Kumar PW-21, no suggestion or question was asked about the reasons for which the police would have falsely staged the entire plot of recovery of dead body.
55. The statement of aforesaid police witnesses is further supported by the crime team report on the aspect of recovery of dead body. In the report Ex.PW5/A given by SI Ajeet Singh PW-5, he has mentioned that when he reached the place of occurrence at C-3/363, Sultan Puri, he found that body of a lady was lying on the bed and a rope was wrapped around her neck. Ld. Defence Counsel made an attempt to challenge the credibility of the witness by making some suggestions regarding the chance prints found on the rope or presence of any injury marks. Witness satisfactorily explained that surface of the rope was rough and therefore, no chance print could have been found upon the same. Further, no other marks of Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:58:27 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 23 of 32 injury were present on the body of the deceased. In considered opinion of this court, nothing can be inferred against the credibility of the witness from the aforesaid suggestion. Ld. Defence Counsel asked one more question that the house number mentioned in the crime team report is C-3/363, Sultan Puri whereas the house number of the accused is C-3/365. Witness explained that same was due to mishearing as he had hearing problem in his right ear. In considered opinion of this Court, witness has satisfactorily explained the reason for a minor mistake in the house number given in the crime team report. Thus, this report given by the In-Charge crime team supports the version of the police witnesses that when they reached there along-with accused, they found dead body of the deceased lying on the bed with a rope wrapped around her neck.
56. Further, Anil Kumar PW-3 and Sohan Pal PW-4, who had witnessed the recovery of the dead body initially denied having participated in the recovery proceedings. However, when they were confronted with the video recording contained in CD Ex.PW9/B, both the aforesaid witnesses were left with no option and therefore, they admitted that the recovery of dead body was effected from the house of the accused in their presence.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:58:33 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 24 of 32
57. Further, this Court has also analyzed the visuals of video footage contained in CD Ex.PW9/B wherein the police party along-with accused, Anil PW-3 and Sohan Lal PW-4 are seen entering a house where a body is found lying on the bed with a rope wrapped around the neck.
58. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused could have explained that the dead body was not recovered from his house. However, no such defence was pleaded by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. Thus, it stands proved that dead body was recovered from the house of the accused which was opened by using the keys which the accused had provided to police.
59. Now, one argument can be made on behalf of the defence that in case, the house of the accused was opened with the keys provided by the accused, the IO was duty bound to seize the keys with lock but no such seizure memo was prepared which makes it doubtful that house was opened with the key provided by the accused and body was recovered from there.
60. Observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case titled as Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan & Ors. Versus State Of Kerala Criminal Appeal No. 118 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:58:38 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 25 of 32 Of 2013 are relevant for this argument. The relevant observations are :
"22. A cumulative reading of the entire evidence on record suggests that the investigation has not taken place in a proper and disciplined manner. There are various areas where a properly investigation could have strengthened its case.
23.In the case of Paras Yadav & ors. vs. State of Bihar, the Apex Court observed as under:
"Para 8 - ..the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour of the accused, may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined de- hors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. For this purpose, it would be worthwhile to quote the following observations of this Court from the case of Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and others, J.T. (1998) 3 SC 290.
"In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined dehors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the 5 [1999 (2) SCC 126]. confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."
Hence, the principle of law is crystal clear that on the account of defective investigation the benefit will not inure to the accused persons on that ground alone. It is well within the domain of the courts to consider Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 Date:
12:58:45 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 26 of 32 the rest of the evidence which the prosecution has gathered such as statement of the eyewitnesses, medical report etc. It has been a consistent stand of this court that the accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by the prosecuting agency. As the version of eyewitnesses in specifically naming the appellants have been consistent throughout the trial, we find that there is enough corroboration to drive home the guilt of the accused persons."
61. It is correct that since the case projected by the prosecution was that the house of the accused from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered was opened with the keys provided by the accused, IO should have seized the keys and the lock. However, the question is whether the accused can claim any benefit on the account of this fault committed by the investigating agency. In considered opinion of this Court, above fault in the investigation pointed out by the defence, cannot be a sole ground to extend undue benefit to the accused. In such situations, as has been held in the above referred judgment, entire evidence produced by the prosecution has to be analyzed and if the cumulative effect of the evidence indicates towards the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the justice demands that such fault should be ignored. Here in this case, there is sufficient evidence in form of video footage and testimonies of public witnesses to prove that the body of the deceased was recovered from the house of the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:58:51 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 27 of 32 accused at his instance and in presence of a large crowd of public persons.
62. Further, it is not the case of the defence that someone else, in absence of accused, entered the house and killed the deceased as no suggestions in this regard were given to any of the witnesses. Accused also did not putforth any such explanation at the time of recording of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The angle of robbery is also not there, as there were no signs of ransacking of house, no witness has deposed anything about that. Under the circumstances, mere fact that keys of the house were not seized, is not sufficient to term the evidence of recovery as tainted.
63. Hence, it stands proved that body of the deceased was recovered from his house at his instance.
Failure of accused to furnish explanation u/s. 106 of Indian Evidence Act.
64. In case titled as Uma vs The State Rep. By The Deputy, 2024, Hon'ble Apex Court of India has held that in cases where murder has been committed in the privacy of house, the standard of proof expected is lesser than the other cases based upon the circumstantial Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:58:57 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 28 of 32 evidence. Secondly, the accused is under duty to explain as to the circumstances that led to death of the deceased. The relevant observations are :
"24.In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, [2006] Supp. (7) S.C.R. 156, this Court has pointed out that there are two important consequences that play out when an offence is said to have taken place in the privacy of a house, where the accused is said to have been present. Firstly, the standard of proof expected to prove such a case based on circumstantial evidence is lesser than other cases of circumstantial evidence. Secondly, the appellant would be under a duty to explain as to the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased. In that sense, there is a limited shifting of the onus of proof. If he remains quiet or offers a false explanation, then such a response would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances. In terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Appellants have not discharged their burden that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not homicidal and not inflicted by them."
65. The facts of the present case are identical to the afore-referred case. Here in this case, the deceased was wife of the accused. She was found dead in the house where there were no sign of forced entry. Accused has nowhere explained about his whereabouts at the probable time of death of the deceased. Since the accused was also residing in the same house from where the dead body was Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2025.02.22 12:59:04 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 29 of 32 recovered, it was natural for the accused to be the last person to be with his wife. Under the circumstances, it was duty of the accused to discharge his burden u/s106 of Indian Evidence Act. However, accused failed to give any such explanation at any stage of trial. The cross- examination of the witnesses would show that it is not the case of the defence that someone other than the accused entered the house when accused was not present there and murdered his wife. No such line of cross-examination was followed during cross-examination of any witness. Accused had an opportunity to explain the circumstances when his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded but he failed to give any explanation at that stage also. He has merely stated that he was falsely implicated by the police. This Court has failed to understand that why police would fabricate evidence and falsely staged videography of recovery of the dead body. No such enmity with any of the police official has been claimed by the accused. Thus, it can be said with conviction that accused has failed to discharge his burden u/s 106 of Indian Evidence Act.
THE MEDICAL OPINION THAT THE DEATH WAS HOMICIDAL -
66. Dr. Munish Wadhawan PW-13 had conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased. He has mentioned in his report Ex.PW13/A that during the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date: BHAN 2025.02.22 12:59:10 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 30 of 32 postmortem examination, a ligature mark 2 cm wide completely encircling the neck situated at level of thyroid cartilage transversely located 6.5 cm below chin, 2.3 cm below right ear and 3.5 cm below left ear was found present. Base of the ligature mark was red and inflamed. On exploration, effusion of blood was seen in underlying neck muscles. Subsequently, IO moved an application Ex.PW13/B for seeking subsequent opinion. On the application, Doctor opined vide his report Ex.PW13/C that strangulation was homicidal and antemortem. PW-13 was not subjected to any cross-examination, thus, his testimony has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Thus, it proves that the death of the deceased was homicidal.
CONCLUSION -
67. The conclusion of the aforesaid discussion can be summed up by stating that the relationship between the accused and the deceased and suspicion of the accused upon character of the deceased was a motive to commit the murder. The murder was committed in the privacy of his house and accused was naturally the last person to be with his wife. Since the murder was committed in the privacy of house without any forced entry, the prosecution was required to prove its case with a comparatively lesser standard of proof. It was the accused Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:59:16 +0530 State Vs. Ashok Page no. 31 of 32 upon whom the burden was shifted. To some extent, it was the accused, who was supposed to explain the circumstances under which his wife died. However, accused failed to putforth any plausible explanation at any stage. The conduct of the accused and the other circumstances including the explanations furnished by him are sufficient to exclude every possibility that someone else other than the accused committed the murder in question.
68. So, the chain of circumstances, in considered opinion of this Court is complete to show that within all human probability, the crime must has been committed by the accused and no one else. Accordingly, accused Ashok is convicted for offence u/s 302 IPC.
69. Copy of the judgment be given to the convict free of cost. Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN BHAN 2025.02.22 12:59:22 +0530 COURT ON 21.02.2025 (BABRU BHAN) ASJ-03, NORTH WEST ROHINI COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Ashok Page no. 32 of 32