Delhi District Court
State vs Sandeep on 30 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI R.K.CHAUHAN: A S J/SPL JUDGE
(NDPS) (WEST) DELHI
FIR no. 384/09
Unique Case ID no. 02401R0573472009
Police station : Nangloi
U/s 302 IPC
State V/s Sandeep
1. Session Case no. : SC no. 8/10
2. Name of the accused : Sandeep S/o Ram Kumar R/o
and parentage Village Kiloi, Dopana and
District Rohtak, Haryana.
3. Date of commission : 22/09/2009
of offence
4. Arguments concluded : 18/07/2011
on
5. Date of Judgment : 28/07/2011
6. Date of final order : 30/07/2011
JUDGMENT
1) According to the prosecution case accused Sandeep was married to Sumitra (deceased), sister of the complainant Sukhdev about four years before the incident and couple was blessed with a daughter aged about 2 years; for the last 6 months couple was having temperamental disputes (Annban) and complainant and his family tried to make the accused understand; on 22/09/2009 FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 1/52 in the morning accused made a telephonic call to the complainant stating that he alongwith his wife Sumitra (deceased) would be going to Aman Vihar police station where he would divorce her; accordingly complainant went to Aman Vihar police station but the accused did not reach there and after waiting sometime he called the accused on telephone but the same was switched off then at about 11.30am while searching them complainant reached near Railway crossing in front of Nangloi Railway quarter and saw the accused and deceased Sumitra who were going on the unmattled way (Kacha rasta) and the complainant also started proceedings towards them and in the meantime he saw that his sister (deceased) had sat beneath the tree and accused Sandeep gave a blow on her neck with a daiv (sharp weapon meant for cutting wood). The complainant went towards them to save his sister but in the meantime the accused had already given several blows with the said weapon to her; complainant caught hold the accused and in the meantime many public persons were gathered there and someone informed the police and the police reached there and statement of the complainant was recorded in which he has stated that his brotherinlaw Sandeep had murdered his sister Sumitra. After completing the investigation chargesheet was filed against the accused for the offence u/s 302 IPC.
2) On 03/05/2010 after hearing Ld Addl. PP for the State FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 2/52 and counsel for the accused, a charge u/s 302 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its case prosecution has examined in total 23 witnesses.
4) The brief summary of the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses is as under:
FORMAL WITNESSES
5) PW1 HC Ravinder Kumar who was working as
MHC(M) at Police Station Nangloi has deposited the case property in the malkhana against entry at serial no. 5339 Ex. PW1/A; entry serial no. 5340 Ex. PW1/B; entry serial no. 5339 Ex. PW1/C. He has also proved the other entries Ex. PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G to Ex. PW1/J with regard to the articles/case property deposited with him during investigation relating this case.
6) PW2 W/HC Nirmala who was working as duty officer on 22/09/2009 from 9.00am to 5.00pm has received a call from the wireless operator that a lady was stabbed with knife at Nangloi Railway Phatak near Kali Mandir and recorded the same as DD no. 26A Ex. PW2/A. She further deposed that the said DD was marked to SI Prem Dutt and at about 2.45pm she received rukka FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 3/52 through Ct. Anil and registered the case FIR no. 384/09. She has proved the copy of the rukka Ex. PW2/A and her endorsement as Ex. PW2/B.
7) PW3 SI Gulshan Kumar was the member of the Crime team which has reached at the spot and found the dead body lying under the bushes and noticed that there was a cut on the neck of the dead body and the dead body was lying in a pool of blood. He has proved his report as Ex. PW3/A.
8) PW8 Ct. Rakesh Kumar was photographer of the crime team and has taken 7 photographs of the spot from different angles including the dead body and proved the same as Ex. PW8/1 to Ex.PW8/7 alongwith negatives as Ex. PW8/8 to Ex. PW8/14.
9) PW11 SI Mahesh Kumar was posted as draftsman in Crime Branch and on 05/11/2009 on the request of Inspector Sanjay Kumar he has prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW11/A.
10) PW16 HC Hattu Ram had got the postmortem of the dead body conducted and has received the sealed parcel from the doctor who conducted the postmortem and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. PW16/A. He has also placed on record verification sheet of accused Sandeep Ex. PW16/B.
11) PW18 Ct. Virender has handed over the copy of the FIR FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 4/52 to the Senior officers including at the residence to Ld MM.
12) PW20 HC Pradeep Kumar has deposited the five sealed parcel to the FSL vide RC no. 123/21.
MEDICAL WITNESSES
13) PW6 Dr. J.V. Kiran and PW7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra conducted the postmortem on the body of Sumitra vide report Ex. PW6/A and gave the opinion Ex. PW6/D. PUBLIC WITNESSES
14) PW4 Smt Kamla Devi is the mother of the deceased. She did not support the prosecution case stating that she alongwith her son Sukhdev reached at the Police Station at about 5pm and was informed that her daughter has expired; her soninlaw Sandeep (accused) who was called by her son Sukhdev on telephone had also accompanied them to the Police Station. She further deposed that she did not receive any complaint from her daughter against the accused and the daughter of the deceased aged about 2 years was living with her grandmother.
15) PW5 Sukhdev Singh is the complainant of the case on whose statement FIR was registered. He has deposed that on 22/8/2009 as per his information his sister Sumitra (deceased) was at the rented accommodation taken by her husband near Lal FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 5/52 Mandir Nithari. He was informed at his shop at Agar Nagar by his mother and father that they have been called in the Police Station and after about 30 minutes Sandeep (accused) came to their home at Mubarkpur and then all of them went to the Police Station at about 4.30pm. In a court question he has stated that when he asked Sandeep as to where he left Sumitra and her daughter he told that he had left Sumitra and her daughter Saniya at their rented room. He has also not supported the prosecution case and was crossexamined by the Ld Addl. PP for the State and was confronted with his statement Ex. PW5/A.
16) PW9 Ramesh was the neighbour of the father of the deceased and stated that he alongwith Basant Lal had gone to Police Station Nangloi because Basant Lal (father of deceased) has told him that his daughter Sumitra was killed under the train. In a court question he has replied as under: "Court Q : As per the information given by Basantlal and his family to the villagers including me Sumitra has died after being run over by train. They have not told as to under which train she was cut but they have simply told that she has died at Nangloi."
17) In his crossexamination by Ld Addl. PP for the State, he further stated that since he has not seen the incident therefore he could not tell that Sumitra was killed by her husband. Voluntarily FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 6/52 stated that whatever was told by her family same was stated by him.
18) PW10 Pradeep Kumar was running a STD/PCO booth near the place of occurrence by the name of Nonny Telecom Center. He has deposed that in the month of September, 2009 when he was at his shop one lady came at his shop for making a telephone call at about 11.00am and was perhaps alone; she had telephoned on the STD calling number for outside Delhi and had talked for sometime and after one and half minute back call came on the STD for her and she picked up the telephone by saying that it was her call and had talked for about 15 minutes to the said caller; after making payment of Rs. 7/ for outgoing call she left the shop. In the evening one Head Constable and another police officer came to his shop and inquired about the telephone call made from his STD by a lady during the day; they further inquired from him about the detail of the phone made by her. Regarding the identity of the said lady photographs Ex. PW8/1 to Ex. PW8/14 were shown to him and he has stated that he cannot tell if the lady shown in the photograph is the dead body of the lady who had come and made a telephonic call at his shop. In reply to a court question he has stated that he came to know in the evening from the police that murder of a lady was committed at a distance of about 200300 meter from his shop; next day he had FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 7/52 seen the place where the murder had taken place.
19) PW12 Basant Lal is the father of the deceased Sumitra who has deposed that two police personnels reached at his house and informed regarding murder of his daughter Sumitra and asked them to reach to the Police Station; his wife Kamla went to the shop of his son Sukhdev Singh who told him regarding the information given by the police and Kamla came back to the house alongwith Sandeep (accused); He alongwith Kamla, Sandeep, Sukhdev and Bharmanand went to the Police Station; he has identified the dead body in the hospital vide memo Ex. PW12/A. This witness was also crossexamined by the Ld Addl. PP for the State wherein he was confronted with the statement recorded by the police as Ex.PW12/PA. He has even refused to identify the dead body of Sumitra as his daughter as shown in photograph as Ex. PW8/8 to Ex.PW8/14 stating that he has not seen his daughter in that condition. He further admitted that his younger daughter Preeti was younger to Sumitra by 23 years and was unmarried and denied the suggestion that they wanted to marry Preeti with the accused and for that reason he has deposed falsely. In reply to a court question, he has admitted that family of accused Sandeep was having visiting terms with his family and they have been visiting the house of the accused in order to meet daughter of Sumitra who was brought up by mother of the FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 8/52 accused.
20) PW13 Arun has not supported the prosecution case and was confronted with his statement with regard to the having seen the accused killing his wife Sumitra with Daiv and thereafter having informed the police at number 100 after taking mobile of one Rajesh Kumar. Nothing was elicited in his cross examination by Ld Addl. PP for the State.
21) PW15 Rajesh deposed that he was having mobile no. 9210034957 and has used the same till 28/4/2010; the said mobile was in the name of his wife Meenakshi and he has purchased the same from Nangloi four years ago. He further deposed that during Navratras in the year 2009 he was present in the Kali mandir near railway station Nangloi and his mobile was fixed on charging in the temple and he was sitting for Puja in the temple; his mobile was used by some one whose name he came to know as Arun who called at number 100. He further deposed that when his mobile was used he came to know that someone has killed his wife and lateron after completing Puja about 1½ hour he came to know that one husband has killed his wife; after about 1½ months he came to know the name of that person as Sandeep.
22) In his crossexamination by Ld Addl. PP for the State he clarified that Arun has taken his mobile from him after taking permission from him and removed it from the charging and told FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 9/52 to him that one person has killed his wife but he had not told the name of that person and his wife.
23) PW19 Sanjay was examined to prove that accused has purchased the weapon of offence from his shop but he did not support the prosecution case and nothing was elicited in his crossexamination carried out on behalf of Ld Addl. PP for the State.
MATERIAL OFFICIAL WITNESSES
24) PW14 SI Shishupal has reached at the spot of occurrence in his PCR vehicle number DL1 CJ 3394 as he was posted on the said PCR Power73 on 22/09/2009 between 8am to 8pm. He has deposed that on receiving a call they reached near railway quarters Nangloi and found a dead body of a lady near the patri where one boy who told his name as Sandeep S/o Ram Kumar village Kaloi, Haryana was found present near the dead body. He further deposed that after sometime one Sukhdev Singh also came there and told them that he was brotherinlaw (Sala) of Sandeep and SI Prem Dutt and SHO Police Station Nangloi reached on the spot; CATS Ambulance also reached on the spot which declared the said lady dead and then PCR left the spot. He has brought original call book registers containing said call details at 11.58am dated 22/09/2009 and deposed that as per FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 10/52 detail find mentioned one lady was stabbed with knife near railway flats Nangloi, near Kali Masjid and the telephone number from which information was received is mentioned as 9210034957. The copy of the said entry is proved as Ex.PW14/A. He further deposed that on reaching the spot accused Sandeep present in the court was found present and whatever was informed by Sandeep he noted down the same and has further informed to the PCR Control room. He has also proved the written notes recorded by him as Ex.PW14/B which are in his own handwriting. In a leading question put by Ld Addl. PP for the State he has replied that he has stated to the Investigating Officer in his statement that Sukhdev had caught Sandeep on the spot who has killed his wife.
25) In his crossexamination by Ld counsel for the accused he has stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 14/12/2009 and when he reached on the spot some passersby were going from there and they had been seeing the dead body and SI Prem Dutt also reached on the spot and he ( SI Shishupal) remained on the spot for about 35 minutes.
26) PW17 M. N. Vijayan, Nodal Officer of TATA Teleservices Ltd placed on record the customer application form of mobile no. 9210034957 and proved the call details of the above mobile as Ex. PW17/1 to Ex.PW17/5 (running into 5 FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 11/52 pages). He has proved the call detail of 01169446512 Ex. PW17/6 and Ex. PW17/7 (running into 2 pages) stating that the said phone was being operated as PCO. He has also proved the certificate u/s 65 B (4) (c) of Evidence Act as Ex. PW17/8.
27) He was further examined on 15/03/2011 when he has placed on record CellID Chart alongwith location map regarding the number 9210034957 from 21/09/2009 to 22/09/2009 and proved the same as Ex. PW17/X (1 to 3 pages).
28) PW21 SI Prem Dutt reached the spot on receiving DD no. 26A Ex. PW2/A and found a female dead body lying in pool of blood and husband of that lady Sandeep correctly identified was caught hold by his brother in law Sukhdev and was produced before him and accordingly handed over in custody of Ct. Anil. He recorded the statement of Sukhdev Ex. PW5/A and endorsed the same as rukka Ex. PW21/A and got the case registered. After registration of the case the investigation was handed over to Inspector Sanjay. The accused was formally arrested vide Ex. PW21/C. He has further proved various documents prepared on the spot as Ex. PW21/E to Ex. PW21/I. The disclosure statement of the accused is proved as Ex. PW21/J and in persuasion of his disclosure statement and on pointing out by the accused the weapon of offence daiv Ex. P1 was recovered from the bushes near the spot. He has also seized the blood stained clothes of the FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 12/52 accused vide memo Ex.PW21/L. The baniyan and jeans pant of the accused seized on the spot are proved as Ex. P2 and P3. One shirt which was also seized from the spot is proved Ex. P4.
29) PW22 Ct. Anil has accompanied SI Prem Dutt to the spot and has corroborated the deposition of PW21 with regard to the investigation carried out on the spot and has also proved all the documents prepared on the spot as he has signed the same as a witness. In his crossexamination by Ld defence counsel he has stated that recovery memos and other documents were prepared on the spot by Inspector Sanjay Kumar and crime team prepared the report on the spot when it remained on the spot for about 1 ½ hours.
30) PW23 Inspector Sanjay Kumar has also fully supported and corroborated the deposition of PW21 and PW22 on all material aspects. In addition, he has deposed that from the spot the shirt of the accused Sandeep was also seized vide memo Ex. PW21/G and was sealed with the seal of SK. He further deposed that he has recorded the supplementary statement of Sukhdev and statement of Rajesh and Arun and also prepared the site plan Ex. PW23/B. He has also proved the FSL report as Ex. PW23/F and Ex. PW23/G.
31) CW1 HC Atul MHC(M) of Police Station Nangloi was summoned and examined u/s 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 13/52 1872 who has produced Ex. P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 which are vest (baniyan), trouser and shirt of the accused seized during investigation from the spot. The accused was asked to wear those clothes but he has refused stating that the same does not belong to him. Ex. P2 to Ex. P4 were found to be of the size of the accused and despite informing him regarding adverse inference may be drawn against him, the accused had refused to wear those clothes when asked to do so in the presence of his counsel.
32) CW2 WCt Pooja of PCR CPCR, PHQ Ashift was summoned and examined u/s 311 CrPC read with section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 who has recorded the information which was received from mobile number 9210034957 that at Nangloi Railway Flats near Kali Mandir "Ek ladies ko chako mar diya hai" . She has proved the computerised PCR form as Ex. CW2/A.
33) CW3 ASI Rajbir Singh, of Central Police control room, Police Headquarter was summoned u/s 311 CrPC read with section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and deposed that on 22/9/09 he was posted at CPCR PHQ and was on duty at Power Alpha Net from 8am to 2pm; on that day at about 12.27 pm an information was received from Power73 PCR van that the call is true Sanjiv S/o Ram Kumar aged 24 years Village Kaloi, District Jhajjar Haryana 'jo apni patni aged 22 years ko Mubarakpur se FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 14/52 apni susral se lekar aa raha tha, jisne upprokat address par darat se murder kar diya jo saath me baitha hai hawale SHO sahab ke patni Sumitra moka par dead hai; he has recorded the information on computer and proved the computerised form Ex.CW2/A duly attested by ACP.
34) CW4 ACP Kamlesh Kumari, has proved the certificate u/s 65 (b) Indian Evidence Act Ex. CW4/A which bears her signatures at point A and deposed that PCR form dated 22/9/2009 was prepared by IC Command Room on the basis of information recorded in the computer system in the official computer of CPCR, PHQ and the system was duly supervised and maintained under the supervision of ACP.
35) Accused was examined u/s 313 CrPC in which he has stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated and was not present at the place of the occurrence. He was called by the police through his brotherinlaw as he was on duty on that day as driver with one Surender Jain of Pragati apartment Pitampura, owner of a factory of manufacturing of Sabutdana in Mangolpuri. He had joined duty as driver with him on 01/09/2009. He had left his wife and daughter at the rented accommodation near Lal Mandir Kirari, Nangloi and then went to his duty at about 8am. His brotherinlaw called him at about 3.30/3.45pm at his mobile no. FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 15/52 9466807375 and at that time he was driving a car and was at Peeragarhi. The above mobile was a prepaid mobile of BSNL purchased from Rohtak by him in his name and was being used for the last 1112 months before the incident. In his additional statement u/s 313 CrPC he has stated that the clothes Ex. P2 to Ex. P4 were not worn by him in the court as the same did not belong to him.
36) I have heard Ld counsel Shri I.S. Guliya advocate for accused who has submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused because of the following reasons: I. PW5 Sukhdev Singh on whose statement the case FIR was registered has not supported the prosecution case and has rather supported the version of the accused.
II. The accused was on duty as driver at the alleged time with one Surender Jain of Pragati apartment Pitampura.
III. The circumstantial evidence showing the accused and the deceased last time together has not been established.
IV. The crime team in its report has not shown the presence of the accused on the spot.
V. PW13 Arun did not support that he had
FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 16/52
telephoned at number 100 about the incident. VI. PW19 Sanjay did not support the prosecution case regarding purchasing of daiv (weapon of offence) from his shop.
VII. No adverse inference can be drawn against the accused for his refusal to wear Ex. P2 to Ex. P4 in the court as he has given his explanation that the same did not belong to him.
VIII. The Investigating Officer did not investigate the complaint of deceased lodged against Rocky given to Police Station Aman Vihar vide DD no. 52B dated 22/6/2009 as markB. DD no. 44B dt. 10/8/2009 as markD, therefore the investigation carried out in this case is not proper and the accused has been falsely implicated.
37) Ld Addl. PP for the State on the other hand stated that the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as entry made by PW14 SI Shishupal in his PCR Notebook proved as Ex. PW14/A and Ex. PW14/B has established the presence of the accused near the dead body of Sumitra and further that he has murdered her by giving a daiv blow at her neck. Ld Addl. PP for the State further submitted that FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 17/52 the entry Ex. PW14/B is admissible in evidence u/s 35 of the Indian Evidence Act as the same were made in official book by a public servant in discharge of his official duty.
38) Ld Addl. PP for the State further submitted that the PCR record Ex. PW14/A is also proved by the PCR form wherein the mobile no. 9210034957 is mentioned having been used to give the information of the incident to the police control room at number 100 and the contents of the PCR form are not disputed by the Ld counsel for the accused as he has made a submissions that there is no need of examining Lady Ct. to prove the said PCR form. Ld Addl. PP for the State further argued that the circumstantial evidence as well as oral evidence has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt because the accused has killed his wife as he was suspicious of her fidelity and the family members of the deceased has tried to save him as they wanted to marry younger sister of deceased to the accused and further the daughter of the deceased is being brought up by the mother of the accused; the baniyan Ex. P2, shirt Ex. P4 and trouser Ex. P3 of the accused were seized from the spot and as per FSL report the human blood groupA was detected on shirt Ex. P4 and human blood has been detected on Ex. P2 and Ex. P3; the deposition of public witnesses who has not fully supported the prosecution case has completed the missing links in the chain of FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 18/52 events of the circumstances in which murder was committed by the accused and the evidence of the Investigating Officer and other police witnesses has sufficiently established that it was the accused who has committed murder; the plea of alibi taken by the accused is not proved by him as he has not led any evidence in that regard and the defence taken by him stands falsified. Ld Addl. PP for the State therefore prayed for conviction of the accused u/s 302 IPC.
39) I have considered the rival submissions made at bar and gone through the material on record.
40) The case of the prosecution was based on ocular evidence in the form of evidence of the complainant PW5 Sukhdev Singh (brother of the deceased), last seen evidence alongwith other circumstantial evidence. The complainant PW5 Sukhdev Singh and other family member of the deceased i.e PW12 Basant Lal and PW4 Kamla Devi, mother of the deceased has not fully supported the prosecution evidence and were declared hostile and was crossexamined by the Ld Addl. PP for the State. It is settled law that the evidence of the hostile witness cannot be rejected all together and incriminating evidence in their deposition can always be read against the accused. Some of the witnesses who had last seen the accused and the deceased FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 19/52 together has not fully supported the prosecution case whereas other witnesses of the prosecution who had found the accused beside the dead body of his wife and the recovery of weapon of offence at his instance has fully supported the prosecution case.
41) In order to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt the following questions needs to be answered from the material on record: I. Whether the accused was found present on the spot of the occurrence beside the dead body of his wife?
II. Whether deceased has died because of injuries sustained from the weapon of offence which was recovered from the spot at the instance of the accused?
III. Whether there was any motive to commit
murder of his wife by the accused?
42) To find out the answers of the above questions, I have
scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution and other material on record. I will deal with each question one by one.
FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 20/52
43) "Question :I Whether the accused was
found present on the spot of the
occurrence beside the dead body of his
wife?"
The very first information which was recorded in the PCR form Ex. CW2/A has been received from mobile no. 9210034957 recorded by CW2 Lady Ct. Pooja who had deposed as under: "On 22.9.2009 I was posted at CPCR , PHQ, A Shift as constable from 8.00 a.m to 2.00 p.m. On that day at about 11.57 a.m , an information was received from mobile number 9210034957 that Nangloi Railway Flats near Kali Mandir , 'Ek Ladies Ko Chako Mar Diya Hai '. I recorded the above said information in the computer and the same was dispatched at Police station , Nangloi . Today I have brought the computerised form which is duly attested by the ACP and the same is Ex. CW2/A".
44) Accordingly, SI Shishupal PW14 posted at PCR vehicle Power 73 bearing no. DL1CJ 3394 reached to the spot and sent the message to the police headquarter at about 12.27pm which was recorded by CW3 ASI Rajbir Singh in the PCR form Ex. CW2/A and he has deposed in that regard as under: "On 22.9.2009 I was posted at CPCR, PHQ . On that day I was doing duties at Power Alpha Net from 8.00 a.m to 2.00 p.m . On that day at about FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 21/52 12.27 p.m, an information was received from power 73 PCR van that call is true Sanjiv Son of Ramkumar aged 24 years village Kaloi Distt. Jahjjar (Haryana) 'jo apni patni aged 22 years ko Mubarakpur se apni susral se lekar aa raha tha , jisne upprokat address par darat se murder kar diya jo saath me baitha hai hawale SHO sahab ke patni Sumitra moka par dead hai. I recorded the information on computer and the same was passed on to Command room. Today I have produced the computerised from from CPCR, PHQ the duly attested copy of the same attested by ACP is already on the file which is already Ex. CW2/A."
45) PW14 SI Shishupal has corroborated the CW2 and CW3 and deposed that on reaching the spot, Sandeep accused present in the court (correctly identified) was found present near the dead body. He has also deposed that on reaching there they found a dead body of a lady near the patri and one boy who told his name Sandeep S/o Ram Kumar Village Kaloi, Haryana was found present near the dead body; after sometime one Sukhdev Singh also came there and told them that he was brother inlaw (Sala) of Sandeep; SI Prem Dutt and SHO Nangloi reached on the spot; CATS Ambulance reached on the spot and declared the said lady dead. PW14 SI Shishupal has brought the original call book register containing the call details at 11.50am dt. 22/9/2009. The FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 22/52 extracts of his register as Ex. PW14/A has shown the first information at 11.58 am as was communicated to him from the PCR headquarter regarding stabbing of a lady near Kali Mandir Nangloi railway flat. He has also mentioned the telephone number as 9210034957 inadvertently told by him as 9211034957. Since the correct telephone number giving information to number 100 was found to be 9210034957 as per PCR from Ex. CW2/A, Ld counsel for the accused stated that there was no need of recalling PW14 for the clarification and Ld counsel stated that they do not dispute that the PCR call was made from no. 9210034957. In his note Ex. PW14/A, PW14 has written that call was noted and they were going to the base. He has further recorded information sent by him to the PCR headquarter and proved the said note as Ex.PW14/B and its transcription is as under: "Railway station aane ke liya phone per kaha tha; railway quarter railway station pahooch gaye hai lekin vakowa railway line ke saath saath karib 1 KM lamba hai; gaadi aa nahi sakti padal jaa rahe hai; phir halat batlaige.
Halat note karna patipatni ka mamla hai; pati Sandeep S/o Ram Kumar, umar 24 saal R/o Village Kaloi, District Jhajjar ka rahne wala hai ; iski patni Sumtria umar 22 saal jo Sandeep ki Mubarkpur mai susral hai jo Sumitra ko lekar apne ghar aa FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 23/52 raha tha jo railway line najad Nangloi railway station a pass lakdi katane ka darat apni patni ke gardan par maar diya; jo cat ambulance A29 bhi moka per jinohne dead ghoshit kar diya ha LP ke SI Prem Dutt aur SHO Sahab maia staff ke moka per hai"
46) Ld Addl. PP for the State has argued that the official record proved on record by PW16 i.e Ex. PW14/A and Ex.
PW14/B is admissible u/s 35 of the Indian Evidence Act because the same were recorded in official book by a public servant in discharge of his official duties. Ld counsel for the accused on the other hand submitted that the above official record has been manipulated at the instance of the Investigating Officer of this case. The contention of Ld defence counsel does not hold water in view of the fact that the deposition of PW14 and record proved on record by him find corroboration from the PCR form Ex. CW2/A proved in the deposition of CW2 and CW3. Ex. CW2/A PCR form has been duly proved in evidence alongwith certificate u/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act Ex. CW4/A. There is nothing to say that Ex. PW14/B and PCR form Ex. CW2/A are manipulated/fabricated. Both these documents are therefore admissible under the provision of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 which reads as under: FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 24/52 "35. Relevancy of entry in public [ record or an electronic record ] made in performance of duty An entry in any public or other official book, register or [ record or an electronic record ], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or [ record or an electronic record ] is kept, is itself a relevant fact."
47) All the documents i.e Ex. PW14/A, Ex. PW14/B and Ex.CW2/A are admissible u/s 35 of Indian Evidence Act because the public servant who has prepared the same are examined on Oath and has successfully proved the preparation of those documents in the course of their duties as such public servant.
48) The deposition of PW14 SI Shishupal who has found the accused present near the dead body of his wife on the spot at about 12.27pm found corroboration from the testimony of PW15 Rajesh whose mobile was used by PW13 Arun for making a call at number 100 when he was sitting for puja in the temple and his mobile was fixed for charging in the temple who has clearly deposed that during Navratras in the year 2009 he was sitting for Puja in the temple Kali mandir at railway station Nangloi and his mobile was fixed for charing and the same was used by someone FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 25/52 whose name was later on known as Arun to make a call at number 100. He further deposed that when his mobile was used he came to know that someone has killed his wife and after about 1½ hour of completing his puja he came to know that one husband has killed his wife. In reply to a court question, he has stated that Arun has taken his mobile by saying he has to inform to the police at no. 100 because a person has killed his wife.
49) Ld counsel for the accused has argued that the deposition of PW15 Rajesh is not relevant because the mobile no. 9210034957 is in the name of one Rahul Dev of Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Delhi whereas PW15 Rajesh has claimed that he has purchased the same in the name of his wife Meenakshi. I do not find much force in this argument because it was prepaid mobile and it so happens many times that the seller of the mobile phones sometimes use the ID of some other person for selling mobile to some other person because despite verification by the Investigating Officer of the case no such person in the name of Rahul Dev was traced at the given address. Moreover, the call details Ex. PW17/1 (1 to 5 pages) has shown that a call was made from mobile no. 9210034957 at no. 100 on 22/9/09 at 11.53am. The cell ID chart Ex. PW17/X with regard to the above mobile has shown its location on the date of occurrence in the vicinity of the area where the spot of occurrences is situated. FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 26/52
50) PW21 SI Prem Dutt Investigating Officer of the case has deposed that on receiving the DD no. 26A Ex. PW2/A he alongwith Ct. Anil reached infront of railway quarters Kacha rashta, Nangloi and found a female dead body lying in a pool of blood and husband of that lady namely Sandeep (correctly identified) was caught hold by his brotherinlaw Sukhdev; on reaching there the accused was produced before him and he had handed over his custody to Ct. Anil; he informed to the senior officers to reach at the spot; SHO Rajbir Singh Malik reached at the spot and crime team also reached at the spot; he recorded statement of Sukhdev Singh Ex. PW5/A and endorsed the same as rukka vide Ex. PW21/A and sent Ct. Anil to the Police Station for registration of the case and after an hour Ct. Anil reached alongwith Inspector Sanjay at the spot and further investigation was handed over to him; accused Sandeep was produced before Inspector Sanjay and he formally arrested the accused vide Ex. PW21/C which is signed by PW21. He further deposed that from the spot one checkdar shirt was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW21/G and same was kept in plastic polythene and sealed with the seal of SK. The said shirt was identified as Ex. P4.
51) PW22 Ct. Anil has fully supported and corroborated the version of PW21 with regard to the presence of the accused near FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 27/52 the dead body and his arrest. Inspector Sanjay PW23 has also supported and corroborated the version of PW21 and PW22 with regard to the presence of the accused, arrest and recovery of his shirt from the spot.
52) As per prosecution case, PW5 Sukhdev Singh brother in law of the accused had seen the accused giving knife blows to the deceased and thereafter overpowered the accused on the spot and on his statement Ex. PW5/A the present case was registered. The presence of PW5 on the spot has been corroborated by PW14 SI Shishupal who has deposed that brother in law of accused namely Sukhdev also reached the spot after sometime and told them that he was brother in law (Sala) of accused Sandeep. In his statement Ex. PW5/A, PW5 Sukhdev has alleged that the relations between the deceased and his brother in law (accused) were not good and they have tried their best to make them understand; in the morning on 22/09/09 accused made a telephonic call to him stating that he alongwith deceased was reaching Aman Vihar Police Station as he wanted to divorce the deceased. Accordingly, he reached at Aman Vihar Police Station but did not find them there and after waiting sometime he made telephonic call to his brother in law (accused) whose mobile was switched off; then at about 11.30am while searching them he reached near Kirari railway phatak and he noticed that the accused and the deceased FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 28/52 were going in front of Nangloi railway quarter, kacha rasta towards station; he also followed them while going towards the station in the meantime he saw that deceased sat beneath the tree and accused gave a Daiv blow from behind on her neck; before he could save his sister the accused gave several blows with the weapon of offence to the deceased and he caught hold of him from behind and in the meantime many public persons came there and someone informed the police and police reached at the spot and recorded his statement. He categorically stated that his brother in law (accused) has killed his sister. He has signed the said statement at pointX.
53) In his deposition PW5 Sukhdev has not fully supported the version given by him in Ex.PW5/A. He has twisted the story by saying that on 22/09/09 as per his information his sister was residing at rented accommodation by her husband near Lal Mandir Nithari and his mother and father and other relatives came to his shop at Agar Nagar and told him that they have been called in the Police Station because his sister had died. He further deposed that after about 30 minutes Sandeep accused came to their home at Mubarkpur and then they all went to Police Station at about 4.30pm. He was put following court questions as under: FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 29/52 "Court Question: whether you have asked from Sandeep as to where Sumitra had gone and how she died?
Ans: He told us that he had come from the duty and he did not know as to what has happened with Sumitra.
Court Question: Whether he has told anything about Sumitra and her daughter before he went to the duty?
Ans: He has told us that he had left Sumitra and their daughter Saniya at their rented room."
54) In another reply to a court question he has stated that they did not give any complaint in writing to the police when they were called in the Police Station and raised suspicion on Rocky. Again said the police did not ask from them about any such suspicion on any one and therefore they did not raise any suspicion upon Rocky in Police Station Nangloi about death of Sumitra. He has admitted his signatures at pointX on Ex. PW5/A stating that it was not written when he had appended his signatures at the instance of one police official.
55) In a court question he has replied that they have not made complaint either to the higher police officers or in the Court against the police for not taking proper action for murder of Sumitra and implicating his brother inlaw Sandeep for her murder. He voluntarily stated that they were illiterate persons FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 30/52 and therefore did not make any complaint and categorically stated as under: "My sister Sumitra has been murdered and she has not died as her natural death."
56) He further admitted in his crossexamination by Ld Addl. PP for the State that he had not raised any suspicion on Rocky in Police Station Nangloi. Voluntarily stated that he had taken the name of the Rocky in Police Station Aman Vihar.
57) In a court question he has replied that mother of the accused has been visiting their home and daughter of his sister (deceased) is residing with her grandmother and his mother also visiting the house of the accused occasionally to see Saniya, daughter of deceased.
58) Ld counsel for the accused has vehementally argued that even deposition of PW5 Sukhdev has shown that the accused was not present on the spot and has lateron gone to the Police Station when they were called there. It is further submitted that accused has gone to Police Station alongwith PW4 Kamla Devi, PW5 Sukhdev Singh, PW9 Ramesh and PW12 Basant Lal. But in crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW9 Ramesh has stated that accused Sandeep was present in the Police Station when they went there and he had not gone there with them. Before that he has deposed that they might have reached at Police Station at FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 31/52 about 5.00pm or 5.30pm alongwith Sukhdev S/o Basant Lal, Basant Lal and Kamla W/o Basant Lal. PW9 Ramesh who is of the same village of the deceased and her parents has accompanied the family members of the deceased to the Police Station. He has deposed that Basant Lal father of the deceased told him that his daughter Sumitra has expired under the train (rail ke neche kat gaye). In reply to a court question he has stated that Basant lal and his family gave information to the villagers including him that Sumtira has died after being run over by train at Nangloi. In view of this deposition of public witness PW9 Ramesh , contention of Ld defence counsel that the accused has gone to the Police Station at about 4.30pm alongwith family members of the deceased and some other villagers is not tenable.
59) Further, PW12 Basant Lal, father of the deceased has deposed that two police personnels reached his house and informed regarding murder of his daughter and then his wife Kamla went to the shop of his son Sukhdev to told him regarding visit of the police personnels and his wife came back to the house alongwith accused Sandeep. He further deposed that he alongwith Kamla, Sukhdev, Ramesh and Bramanand went to the Police Station. Even this deposition of PW12 regarding accompanying of Sandeep with them has been contradicted by PW9 Ramesh who in crossexamination by Ld defence counsel has stated that FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 32/52 accused Sandeep has not gone with them to the Police Station and when they reached the Police Station he was already present there.
60) When question no. 52 was put to the accused in his statement u/s 313 CrPC with regard to the said deposition of PW9 that he has not gone to the Police Station with them the accused has admitted the same to be correct. The said question is reproduced as under: " Question:It is in evidence against you that PW9 further deposed that you were also present in the PS at that time when they went there but you had not gone there with them . What do you say?
Ans. It is correct."
61) Even deposition of PW12 Basant Lal that the accused returned to his (PW12's) home alongwith his wife (PW12's wife) who had gone to call Sukhdev PW5 is contradicted by the deposition of PW5 who has stated that his mother and father came to his shop and then they returned to their house and after about 30 minutes accused Sandeep came to their house at Mubarkpur. The deposition of PW5 wherein he has stated that he alongwith other family members had not raised any suspicion on anyone including Rocky at the Police Station Nangloi for murder of Sumitra and his definite assertion that his sister Sumita has FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 33/52 been murdered and not died in natural death shows that whatever stated by PW5 in his statement Ex. PW5/A to the police at the time of commission of alleged offence was truth and lateron while deposing in the court he has not come forward to depose the said truth as he has made a false story for the reasons best known to him.
62) Ld Addl. PP for the State has submitted that family of the deceased and accused was having visiting terms as admitted by all the witnesses including PW4 Kamla (mother of deceased), PW5 Sukhdev (brother) and Basant Lal PW12 (father) and daughter of the deceased is being brought by her grandmother i.e mother of the accused and further that deceased was having sister 23 years younger to her and since the daughter of the deceased is being brought up at the residence of the accused the family members of the deceased wanted to marry their younger daughter to the accused so that daughter of the deceased is brought up well. Ld Addl. PP for the State further submitted that for that reasons PW5 Sukhdev brother in law of the accused, Basant Lal father in law and Kamla mother in law of the accused has not deposed against the accused and whatever was stated by them in the statement to the police was truth and they have twisted the truth in their deposition in the court. Ld Addl. PP for the State has stated that Investigating Officer has recorded their statements FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 34/52 correctly and has fully supported the prosecution and whatever is stated by witness Basant Lal and Kamla in statement u/s 161 CrPC and by PW5 in his statement Ex. PW5/A was truth and that is to be considered only.
63) Ld Addl. PP for the State has put reliance on the case of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs State of Uttarakhand, 2010X AD (SC) 153 wherein it was held in para no. 41 that witnesses in the statement u/s 161 CrPC have admitted that they suffered aforesaid injuries at the hands of the appellant. It was at a later stage that they have denied any role of the appellant. Their statements to that effect are not trustworthy for the simple reason that they failed to offer any explanation for why they assigned the said role to the appellant in their statements u/s 161 CrPC and why the appellant had been named by Ajit Singh while lodging the FIR.
64) Similarly in this case, PW5 Sukhdev brother of the deceased has named the accused who has committed murder and other family members of the complainant has also supported him in that regard but lateron PW5 Sukhdev Singh, PW4 Kamla and PW12 Basant Lal did not support their version given to the police at the initial stage. They have changed their stand in the court because they were having visiting terms with the family of the accused and daughter of the accused was being brought up by FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 35/52 mother of the accused . Hence their initial version given to the police is to be relied and their deposition in the court not supporting their earlier version need not be looked into. Reliance is placed on Paramjeet's case (Supra) where in para no. 48 the Hon'ble Apex court held as under: "48. If the case is considered in the totality of the circumstances, also taking into consideration the gravity of the charges, the appellant had killed his real brother, Inderjit Singh and his nephews, Surender Singh and Saranjit Singh and injured his father Hardayal Singh and nephews Ajit Singh (PW1) and Baljit Singh (PW2) in broad day light. The FIR had been lodged promptly, naming the appellant as the person who committed the offence. All the eye witnesses, including the injured witnesses, attributed the commission of the offence only to the appellant in their statements under section 161 CrPC. It is difficult to imagine that the complainant and the eyewitnesses had all falsely named the appellant as being the person responsible for the offence at the initial stage itself. Thus, we do not see any cogent reasons to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact by the courts below. The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed."
65) The other circumstantial evidence of the prosecution to prove the presence of the accused on the spot is that shirt Ex. P4 FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 36/52 was found on the spot and taken into possession and sealed and it was having blood stains and was examined in the FSL vide report Ex. PW23/A and blood of groupA as that of deceased was detected on the said shirt. The said shirt Ex. P4 was produced by CW1 HC Atul u/s 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and in the presence of his counsel accused was asked to wear the same but he has refused to wear the same stating that he does not want to wear the said shirt as the same does not belong to him. The shirt was tried to be placed upon the accused and length of the arms of the shirt were also tried to be measured by putting the arm length upon the arm of the accused. It was found that the shirt seems to be of the size of the accused that may be worn by him. The accused was warned that his refusal to wear the shirt may result into drawing an adverse inference but he again refused to wear the same stating that the said shirt does not belong to him and again did not agree to wear it.
66) Evidence of the prosecution witnesses in whose presence the shirt found on the spot was taken into possession and sealed is not assailed in the crossexamination. The crime team report Ex.PW3/A has mentioned that a gents shirt is lying near the dead body. The evidence has sufficiently established that shirt Ex. P4 which was found on the spot near the dead body of the wife of the accused belonged to the accused and was having FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 37/52 blood stains of groupA which again leads to the proof that it was accused who was found present near the dead body of the deceased when her dead body was noticed after having been lying in pool of blood due to the daiv blow given to her. The positive assertion by PW5 who voluntarily stated that "my sister Sumitra has been murdered and she has not died as her natural death"
shows that he knew who has committed murder and has accordingly made the complaint Ex. PW5/A to the police naming the murderer that is accused Sandeep his brother in law. It was also admitted by this witness that he and other family members of the deceased /accused has not raised any suspicion on any other person including Rocky for the murder of Sumitra.
67) In his statement u/s 313 CrPC accused has taken the defence that on the date of offence he was on duty as a driver with Surender Jain of the Pragati Apartment, Pitampura and he has joined with him on 01/09/2009. Further, he has stated that he left his wife and daughter at the rented accommodation near Lal Mandir , Kirari, Nangloi and then went to his duty at about 8am.
He has failed to lead any evidence to prove those facts in evidence and further he has stated that he did not know the name of his landlord where he has left his wife and daughter on the fateful day. No evidence brought on record by the accused to FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 38/52 prove his plea of alibi. The defence taken in his statement u/s 313 CrPC is found to be false and is an afterthought. The prosecution evidence as discussed above has thus clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that accused was found present on the spot where dead body of his wife lying in a pool of blood. The question no. I is answered in affirmative.
68) "Question:II Whether deceased has died because of injuries sustained from the weapon of offence which was recovered from the spot at the instance of the accused?"
PW21 SI Prem Dutt has deposed that accused made his disclosure statement Ex.PW21/G and then pointed out towards bushes near the spot of occurrence and got recovered the weapon of offence and he has prepared the sketch of said weapon of offence vide Ex. PW21/K and said daiv was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW21/N. He has identified the daiv weapon of offence Ex. P1 stating that the same was got recovered at the instance of the accused. His deposition in that regard has been supported and corroborated by Ct. Anil PW22 who has reached the spot alongwith him. Similarly, PW23 Inspector Sanjay Kumar Investigating Officer has also fully supported the other two witnesses with regard to the recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the accused. There was nothing in the cross FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 39/52 examination of all the three witnesses so as to assail their deposition with regard to recovery of the weapon of offence Ex. P1 at the instance of accused.
69) As per FSL report Ex. PW23/G the weapon of offence was given as exhibit 6 and was found containing human hair.
The said human hair on the weapon of offence were compared through morphological and microscopical studies with exhibit3 a bunch of hair found on the spot and hair on exhibit6 were found to be human in origin. However, further opinion could not be offered from the said laboratory on account of less number of hair in exhibit6 i.e weapon of offence. However, on the weapon of offence human blood was detected. As per FSL report Ex. PW23/G the weapon of offence was made of wooden handle and metallic blade having rusty brown stains along with five strands of hair.
70) PW6 Dr. J.V. Kiran who has conducted the postmortem of deceased vide Ex. PW6/A has given cause of death as heamorrhage shock via injury no.2 caused by heavy sharp object. He has further deposed that on 23/10/09 an application was moved by the Investigating Officer regarding opinion on the weapon of offence i.e daiv (big knife). The weapon of offence was produced before him sealed with the seal of SK and has noticed that hair was there sticking to the weapon at places. He FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 40/52 further deposed that on examination of the injuries on the body of the deceased he has opined that injuries could be caused by the weapon produced before him and he gave his opinion Ex. PW6/D. PW6 has further identified the weapon of offence Ex. P1 stating that the said weapon was produced before him for obtaining opinion and he has accordingly given his opinion Ex. PW6/D.
71) According to the prosecution case the deceased had made telephonic call from the STD booth of PW10 Pradeep Kumar and in the meantime accused purchased the weapon from the shop of PW19 Sanjay. PW19 has not supported the prosecution case regarding purchase of weapon of offence from his shop. However, PW10 Pradeep Kumar has stated that one lady had come to his telephone booth in September, 2009 at about 11.00am and had telephoned on STD calling and then after about one and half minute a back call came for her on his STD and she picked up the phone saying that it was her call and talked for about 15 minutes. He further deposed that she waited for 57 minutes for another call but after making payment of Rs. 7/ for the outgoing call she left his shop. In reply to a court question he has stated that he came to know in the evening from the police that a murder of a lady was committed at a distance of about 200300 meters.
FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 41/52
72) Thus, it has been established in the prosecution evidence that the injuries on the body of the deceased having been caused by the weapon of offence Ex. P1 and deceased has succumbed to those injuries. Since deposition of PW23 and PW24 found natural, straight forward having not been assailed in the cross examination with regard to the recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the accused, it is therefore established by the prosecution that weapon of offence Ex. P1 from which injuries were caused to the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused. The question no. II is answered in affirmative.
73) "Question:III Whether there was any motive to commit murder of his wife by the accused?"
Ld Addl. PP for the State has submitted that accused has committed murder of his wife to eliminate her as he was suspecting her fidelity and character . Ld Addl. PP for the State has pointed out that accused has himself placed on record the documents markB, C and D at the time of making his defence in his statement u/s 313 CrPC which are complaints given to the SHO, Police Station Aman Vihar and ACP (Vigilance) Outer, Delhi respectively purported to have been signed by the deceased. The complaint markB dated 22/6/09 signed by FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 42/52 Sumitra Devi (deceased) shows that one Rocky made telephonic call to her on 05/6/09 stating that her husband has met with an accident and asked her to accompany him to Rohtak and accordingly she accompanied Rocky to Rohtak and in the way 34 other persons also joined out of them Anil and Praveen were known to her and all of them made her to smell something as a result she became unconscious and when she regained her consciousness she found herself at Kharkhoda Sonepat where they left her. The complaint markC and its contents shows that she reiterated the incident of 5/6/2011. she further alleged that those persons have committed rape upon her for 9 days from 6/6/09 to 14/6/09 and thereafter left her at Kharkhoda Sonepat. She further stated that they have threatened her not to disclose that incident to anyone otherwise they would kill her family. She has also mentioned the telephone number of Rocky in the said complaint. In her complaint dated 10/8/09 to the ACP Vigilance Outer Delhi against Rocky alleging that he had threatened to kidnap her and her daughter and he had been threatening her younger brother on telephone asking her family to ask her to go with him. She further alleged that Rocky has also threatened to kidnap her sister in law and Jethani stating that he has an army of bad elements. In the said complaint she has asked the ACP to take action.
FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 43/52
74) It has come in the evidence of PW5 Sukhdev that no suspicion was raised on Rocky and others about the murder of Sumitra in Police Station Nangloi when the present case FIR was registered. The contents of the these admitted documents markB, C and D shows that deceased Sumitra had remained with Rocky alongwith 23 other boys from 06/6/09 to 14/6/09. If she was kidnapped and raped, there is no explanation from the accused or the family members of the deceased as to why the complaints in that regard were not pursued sincerely so that appropriate action might have taken against Rocky and others. Ld Addl. PP for the State vehementally argued that all those complaints and the facts shows that accused and the family members of the deceased were suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and they have accordingly stated in their initial statements to the police that accused was suspecting fidelity and character of deceased Sumitra and therefore he had committed her murder.
75) PW12 Basant Lal father of the deceased in his statement u/s 161 CrPC Ex. PW12/PA has stated that his son in law Sandeep was suspecting the character of his daughter and was not having talking terms with her for the last six months. Ld Addl. PP for the State pointed out that in the court PW12 Basant Lal turned hostile and has not even identified the photographs of his FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 44/52 daughter Ex. PW8/8 to Ex. PW8/14 when the same were shown to him. Ld Addl. PP for the State pointed out that they have turned hostile as there relations with the family of the accused amicable and the daughter of the deceased was being brought up by mother of the accused. It is further stated by Ld Addl. PP for the State that Father of the deceased wanted to marry younger sister of deceased to the accused. However, suggestion given to PW12 by the Ld Addl. PP for the State in that regard was denied by the PW12.
76) In reply to court question, PW12 has stated that his son used to visit residence of the accused in order to meet daughter of Sumitra and the family of Sandeep accused present in the court is having visiting terms with their family. It has further come in the evidence of prosecution witness PW9 Ramesh that family of the deceased Sumitra has given information to the villagers that Sumitra has died after being run over by the train at Nangloi.
This false information regarding her death to the villagers and not identifying even the photograph of the deceased by PW12 shows that he has not deposed truthfully in the court. All those facts shows that PW5 Sukhdev, PW12 Basant Lal and PW4 Kamla turned hostile and did not give true information as was given at the initial stage for the reasons that the relations between the family of the deceased and the accused were amicable and both FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 45/52 the families were having visiting terms as daughter of the deceased was being brought up by the mother of the accused. In these given facts and circumstances because of deceased having lived for a few days with Rocky and others, it was natural for the accused to doubt the fidelity of the deceased. This has acted as a catalyst in the already simmering mind of the accused for eliminating her and with the said motive in his mind he has committed murder of his wife.
77) Further, the immediate cause/motive for commission of the offence by the accused may be due to the conduct of Sumitra (deceased) who had desired to have talk with someone on telephone and continued to talk for 1015 minutes which had made the accused furious, and he had immediately decided to eliminate her on the said date, time and place of occurrence. The false defence taken by the accused is another circumstance which shows that accused has committed murder of his wife with a motive that he was suspecting her fidelity and character as she has already remained out of his house with strangers for many days on some occasion. The question no.III is answered accordingly in affirmative.
Defence of the accused
78) In his statement u/s 313 CrPC in reply to question no. 109 accused has taken the defence as under: FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 46/52 "I am innocent and falsely implicated in this case. I was not present at the place of occurrence and I never visited the said place. I was called by the police through my brother in law as I was on that date on my duty as a driver with Surender Jain , Pragati Apartment, Pitampura who is running a factory of manufacturing of saboodana in Mangolpuri. I have joined duty with him on 01/09/09. I have lodged complaint against Rocky and other two persons and the complaint was lodged in PS Aman Vihar already markB, C, D. This fact was also told by me to the IO when I was called in the PS . Rocky and others used to tease my wife and extend threats to kidnap her. I have left my wife and my daughter at the rented accommodation near Lal Mandir, Kirari, Nangloi and then went to my duty at about 8am. My brother in law Sukhdev called me to come to their house in Mubarkpur by making telephonic call at about 3.30/3.45pm on my mobile no. 9466807375. At that time I was driving a car and was at Peeragarhi. I have purchased the said mobile in my name and was using it for that last 1112 months before the incident. It was prepaid BSNL mobile and it was purchased by me from Rohtak."
79) Accused has not led any evidence to prove the said defence. He even did not know the exact address of tenanted FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 47/52 premises and the name of the landlord where he has allegedly left his wife and daughter at 8.00am and he has not examined Surender Jain with whom he was working as driver from 01/09/09 and further that at about 3.30/3.45pm he was called from his house by Sukhdev on making telephonic call on his mobile no. 9466807375. The accused has miserably failed to prove his plea of alibi and his defence so taken is found to be false and an afterthought and is accordingly liable to be rejected.
80) In Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma's case referred Supra Hon'ble Apex court has stated that it is settled law that prosecution's case must stand or fall on its own legs and can not derive any strength from the weakness of the defence put up by the accused. However, a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court where various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence are in themselves complete.
81) The defence of the accused so taken by him in his statement u/s 313 CrPC has not been proved by him in any manner as he has not led any evidence with regard to the plea of alibi or to the effect that he has left the deceased and his daughter at the rented accommodation at about 8.00am on the fateful day. The evidence of the prosecution brought on record as already discussed by me has established that the accused was found present beside the dead body of his wife, therefore the stand FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 48/52 taken by the accused in his defence is found to be false and an afterthought and is accordingly rejected. The prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused by completing the chain of various circumstantial evidence in the present case which has proved those circumstances in which accused was found present on the spot beside the dead body of his wife. It has further proved the other circumstance in evidence that the shirt Ex. P4 belonged to the accused and same was found on the spot near the dead body of the deceased having blood stains and the blood on the shirt as per FSL report was found to be groupA which was of the same blood group also found on the spot and is blood group of the deceased. The prosecution further pressed into service the circumstance of recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused which was used in commission of the offence for committing murder of deceased. Further, the weapon of offence Ex. P1 is proved tobe having human blood on it and also strands of hair which as per FSL report Ex. PW23/G were found to be human in origin. Further, the prosecution has established that the shirt Ex. P4 which was taken into possession from the spot as was lying near the dead body and the shirt Ex. P4 was found having human blood of groupA.
82) All those clothes of the accused i.e Shirt Ex. P4, trouser Ex. P3 and baniyan Ex. P2 were produced by CW1 HC Atul and FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 49/52 accused was asked to wear those clothes but has refused to wear the same by simply saying that the same does not belong to him. In the presence of his counsel Shri I.S. Guliya he was asked to wear the trouser P3, baniyan Ex. P2 and shirt Ex. P4 but he has refused to wear the same despite warning that an adverse inference can be drawn for his refusal. It was observed that the clothes Ex. P2 to Ex. P4 were found to be almost of same size which can be worn by the accused. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, accused could not offer any plausible explanation for not wearing those clothes Ex. P2 to Ex. P4 which shows that he has deliberately not worn the same as the same belonged to him and therefore, an adverse inference needs to be drawn against the accused to the fact that Ex. P2 to Ex. P4 were belonging to accused and he was wearing the same at the time of commission of offence. Ex P4 was having blood of groupA on it as that of deceased and also found on the spot of occurrence from the earth control collected during investigation and these circumstance duly proved in evidence leads towards the conclusion that the person who was wearing the said shirt i.e accused was of the author of the crime.
83) As per complaint Ex. PW5/A on the basis of which FIR was registered. PW5 Sukhdev (complainant) has seen the deceased in the company of the accused proceeding to Nangloi FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 50/52 railway quarter, kacha rasta towards station and complainant has turned hostile at the time of his examination in the court for the reasons already discussed by me because family of the deceased and the accused are having visiting terms and amicable relations. PW5 Sukhdev is also visiting the house of the accused to meet his niece (daughter of deceased) and further daughter of the deceased being brought up by mother of the accused. Because of these reasons PW5 has tried to wriggle out the truth stated in the statement Ex. PW5/A at the time of his deposition in the court and has not supported the version given to the police at the initial stage. For that reasons, the version given by PW5 in the statement Ex. PW5/A is to be believed. A reliance can be placed upon the case of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma referred (Supra) and also on the recent case of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Dass Vs State of NCT of Delhi reported as 2011 Cri. L J 2903.
84) Moreover, it is already established in the evidence that it was the accused who was present on the spot beside the dead body of his wife and it was for the accused to explain as to how the injuries were caused to his wife to which she has succumbed. Further, he was required to explain as to why his shirt Ex. P4 was having blood stains of GroupA as that of deceased which was found on the spot after he has thrown the same because of blood stains on it . The false reply given by the accused to the FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 51/52 incriminating evidence against him and false defence taken by him brings his case within the four corner of the ratio of Paramjit's case referred (supra) so as to call his false defence into aid to lend assurance to the court because the various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence are in themselves complete.
85) Above discussion shows that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing such evidence on record which leads to an irresistible conclusion that it was the accused who is author of the crime and he has committed murder of his wife with a motive to eliminate her as he was suspecting her fidelity. The case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
86) I therefore hold accused Sandeep guilty and convict him u/s 302 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 July, 2011 th (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ASJ/SPECIALJUDGE(NDPS) (WEST)DELHI FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 52/52 IN THE COURT OF SHRI R.K.CHAUHAN: A S J/SPL JUDGE (NDPS) (WEST) DELHI FIR no. 384/09 Unique Case ID no. 02401R0573472009 Police station : Nangloi U/s 302 IPC State V/s Sandeep ORDER ON SENTENCE 30/07/2011 Present: Ld Addl. PP for the State.
Convict is in judicial custody with Ld Counsel Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma advocate associate of Shri I.S. Guliya advocate for the convict. Vakalatnama also filed by the Ld counsel.
I have heard Ld counsel for the accused who argued that the accused was not a previous convict in any other offence; he is of young age i.e 25 years and is having old parents to look after apart from a daughter aged about 4years who is being looked after by his aged mother. It is, therefore, submitted that in these given circumstances a lenient view may be taken against accused while awarding sentence to him.
Ld Addl. PP for the State argued that the deceased was also a young girl aged about 22 years and because of act and deeds of the accused, a life was lost in its prime youth and a young child FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 53/52 was deprived of her mother. It is further submitted that accused has committed murder of his wife because of strained relations and doubting her fidelity therefore does not deserve any leniency. Ld Addl. PP for the State, therefore, submitted that maximum sentence be awarded to the convict.
I have considered the rival submissions made at bar and also carefully examined the facts and circumstances of the case.
Considering the gravity of offence and the fact that accused instead of protecting his wife has killed her without any reason and deprived his daughter aged about 2 ½ years from the love and affection of her mother, therefore, the accused does not deserve any leniency in the sentence. The convict is accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousands only) for the offence u/s 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
Benefit of Section 428 CrPC is given to the accused for the period of imprisonment already suffered by him during trial since 22/09/2009 till today i.e 30/7/2011.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be supplied to accused free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 54/52 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30th July, 2011 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ASJ/SPECIALJUDGE(NDPS) (WEST)DELHI FIR no. 384/09 ( State Vs Sandeep) Page no............ 55/52