Delhi District Court
State vs . Mahender on 12 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL, ADDITIONAL SESSION
JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 441428/16
State Vs. MAHENDER
S/o Bhaiya Lal
R/o Jhuggi No. 60 Indra Camp No. 5,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi
FIR No. : 570/2016
Police Station : UTTAM NAGAR
Under : 302/201 IPC
Sections
Date of Institution of case : 27.09.2016
Date of Assignment to this court : 20.07.2017
at the stage of prosecution evidence
Date of Arguments : 04.02.2020
Date of Decision : 12.02.2020
JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.06.2016 at about 6:55 pm an information was received at Police Control Room at telephone No. 100 from one Sh. Sonu @ Raj SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 1 /58 Kumar which was recorded by Ct. Poonam in the PCR Form. The information was that "Yanha per ek lady ka murder ho gaya hai" and the information was passed to the concerned police station and it was recorded at PS Uttam Nagar vide DD No. 81 A at about 6:58 pm by ASI Suresh Kumar. On receipt of DD No.81A SI Govind Singh along with HC Chand Ram reached the spot at house No. A454, Shiv Vihar, JJ Colony Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and the dead body of the deceased was found lying on a cot outside the gate of the house in pool of blood. On inspection SI Govind Singh noticed that there were several injuries on the dead body of the deceased and there was a sharp cut mark was on the neck of the deceased. In house No. A467 Shiv Vihar , JJ Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, SI Govind Singh found that blood was lying near Gas Cylinder, Gas stove and bed and Sh. Parmod Kumar was found at the spot and he told to SI SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 2 /58 Govind Singh that the dead body was of his mother Smt. Kalawati and SI Govind Singh recorded his statement. In the meantime Inspector K.P. Malik SHO along with staff had also reached the spot. SI Govind Singh prepared rukka and sent HC Chand Ram to the police station for registration of the FIR. Accused Mahender was apprehended by Ct. Virender Singh, ASI Jai Pal Singh and ASI Virender Singh from near a tap on Colonel Bhatia Road, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi when he was pouring water on himself and he was brought to the spot and thereafter he was taken to the police station by ASI Virender Singh on the directions of Inspector K.P. Malik. HC Chand Ram presented the rukka before duty officer ASI Suresh Kumar, who recorded FIR No. 570/16 at about 11 pm. ASI Suresh Kumar after recording the FIR made his endorsement on the rukka and sent the copies of the FIR to Area Magistrate and Senior SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 3 /58 Officers of Police through Ct. Virender as special messenger and he also issued certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence regarding computerized copy of the FIR. On 29.06.2016 in the evening accused had come to the parental house of his wife for taking his wife Nisha with him and deceased, mother of his wife stated that she would not send the wife of the accused until accused will not improve himself and on this accused had extended threats by saying that "Mein Lashe Giraunga" and thereafter left from there. On 30.06.2016 at about 6:00 pm accused had come under the influence of liquor at the house of deceased and started talking with his son and Sh. Parmod Kumar had gone to nearby shop in the locality and when he returned after some time he saw that accused was coming out of the house having a chopper in his hand having blood stains. Sh. Parmod had seen that clothes of the accused were also having blood stains and SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 4 /58 accused had run towards the colony. As per him the deceased had come out of the house drenched in blood and had fallen on the cot outside the house and expired. The information was recorded at the police station vide DD No. 81 A and on receipt of the same SI Govind Singh had reached the spot and after recording statement of Sh. Parmod Kumar he prepared a rukka and got registered the present case. ASI Mukesh, Incharge Crime Team had inspected the spot and Ct. Naveen had taken 17 photographs of the scene of spot. The dead body of the deceased was shifted to DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. Inspector K.P. Malik lifted blood, blood stained earth and earth control from the entry door of house No. A467, Shiv Vihar, JJ Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and kept the same in three separate plastic Jars Mark A1 to A3 and sealed the same with the seal of KPM. Inspector K.P. Malik SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 5 /58 lifted blood, blood stained earth and earth control from near the cot outside the house and kept the same in three separate plastic Jars Mark B1 to B3 and sealed the same with the seal of KPM. Inspector K.P. Malik seized all the aforesaid plastic Jars. Inspector K.P. Malik seized gadda, one flag and the cot after sealing the same in three separate pullandas Mark C1 to C3 and sealed the same with the seal of KPM and seized the same. Inspector K.P. Malik prepared rough site plan at the spot. Accused was arrested by Inspector K.P. Malik and his personal search was conducted. Accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded and his blood stained wearing shirt was taken and sealed in a pullanda by him and sealed with the seal of KPM. On 01.07.2016 postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Jatin Bodwal. After postmortem blood in gauze piece and clothes of SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 6 /58 deceased were preserved and handed over to Inspector K.P. Malik who seized the same. On 31.08.2016 Sh. Ramesh Kumar had visited the spot with Inspector K.P. Malik and had taken measurements of the spot on his pointing out and on 01.09.2016 prepared scaled site plan. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana with ASI Mukesh Kumar MHCM and he made entries in Register No. 19 vide entry No. 4453 and entry No. 4454. The exhibits pertaining to this case were sent to FSL. Upon completion of investigation the chargesheet was filed.
2. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the court of Sessions being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.
3. On 06.04.2017, the charge for the offence under Section 302/201 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 7 /58 Witnesses examined:
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined total 19 witnesses which are as follows:
PW1 ASI Suresh Kumar. He deposed that on 30.06.2016 he was working as Duty Officer from 4 p.m. to 12 night and he recorded DD No. 81A, on receipt of an information through wireless regarding murder of a lady. He further deposed that he recorded FIR No. 570/16 at about 11 p.m. on the basis of rukka sent by SI Govind Singh through Ct. Chand Ram and after recording the FIR, he made his endorsement on the rukka and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Chand Ram. He further deposed that the copies of the FIR were sent to Area Magistrate and Senior of officers of police through special messenger immediately after recording the FIR. He proved the DD no. 81A as Ex.PW1/A, copy of the FIR as Ex.PW1/B, his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/C and his certificate under SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 8 /58 Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding computerized copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/D. PW2 Sh. Sonu @ Raj Kumar. He deposed that on 30.06.2016, he was present at his home and at about 05.45 p.m., he heard some noise of crime outside in the gali and on this, he came out of his house and saw that one lady was lying on a cot (charpai) in injured condition. He further deposed that he informed the police on telephone No. 100 from mobile phone No. 8447625488 which is in the name of his father. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the state as he did not support the case of the prosecution but he denied the suggestion that he had visiting terms with the injured lady. He further denied the suggestion that deceased was living in house No. A467 in front of his house. He further denied the suggestion that he had seen one person running in the gali having chopper in his hand. He further denied the suggestion that he had seen the accused and he was SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 9 /58 apprehended in the gali after some distance by beat staff. He further denied the suggestion that he was knowingly concealing the facts and has been won over by the accused. He further denied the suggestion that accused Mahender is jija of Sh. Parmod. He further denied the suggestion that that accused Mahender present in court was the same person, whom he has seen having chopper in his hand and was apprehended by the police. He further denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the police. He further denied the suggestion that he had stated the aforesaid facts to the police in his statement. He was confronted with statement Mark PW2/A, where it was so recorded and he denied having made any such statement to the police.
PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar. He deposed that in the year 2016, he was residing at H. No. A467, Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and his mother Smt. Kalawati (since deceased) SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 10 /58 was residing with him at the aforesaid address. He further deposed that it was a rented accommodation and since, he is working in Mumbai, he had left the said house. He further deposed that he has two brothers and three sisters and Nisha is one of his sister and she was married with accused Mahender in the year 2012. He further deposed that accused used to give beatings to his sister Nisha and prior to this incident, he had threatened his sister Nisha. He further deposed that two months prior to the incident his sister Nisha had come to them with her son and was living with them. He further deposed that on 29.06.2016, in the evening accused Mahender had come to their house for taking his sister Nisha with him but his mother stated to him that since he was not keeping Nisha well and until, he does not improve himself, they would not send Nisha with him and on this, accused Mahender had extended threats by saying that "main laashe giraunga" and thereafter, he left. He further deposed that SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 11 /58 on 30.06.2016, accused Mahender came again to their house at about 6 p.m. and at that time he was under the influence of some intoxication and started talking with his son. He further deposed that he asked his mother to send Nisha with accused Mahender as he was apprehending that accused Mahender would quarrel again and thereafter went to a nearby shop in the locality for purchasing recharge coupon of mobile phone. He further deposed that when after sometime, he was returning to his home and came near home, he saw that accused Mahender came out of the house in hurry and he was having a chopper in his hand, which was having blood stains and he ran towards the colony. He further deposed that he noticed that clothes of accused Mahender were also having blood stains. He further deposed that his mother Smt. Kalawati had come out of house and she was drenched in blood and had fallen on the cot outside the house and she was having injuries and became unconscious and expired. He further deposed that SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 12 /58 one Sonu @ Raj Kumar, resident of their locality informed the police on telephone number 100. He further deposed that accused Mahender was apprehended by the police and residents of the locality when he was washing his blood stains clothes. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police vide Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed that on 01.07.2016 he identified the dead body of his mother deceased Kalawati and his statement in this regard was recorded by the police vide Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that after postmortem, they received the dead body of his mother vide memo Ex.PW3/C. PW4 Ms. Nisha. She deposed that accused Mahender was known to her for the last so many years. She further deposed that in the year 2012, she started residing with the accused and they were living as husband and wife without marriage at Ashok Vihar, Delhi. She further deposed that out of their live in relationship, two children were born to her. She further deposed that after the birth SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 13 /58 of the said children, the accused told her that he was already married and having one son. She further deposed that accused used to give beatings to her. She further deposed that her brother Parmod and her mother Smt. Kalawati (deceased) were residing at H. No. A467, Shiv Vihar, J. J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi in the year 2016 and about two months prior to the incident of present case, the accused had given beatings to her and threatened to kill and on this, she had come to the house of her mother alongwith her son. She further deposed that her mother had tried to make accused understand many times not to give her beatings and to improve himself. She further deposed that she does not remember the exact date and month of incident of present case on which her mother was murdered by accused. On the day of incident, she had seen accused running in Gali having a blood stained chopper. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the state as she has resiled on some SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 14 /58 material aspects from her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. On this she admitted the fact that on 29.6.2016 in the evening, the accused had come to their house for taking her with him but her mother had stated him that till he will not improve himself and will not keep her well, she will not send her with him. She denied the fact that accused had given threatenings by saying that "Wah Lash Girayega", however, in voluntarily she deposed/stated that on the day of incident of murder, first the accused had given beatings to her and when her mother intervened to save her, he committed murder of her mother.
PW5 Ct. Poonam. She deposed that on 30.06.2016, she was on duty at police control room and on that day, at about 18.55 hrs. an information was received at police control room on telephone No.100. She further deposed that the said information was about murder of a lady in Uttam Nagar. She further deposed that she recorded the information in the prescribed form and forwarded the SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 15 /58 same on police net. She proved the prescribed form as Ex.PW5/A. PW6 SI Hrish Chand Pathak. He deposed that on 29.08.2016 he was posted in Command Room, CPCR, PHQ, Delhi as Nodal Officer and on that day, he had given a certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the PCR Form pertaining to this case. He proved the certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence act as Ex. PW6/A. PW7 Ct. Naveen. He deposed that on 30.06.2016, he was posted as photographer in Mobile Crime Team in West District and on that day, on the requisition of the local police, he alongwith ASI Mukesh, Incharge, Mobile Crime Team reached the spot at A 467, A454, Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi at about 8 p.m. He further deposed that dead body of a lady was found lying on a cot in pool of blood. He further deposed that scene of crime was inspected by ASI Mukesh Kumar and he had SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 16 /58 taken 17 photographs of the scene of the spot from different angles and after developing the prints, the photographs were given to IO. He proved the photographs as Ex.PW7/A1 to Ex.PW7/A17 and negatives thereof as Ex.PW7/B1 to Ex.PW7/B17. PW8 ASI Mukesh. He deposed that on 30.06.2016, on the requisition of the local police, he along with Ct. Naveen photographer and HC Dalip reached the spot at A467, A454, Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi at about 8 p.m. in Govt. Vehicle. He further deposed that dead body of a lady was found lying on a cot in pool of blood. He further deposed that the scene of crime was inspected by him and Ct. Naveen had taken 17 photographs of the scene of the spot from different angles. He further deposed that he inspected the scene of crime and advised the IO to lift the exhibits i.e. Blood stained earth, blood and earth control from A467 and to lift blood stained earth and earth control from A454. He further deposed that he prepared a detailed report SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 17 /58 of inspection vide Ex.PW8/A. PW9 Ct. Virender Singh. He deposed that on 30.06.2016 he along with HC Jaipal and Ct. Virender no. 2220/West was in the patrolling in beat no. 4 and when at about 6.30 p.m., they reached ABlock Shiv Vihar J.J.Colony, New Delhi they found that many public persons had gathered there. He further deposed that the public persons stated that one person had cut throat of a lady and had run away towards Colonel Bhatia Road and on this they went towards Colonel Bhatia Road and saw that the accused, present in court was standing near a tap and was lifting a tub of water. He further deposed that they tried to stop the accused from puring water on him but the accused managed to pour water on him, as a result of which the blood stains on his shirt washed away. He further deposed that accused was apprehended and he revealed his name as Mahender and they brought the accused at the spot. He further deposed that Sr. Officers of police came at the spot SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 18 /58 aadad gathered th gathered thnd public persons identified the accused stating that they had seen him while running him in the gali. He further deposed that the son of deceased had also identified the accused at the spot. He further deposed that thereafter, on the directions of Insp. K.P.Malik SHO, he had brought the accused to police station. He further deposed that after the registration of the case, he had taken the copies of the FIR to the residences of Illaka Magistrate and Sr. Officers of police as special messenger and delivered the copies there. PW 10 ASI Jaipal Singh. He deposed that on 30.06.2016, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar, New Delhi as Head Constable and that day he along with Ct. Virender no. 2220/West and Ct. Virender No. 1384/West was in the patrolling in beat no. 4 and when at about 6.30 p.m., they reached ABlock Shiv Vihar J.J.Colony, New Delhi they found that many public persons were gathered thad gathered there. He further deposed that the public pad gathered SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 19 /58 thersons told them that one person had cut throat of a lady and had run away towards Col. Bhatia Road and on this they went towards Col. Bhatia Road and saw that the accused, present in court was standing near a tap and was lifting a tub of water. He further deposed that they tried to stop the accused from pouring water on him but accused succeeded in pouring water on him, as a result of which the blood stains on his shirt washed away. He further deposed that accused was apprehended and on enquiry accused revealed his name as Mahender. He further deposed that they brought the accused at the spot i.e. H. No. A467, Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He further deposed that Senior Officers of police including SHO were found present at the spot. He further deposed that the public persons identified the accused stating that they had seen him while running him in the gali. He further deposed that the son of deceased had also identified the accused at the spot. He further deposed that SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 20 /58 thereafter, on the directions of Insp. K.P.Malik SHO, they had brought the accused to police station. He further deposed that on the same day i.e. 30.06.2016, he joined the investigation of the case with IO/Inspector K.P. Malik and SI Govind Singh and during investigation Inspector K.P. Malik lifted blood, blood stained earth and earth control from the entry door of house no. A467 Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and kept the same in three plastic jars and sealed the same with seal of KPM. He further deposed that the Jars were given Mark A1, A2 and A3. He further deposed that thereafter, Inspector K.P. Malik lifted blood, blood stained earth and earth control from near the Cot on which the dead body of deceased was lying in between House No. A454 and A468, the entry door of house no. A467 Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and kept the same in three plastic jars and sealed the same with seal of KPM. He further deposed that the Jars were given Mark B1, B2 and B3. He further SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 21 /58 deposed that all the aforesaid Jars were seized by Inspector K.P. Malik vide memo Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that Inspector K.P. Malik also seized Gadda, one Flag and the Cot after sealing the same in three separate pullandas sealed with the seal of KPM. He further deposed that the pullandas were given Serial No. C1, C2 and C3. He further deposed that the pullandas were seized vide memo Ex.PW10/B. He further deposed that after completion of the proceedings at the spot they returned to the Police station. He further deposed that accused Mahender was arrested by IO Inspector K.P. Malik in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/D. He further deposed that the accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded by IO inspector K.P. Malik vide memo Ex.PW10/E. He further deposed that the blood stained shirt which the accused was wearing was taken and was sealed in a pullanda by Inspector K.P. Malik with SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 22 /58 the seal of KPM and was seized vide memo Ex. PW10/F. He proved the case properties i.e. blood stained mat/gadda as Ex.P1, a blood stained Flag as Ex.P2, a cot as Ex.P3 and shirt as Ex.P4. PW11 Dr.V.K. Ranga. He proved the PM Report No. 1028/2016 dt. 01.07.2016 pertaining to deceased Kalawati female aged about 60 years as Ex.PW11/A which was prepared by Dr. Jatin Bodwal. He further deposed that as per the PM Report the cause of death in this case was haemorrhagic shock via injury no. 1, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that injury No. 1 & 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon and both injuries were ante mortem in nature and fresh in duration. He further deposed that time since death was approximately 12 hours to 24 prior to post mortem examination. He further deposed exhibits were sealed with seal of "PM DDUH"
and handed over to IO along with sample seal.
PW12 HC Chand Ram. He deposed that on 30.06.2016 on SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 23 /58 receipt of DD No. 81A, he alongwith SI Govind Singh reached the spot at near H. No. A454, Shiv Vihar, J. J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi at about 7.15 /7.20 p.m. He further deposed that dead body of lady in pool of blood was found lying on a cot outside the gate of the house. He further deposed that there were sharp cut marks on the neck of the deceased. He further deposed that when they entered in the house No. A454, Shiv Vihar, J. J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, they found that blood was lying near gas cylinder, gas stove and bed. He further deposed that on enquiries, the name of deceased revealed as Kalawati . He further deposed that one person namely Pramod, son of deceased Kalawati was found at spot. He further deposed that SI Govind Singh recorded his statement and in the meantime, senior officers of police including ACP and SHO alongwith staff had also reached the spot. He further deposed that SI Govind Singh prepared a rukka and sent him to police station with rukka for registration of FIR. He SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 24 /58 further deposed that he reached police station and presented the rukka before Duty Officer who recorded FIR and thereafter handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him which he brought to spot and handed over the same to Inspector K. P. Malik. Crime Team had also reached the spot and took photographs and inspected the spot.
PW 13 Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Assistant Draughtsman. He deposed that on 31.08.2016 he had visited the spot at House No. A467 & 454, Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi with IO Inspector K.P. Malik, SHO, PS Uttam Nagar and he had taken measurements of the spot on pointing out of Inspector K.P. Malik and prepared rough notes. He further deposed that on 01.09.2016, he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW13/A on the basis of aforesaid rough notes and after preparing the scaled site plan, the rough notes were destroyed. He proved the scaled site plan as Ex.PW13/A. SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 25 /58 PW 14 ASI Virender Singh. He deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW9 Ct. Virender Singh and PW10 ASI Jai Pal Singh.
PW 15 ASI Mukesh Kumar. He deposed that on 30.06.2016 Inspector K.P. Malik, SHO had deposited one cot (Charpayee) and 11 sealed pullandas with him in the malkhana. He further deposed that he made entry in Register No. 19 to this effect vide entry No. 4453 vide Ex.PW15/A. He further deposed that on 01.07.2016 Inspector K.P. Malik, SHO had deposited two sealed pullandas with him in the malkhana and he made entry in Register No. 19 to this effect vide entry No. 4454 Ex.PW15/B. He further deposed that two samples seals were also deposited in the malkhana. He further deposed that on 05.09.2016, 11 sealed pullandas and two sample seals were sent to FSL Rohini on the instructions of the IO/Inspector K.P. Malik through HC Shiva Nand vide RC No. 119/21/16 Ex.PW15/C. He further deposed that after returning from the FSL, HC Shiva Nand handed over him the receipt of FSL SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 26 /58 Ex.PW15/D. He further deposed that till the exhibits/case property remained in his custody the same was not tampered with. PW16 HC Shiva Nand. He deposed that on 05.09.2016 on the instructions of the IO/SHO Inspector K.P. Malik, he had taken 11 sealed pullandas and two sample seals pertaining to this case to FSL Rohini after receiving the same from the MHCM HC Mukesh vide RC No. 119/21/16. He further deposed that he deposited the pullanda and sample seals in the FSL and obtained the receipt from FSL and after returning to the police station he handed over the receipt of FSL to MHCM. He further deposed that till the pullandas and sample seals remained in his custody the same were not tampered with. He proved Road Certificate as Ex.PW15/C. PW17 Ms. Seema Nain, Assistant Director (Biology), FSL Rohini. She deposed that on 05.09.2016, eleven sealed parcels pertaining to this case were received in FSL and same were SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 27 /58 marked to her for examination. She further deposed that seals on the parcels were found intact and tallied with the forwarding letter. She further deposed that the parcels were opened and examined by her and she prepared a detailed report of examination vide Ex.PW17/A. She further deposed that after examination the remnants were sealed with seal of FSL.S.Nn DELHI. PW 18 SI Govind Singh. He deposed that on 30.06.2016 on receipt of DD No. 81A Ex.PW1/A, he alongwith Constable Chand Ram reached the spot at near H. No. A454, Shiv Vihar, J. J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi at about 7.15 /7.20 p.m. He further deposed that dead body of a lady in pool of blood was found lying on a cot outside the gate of the house. He further deposed that there were several injuries on the body of the deceased and there was also a sharp cut mark on the neck of the deceased. He further deposed that they entered in the house No. A467, Shiv Vihar, J. J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and found SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 28 /58 that blood was lying near gas cylinder, gas stove and bed. He further deposed that on enquiries, the name of deceased was revealed as Kalawati . He further deposed that one person namely Pramod, son of deceased Kalawati was found at spot and he recorded his statement and in the meantime, senior officers of police including ACP and SHO Inspector K.P. Malik alongwith staff had also reached the spot. He further deposed that he prepared a rukka Ex.PW18/A and sent Ct. Chand Ram to police station with rukka for registration of FIR. He further deposed that Crime Team was called at the spot and scene of crime was inspected by the Crime Team. He further deposed that the photographer of the Crime Team had taken photographs of the spot from different angles. He further deposed that Ct. Chand Ram returned to the spot after FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Inspector K. P. Malik. He further deposed that HC Jaipal and two constables both namely Virender had brought the accused SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 29 /58 Mahender present in court at the spot i.e. H. No. A467, Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and produced before Inspector K.P. Malik. He further deposed that the public persons identified the accused stating that they had seen him while running him in the gali. He further deposed that Sh. Pramod, son of deceased had also identified the accused and thereafter, on the directions of Insp. K.P.Malik SHO, the accused was taken to police station by Ct. Virender. He further deposed that on 30.06.2016, he joined the investigation of the case with IO/Inspector K.P. Malik and HC Jai Pal and during investigation Inspector K.P. Malik lifted blood, blood stained earth and earth control from the entry door of house no. A467 Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and kept the same in three plastic jars and sealed the same with seal of KPM. He further deposed that the Jars were given Mark A1, A2 and A3. He further deposed that thereafter, Inspector K.P. Malik lifted blood, blood stained earth and earth control from near SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 30 /58 the Cot on which the dead body of deceased was lying in between House No. A454 and A468 the entry door of house no. A467 Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and kept the same in three plastic jars and sealed the same with seal of KPM. He further deposed that the Jars were given Mark B1, B2 and B3 and all the aforesaid Jars were seized by Inspector K.P. Malik vide memo Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that Inspector K.P. Malik also seized Gadda, one Flag and the Cot after sealing the same in three separate pullandas sealed with the seal of KPM. He further deposed that the pullandas were given Serial No. C1, C2 and C3 and pullandas were seized vide memo Ex.PW10/B. He further deposed that after completion of the proceedings at the spot we returned to the Police station. He further deposed that accused Mahender was arrested by IO Inspector K.P. Malik in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/D. He further deposed that the SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 31 /58 accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded by IO inspector K.P. Malik vide memo Ex.PW10/E. He further deposed that the blood stained shirt which the accused was wearing was taken. He further deposed that the shirt was sealed in a pullanda by Inspector K.P. Malik with the seal of KPM and was seized vide memo Ex. PW10/F. He further deposed that during investigation Inspector K.P. Malik also made efforts to trace the weapon of offence but it could not be traced. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO. He proved the case property i.e. mat/gadda as Ex.P1, flag as Ex.P2, Cot as Ex.P3 and shirt as Ex.P4.
PW19 Inspector K.P. Malik. He deposed that on 30.06.2016, he was posted at PSUttam Nagar as SHO and on that day, he alongwith staff reached the spot at near H. No. A454, Shiv Vihar, J. J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi at about 8 p.m. He further deposed that SI Govind along with other staff was found present at SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 32 /58 the spot. He further deposed that he noticed that dead body of a lady in pool of blood was found lying on a cot outside the gate of the house. He further deposed that there were injuries on the body of the deceased and there was also a sharp cut mark on the neck of the deceased. He further deposed that he entered in the house No. A467, Shiv Vihar, J. J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and found that blood was lying near gas cylinder, gas stove and bed. One person namely Pramod, son of deceased was found at spot. He further deposed that on enquiries, the name of deceased revealed as Kalawati. He further deposed that SI Govind recorded statement of Sh. Pramod son of deceased and in the meantime, ACP along with staff had also reached the spot. He further deposed that SI Govind prepared a rukka and sent Ct. Chand Ram to police station with rukka for registration of FIR. He further deposed that Crime Team was called at the spot which reached there. He further deposed that the scene of Crime was inspected SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 33 /58 by the crime team and the photographer of the Crime Team had taken photographs of the spot from different angles. He further deposed that Ct. Chand Ram returned to the spot after FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to him. He further deposed that the investigation was taken up by him. He further deposed that HC Jaipal and Ct. Virender had brought the accused Mahender at the spot i.e. H. No. A467, Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and produced before him. He further deposed that Sh. Pramod, son of deceased had identified the accused and thereafter, he sent the accused to police station in custody of Ct. Virender. He further deposed that he prepared rough site plan Ex.PW19/A. He further deposed that on 30.06.2016, during investigation he lifted blood, blood stained earth and earth control from the entry door of house no. A467 Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and kept the same in three plastic jars and sealed the same with seal of KPM. SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 34 /58 He further deposed that the Jars were given Mark A1, A2 and A3. He further deposed that thereafter, he lifted blood, blood stained earth and earth control from near the Cot on which the dead body of deceased was lying in between House No. A454 and A468 the entry door of house no. A467 Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and kept the same in three plastic jars and sealed the same with seal of KPM. He further deposed that the Jars were given Mark B1, B2 and B3. He further deposed that all the aforesaid Jars were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that he also seized Gadda, one Flag and the Cot after sealing the same in three separate pullandas sealed with the seal of KPM and the pullandas were given Serial No. C1, C2 and C3 and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B. He further deposed that at the time of aforesaid proceeding SI Govind and HC Jai Pal were with him. He further deposed that after completion of the proceeding at the spot SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 35 /58 they returned to the Police station. He further deposed that accused Mahender was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/D. He further deposed that the accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded by him vide memo Ex.PW10/E. He further deposed that the blood stained shirt which the accused was wearing was taken. He further deposed that the shirt was sealed in a pullanda by him with the seal of KPM and was seized by seizure memo Ex. PW10/F. He further deposed that during investigation he also made efforts to trace the weapon of offence but it could not be traced and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. He further deposed that on 01.07.2016, he reached DDU Hospital and filled Form 25/35 Ex.PW19/B, prepared brief facts of the case vide memo Ex.PW19/C and made request for postmortem vide Ex.PW19/D. He further deposed he recorded statement of Sh. Manoj and SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 36 /58 Pramod regarding identification of the dead body. He proved the statement of Manoj as Ex.PW19/E and the statement of Pramod as Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that after postmortem the doctor handed over a sealed envelope sealed with the seal of hospital containing blood in gauze of deceased and another transparent plastic bag containing the clothes of the deceased and two sample seals to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/F. He further deposed that the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. He further deposed that he returned to the Police Station and deposited the exhibits and sample seals in the Malkhana. He further deposed that during the course of the investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses and on 31.08.2016 visited the spot with Sh. Ramesh Kumar Assistant Draftsman and he had taken the measurements of the spot at his instance and prepared rough notes. He further deposed that the exhibits were SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 37 /58 sent to FSL and on completion of investigation chargesheet was filed. He proved the case property i.e. mat/gadda as Ex.P1, flag as Ex.P2, Cot as Ex.P3 and shirt as Ex.P4.
5. Vide order dated 29.01.2020, prosecution evidence was closed on the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP as all the cited witnesses were examined.
Statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
6. When examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused sheltered himself under the usual plea of false implication at the instance of Sh. Parmod Kumar, brother of Nisha as he was living with Nisha and he was living with Nisha in live in relationship against the wishes of her family.
7. No evidence in defence was led by the accused in support of his case.
8. I have heard the Addl. PP for the State and LAC Sh.
SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 38 /58 Munish Kumar Sharma for accused. The material on record has been perused.
ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION:
9. Ld. Addl. PP for the state argued that on the fateful day accused has come to the house of the deceased for taking back his wife and son from parental house of his wife. However, an objection was raised by mother of his wife on the ground that the accused used to give beatings to her and she refused to send her daughter. It is further submitted that upon this accused got furious and gave stabbed injuries to the deceased and due to the said injuries she had expired. It is further submitted that the accused was seen coming out of the house of the deceased with a blood stained chopper having in his hand and runing towards the colony and at that time his clothes were also having blood stains. It is further submitted that the accused was apprehended by the police officials from near a tap and was brought to the spot. It is SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 39 /58 further submitted that PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar and PW4 Ms. Nisha have categorically deposed against the accused and the blood stains on the shirt of the accused had matched with the blood of the deceased as per the FSL report. It is further submitted that both the aforesaid witnesses had also seen the accused running in the gali having a blood stained chopper. It is further submitted that sufficient evidence by way of oral testimonies, PM report and FSL report have come on record to prove that the accused was the preparator of the crime. It is further submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is further submitted that all the proceedings conducted by the police subsequent to the incident had also been proved. It is further submitted that it was for the accused to explain as to how the blood of deceased had come on his shirt and the accused had failed to explain about the same. It is further submitted that the SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 40 /58 accused may kindly be convicted for the offence of murder of deceased Kalawati and causing disappearance of evidence as he had thrown the weapon of offence.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE:
10. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused argued that the independent witness PW2 Sh. Sonu has not supported the case of the prosecution at all. It is further submitted that PW4 Ms. Nisha had also not fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar is a planted witness and he was not present at the spot and sufficient material has come on record in the cross examination of PW3 Sh. Parmod and PW4 Ms. Nisha to show that they are not trustworthy. It is further submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case by PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar as he was not happy with the relationship between accused and his sister Ms. Nisha, who was living with the accused against their wishes. It is further SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 41 /58 submitted that as per the story of the prosecution the accused was apprehended by the Police officials from near a tap in the locality and he had poured water on him so there remains no chance of matching of blood. It is further submitted that the story of the prosecution itself is contradictory. It is further submitted that weapon of offence has not been recovered in this case. It is further submitted that PW4 Ms. Nisha was in live in relationship with the accused against the wishes of her family so there is possibility of his false implication by PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar. It is further submitted that in his cross examination PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar had admitted that they were not happy with the relationship of marriage of his sister with the accused. It is further submitted that this witness has also admitted that he had not witnessed the incident of 29.06.2016. It is further submitted that as per the cross examination of PW4 when he allegedly seen the accused running with a chopper his cousin namely Aman was also SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 42 /58 with him and they had not chased the accused to apprehend him. It is further submitted that from the aforesaid facts it is evident that PW4 Parmod was not present at the spot at all. It is further submitted that no explanation has come forward from the prosecution as to why Sh. Aman, cousin of PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar was not examined and cited as a witness. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. It is further submitted that accused is liable to be acquitted. JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON ON BEHALF OF STATE.
i) In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79.
ii) 'Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622[(1984) 4 SCC 116.
iii) 'Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. Vs. State of A.P.'' (2006) 10 SCC 17.
SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 43 /58
iv) ''Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621'', JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED .
i) Nafis@ Babli Vs. State NCT of Delhi 2011 [2] JCC 1403;
ii) Anand Kumar @ Beeru & Ors Vs. State , 2014 [1] JCC 495;
iii) Ajay @ Chotu Vs. The Sate, 2012 [2] JCC 1261 Delhi High Court;
iv) Liyakat Hussain Vs. State, 2008 [4] JCC 2614 Delhi High Court;
v) Hargiyan Singh Vs. State, 2013[3] JCC 1914 Delhi High Court;
vi) Naval Kishore @ Naval Vs. State, 2018 [1] JCC 585 Delhi High Court;
vii) Md. Sajjad Alias Raju Alias Salim Vs. State of West Bengal, (2017) 11 Supreme Court cases 150;
viii) Mohd. Mohsin Vs. State, 2048 {1} JCC 155 Delhi High Court;
ix) Karan Singh Vs. NCT of Delhi, 2018 {3} JCC 1388 Delhi SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 44 /58 High Court;
x) Vikram Singh Vs. CBI, 2018 {2} JCC 724 Delhi High Court;
xi) Shankar & Anr Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2010 [4] JCC 2630 Delhi High Court;
xii) Din Dayal Vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju & Ors., 1998 (2) Crimes 45 (SC).
xiii) M.C. Ali & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1639.
xiv) Javed Masood and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 979.
FINDINGS
11. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 19 witnesses and out of these witnesses, PW2 Sonu @ Rajkumar, PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar and PW4 Ms. Nisha are SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 45 /58 public witnesses. As per the case of the prosecution these witnesses are the star witnesses who had seen the accused coming out from the house of deceased with a blood stained chopper in his hand. Out of these three witnesses PW2 Sh. Sonu @ Rajkumar has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW4 Ms. Nisha testified that she had seen the accused running in gali having a blood stained chopper and she volunteered to depose that on the day of incident of murder, first the accused had given beatings to her and when her mother intervened to save her, he (the accused) committed murder of her mother. So there is a material contradiction in her stand and which is contrary to the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has no where claimed that the murder was committed in the presence of Smt. Nisha. In her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 30.06.2016, it is stated that she came to know about the murder of her mother after returning home and that her brother Parmod had seen the accused going SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 46 /58 towards the gali having a blood stained chopper. So, she was not present on the spot. These facts are mentioned in the last five lines in her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. The information provided by her to the police was first hand information and if the murder had actually been committed in her presence and she had seen the accused running in gali having a blood stained chopper, she would have definitely stated so to the police. So in these circumstances there are material improvements in the testimony of PW4 Ms. Nisha from her version given in the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. As per the settled legal principles of law the evidence of an eye witness should not be disbelieved on account of trivial or minor inconsistencies which do not affect the core of the prosecution case but in the circumstances where there are other factors creating doubt in the claim of the witness who happened to be a close relative, his testimony must be scrutinized closely for any improvements and in consistencies in order to reach at right SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 47 /58 and just conclusion. If the evidence is found trustworthy it should not be presumed that the interested witness would falsely implicate the accused. But in the circumstances where the testimony/version of such witness is not corroborated and supported by the other independent witness, his testimony is required to be scrutinized carefully before coming to the conclusion whether he is reliable and trustworthy or not. In the circumstances where PW2 Sh. Sonu @ Raj Kumar, an independent witness has not supported the case of the prosecution at all despite having been cross examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. at length, the testimonies of PW3 Sh. Parmod and PW 4 Ms. Nisha are required to be analysised and scrutinized carefully. In his cross examination PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar has deposed that he used to return home from work at about 1011 pm and used to work on every day of the week. He also answered that on 30.06.2016, he returned home early at 5 pm and on SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 48 /58 29.06.2016 he returned home at about 99.30 pm. He further deposed that his cousin namely Aman accompanied him to the shop of mobile recharge coupon and when he had seen the accused running with a chopper his cousin Aman was also with him and they did not try to apprehend him. From the above deposition it is clear that one person namely Aman was with PW4 Sh. Parmod and as a natural human tendency at least one of them could have chased the accused for apprehending him but there is nothing on record to show that any such effort was made. The information at the police station was received about the incident at about 6.58 pm and as per the testimonies of police officials the police had reached the spot at around 7.15/7.20 pm and the rukka was sent to the police station at about 9.35 pm and before sending the rukka the lifting of exhibits, sealing and seizure were not conducted and the same were conducted subsequently. It is apparent that before sending the rukka only the scene of crime SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 49 /58 was inspected by the Crime Team and statement of PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar was recorded and no more proceedings were conducted. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused was brought to the spot before sending the rukka. There is some force in the argument of defence counsel that PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar was not present at the spot and he had came later on after the incident. From the cross examination of PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar and the fact that rukka was sent by the police at 9.35 pm and not before, a doubt has been created in the case of the prosecution about the presence of PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar at the spot and from the timing of preparing and sending the rukka, the possibility of PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar not being at the spot can not be ruled out. The presence of PW3 Sh. Parmod Kumar is highly doubtful. The entire testimony of PW4 Ms. Nisha is full of contradiction and does not appear to be reliable and trustworthy. Since the independent witness PW2 Sh. Sonu @ Rajkumar has SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 50 /58 not supported the case of the prosecution and did not depose anything against the accused and PW3 Sh. Parmod and PW4 Ms. Nisha are not to be found reliable and trustworthy, the case of the prosecution remains to be a case of circumstantial evidence. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79 it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests :
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 51 /58 must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 [(1984) 4 SCC 116], it was held that: ''the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused cannot be made basis for ignoring serious infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. These are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 52 /58 (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
12. The weapon of offence has not been recovered in this case. It is not the case of prosecution that accused was arrested after few days of the incident. The accused in this case was SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 53 /58 apprehended from a nearby place in the same locality then it is surprising that how the recovery of weapon of offence could not be effected. The remaining only circumstance against the accused that the blood of the deceased matched with the blood stains on his shirt of the accused. As per the case of the prosecution the accused was apprehended from near a tap. As per testimony of PW9 Ct. Virender Singh accused was standing near a tap and was lifting a tub of water and they tried to stop the accused from pouring water but he managed to pour water on him as a result of which the blood stains on his shirt washed away. PW10 ASI Jai Pal Singh had also deposed that they tried to stop the accused from pouring water but he succeeded in pouring water on him as a result of which the blood stains on his shirt washed away. From the testimonies of witnesses it has come on record that the blood stains on the shirt of the accused had washed away. In these circumstances, it can not be safely held that the possibility of any SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 54 /58 tampering with the shirt of accused can be completely ruled out. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt as not to leave any reasonable ground being inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. The Dist. Inspector of Police and Ors.: (2015) 10 SCC 152 has held as under:
"25. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam: (2013) 12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however, grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be"
true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 55 /58 and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused".
Reliance can be placed on 'Nawal Kishore @ Nawal Vs. State', 2008 (1) JCC 858 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein in it has been held in para No. 60:
"60. Unfortunately for the prosecution, the other two witnesses who would have supported the prosecution case PW6 and PW9, have both turned hostile. The incident happened right in front of the house of PW9 and therefore he was in the best position to speak about it. Yet he did not support the prosecution. He was an uninterested witness whereas PW2 was an interested witness. With the uninterested witness not supporting the case of the prosecution and the interested witness not inspiring confidence, the benefit of doubt in the circumstances should be given to the accused".
SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 56 /58 It has been held in 'Shanker and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)', 2010 (4) JCC 2630 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para No. 17:
"17. Before the Court bases conviction on the testimony of an eyewitness, it must be satisfied that he is a truthful witness so that implicit reliance can be placed on his testimony. In order to form basis of conviction, the testimony of the eye witness should be such that it inspires confidence and leaves no reasonable doubt about his presence at the scene of occurrence. It the behaviour of the person claiming to be an eye witness is contrary to the course in which a similarly situated person would normally behave and there is no satisfactory explanation for such an abnormal conduct, it will not be safe to base the conviction solely on the basis of his testimony, since his very credibility stands impeached SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 57 /58 and becomes suspect on account of such a behaviour".
Though it is correct that valuable life has been lost but that does not mean accused should be convicted for the same without corroboration.
13. Accordingly, the accused Mahender is acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt for the offence U/s 302/201 IPC. Bail bonds in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. have been furnished on behalf of the accused in compliance of the direction of the Court. The same have been accepted and shall remain in force for a period of six months from today. Previous bail bonds stands discharged. Case property pertaining to the present case, if any be confiscated. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in the open court. (Ajay Goel)
Dated: 12.02.2020 Additional Sessions Judge
Special Judge (NDPS),
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
Digitally
signed by
AJAY AJAY
Date:
GOEL
GOEL 2020.02.18
10:08:50
+0530
SC No. 441428/16 State Vs. Mahender page 58 /58