Delhi District Court
State vs . on 20 March, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
IN RE : Sessions Case No. : 88/17
FIR No. : 919/16
P.S. : Mangol Puri
U/s : 302 IPC
Date of registration : 10022017
Reserved for Judgment on: 14032018
Judgment Announced on : 20032018
State
Vs.
Narender @ Lala
S/o Sh. Munna Lal
R/o L152 & C899,
Mangol Puri, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 22092016, at about 10:15 a.m. an information was received at P.S. Mangol Puri given by Ct. Krishan from S.G.M. Hospital regarding a lady namely Anju brought to the hospital by her husband has been declared brought dead vide MLC No. 18103/16. This information was recorded vide DD No. 11 A and copy of the same was handed over to SI Amit Rana who alongwith constable Sanjeev reached at S.G.M. Hospital and collected the MLC of deceased Anju.
Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 1 of 34 22. On inspection ligature marks were noticed on the dead body, so the dead body was shifted to Mortuary and preserved. In the hospital accused Narender @ Lala was present and on inquiry from him it was revealed that the deceased was his wife and they had married 2 years ago. Since the death was unnatural so the parents of the deceased and SDM of the area concerned were informed about the incident. Crime team was called at the spot and the spot was got inspected by the incharge crime team. Inquiries were made from accused Narender Lala (husband of deceased) regarding sequence of events of the said incident who told that as a daily routine, in the morning he had breakfast with his wife Anju, then went to purchase chips and milk and after purchasing the same he gave to his wife and went to his office. On reaching the factory he noticed that he had forgotten his purse, therefore, for taking his purse, he again came to his house.
3. On reaching the house, he found his wife was lying on the floor, he thought that perhaps she had received electric shock. He lifted his wife and put her on the bed and called the neighboures for help. His neighboure Simran came there and gave massage on the legs and hands of his wife but to no effect. Then he handed over his daughter to his sisterinlaw (bhabi) Premwati who lives in his neighbourhood and on the asking of Simran he called Dr. Bihari from his neighbourhood who told him to remove his wife to the hospital. Then he alongwith his sisterinlaw (bhabi) removed his wife to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where she was declared "brought dead"
4. Thereafter Sh. Amit Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Rohini got Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 2 of 34 3 conducted the postmortem of deceased Anju and recorded the statement of Kanta Devi (mother of the deceased). In the postmortem, result of death was given as asphyxia due to strangulation.
5. On the basis of the statement of mother of the deceased and postmortem report, F.I.R. bearing No. 919/16 was registered at P.S. Mangol Puri and investigation went underway. During the course of investigation accused Narender @ Lala was arrested. After the completion of investigation final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate who after completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial.
6. On 29032017, a charge U/s 302 IPC was framed against accused Narender @ Lala to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses.
8. PW 1 Smt. Kanti, PW 2 Ram Rattan, PW 3 Rakesh, PW 4 Smt. Simran and PW 7 Smt. Premwati are the material public witnesses and I will discuss their testimonies in the later part of the judgment.
9. PW 5 is Sh. Subhash Prasad @ Doctor Bihari, who on 22092016, on the request of accused Narender visited his house to examine deceased Anju as accused told him that his wife was unconscious. On reaching the house of the accused he examined Anju (wife of the accused) who was lying on the bed and her feet were falling from the bed, a lady was also rubbing her hands and feet. PW5 examined pulse of Anju and told accused Narender to take her to Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 3 of 34 4 the hospital as pulse of Anju was not recordable.
10. PW 6 H.C. Mahavir Prasad is the duty officer. On 22092016, at about 7:00 p.m on the basis of the rukka brought by Inspector Arvind Kumar, SHO PS Mangol Puri, he got recoreded the FIR of the present case from the CIPA operator and copy of the FIR and rukka was given to Inspector Rajpal for further investigation of the case. After registration of the FIR, PW 6 made his endorsement regarding registration on the rukka which he proved as Ex. PW 6/A. He also proved on record the copy of the FIR as Ex. PW 6/B and certificate U/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 6/C.
11. PW 8 is Brijesh who on 22092016, was working as Tailor in factory No. 72, New Friends Enclave, Sultan Puri, Delhi. He deposed that on 22092016, at about 9:00 a.m he reached in the said factory and at that time, contractor of factory namely Lala (accused) whom he correctly identified also reached the factory. He gave keys of the factory to him and told him that he would be returning after some time as he had left his purse at home. He further deposed that after some time, he left the factory and came in the factory in the evening having handcuffs in his hand and was in the custody of police.
12. PW 9 SI Harish Chand Pathak is the Nodel Officer, CPCR, PHQ. He proved on record certificate issued by him U/s 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the PCR call on 28072016 at 5:14 p.m from mobile number 9643244890 at channel No. 108 and PCR call on 29072016 at 7:09 p.m from mobile No. 9643244890 at Channel No. 112 and PCR call on 29072016 at 12:25 p.m from mobile No. 9643244890 at Channel No. 140 as Ex. PW 9/A. Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 4 of 34 5
13. PW 10 H.C. Prem Singh deposed that on 28072016, he was posted at PP SGM Hospital, P.S. Mangol Puri and he was on emergency duty. At about 5:37 p.m, he received an information from DD writer, PP SGM Hospital about quarrel at L152, Mangol Puri Delhi vide DD No. 32 PP. He proved the same as Ex. PW 10/A. He further deposed that on the receipt of said information, he reached at the spot i.e. L152, Mangol Puri, Delhi where one lady Anju W/o Narender met her and told that she had some altercation with her husband on some domestic issue. The said call was filed vide DD No. 40 PP. He proved the true attested copy of the same as Ex. PW 10/B.
14. PW 11 H.C. Krishan was posted at PP SGM P.S. Mangolpuri. He proved on record the attested copy of DD No. 33 PP SGM as Ex. PW 11/A which was regarding an incident of quarrel and the same was assigned to him for investigation. He further deposed that he reached the spot and inquired from the complainant about the incident and he was told that the matter was settled. At 07:50 p.m., DD No. 34 PP SGM, Mangol Puri was lodged and DD No. 33 PP SGM was filed. He proved on record attested copy of DD No. 34 PP SGM, Mangolpuri as Ex. PW 11/B.
15. PW 12 Ct. Bharat deposed that on 13122016, he was posted at PS Mangolpuri and on that day he deposited the exhibits of the present case vide RC No. 322/21/16 at FSL Rohini. He further deposed that after depositing the same, he handed over the acknowledgment receipt and copy of the RC to MHC(M).
16. PW 13 Ct. Naveen working as assistant draftsman at the instance of Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 5 of 34 6 SI Amit took the measurements of the place of incident and prepared the site plan and proved on record the scaled site plan prepared by him as Ex. PW 13/A.
17. PW 14 Ms. Rajinderi is the owner of house No. C899 Mangol Puri, Delhi, ground floor of which was let out by her to accused Narender @ Lala on a monthly rent of Rs. 3500/ in the month of August, 2016. She further deposed that on 22092016, accused Narender was residing in her house as a tenant and they did not have any agreement for the same and she did not issue any receipt for the rent. She identified the accused.
18. PW 15 SI Akashdeep is the Incharge Mobile Crime Team who on 22092016 alongwith ASI Karambir (photographer), H.C. Arvind and other staff reached at C899, GF, Mangol Puri where they met with SI Amit. He further deposed that he inspected the spot and ASI Karambir took the photographs of the spot from different angles. Thereafter they came to mortuary, SGM Hospital where dead body was kept by IO. Photographs of the dead body were taken by ASI Karambir. He further deposed that thereafter he prepared his crime team report which is Ex. PW 15/A.
19. PW 16 ASI Karambir is the photographer of Mobile Crime Team. On 22092016, he alongwith SI Akashdeep, H.C. Arvind and other staff reached at C899, GF Mangol Puri where they met with SI Amit. He further deposed that he took 13 photographs of the spot from different angles and thereafter they came to mortuary SGM Hospital where dead body was kept by IO. Photographs of the dead body were also taken by him. He proved on record the photographs as Ex. PW 16/A1 to 16/A11 respectively. He also proved on record the Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 6 of 34 7 negatives of the photographs as Ex. PW 16/B1 to Ex. PW 16/B13.
20. PW 17 is H.C. Narender Kumar who on 22092016, was working as DD writer at PS Mangol Puri. He proved on record DD No. 11 A as Ex. PW 17/A vide which information regarding admission of Anju by her husband in SGM Hospital vide MLC No. 181/03/16 was received and it was stated that injured was brought dead.
21. PW 18 is ASI Mam Chand who on 29072016, at about 12:23 noon received a call regarding quarrel at L152, Mangol Puri and on the basis of which he filled the PCR form. He proved the same as Ex. PW 18/A.
22. PW 19 is Sh. Chandra Ban @ Pradeep. According to him, he alongwith accused Narender @ Lala was working in the factory of shoes upper, New Friends Enclave, Sultan Pur Majara. He correctly identified the accused. He further deposed that on 22092016, accused Narender @ Lala came to the factory and he handed over the key of the factory to one worker namely Brijesh and thereafter he returned to his house by saying that he has forgot his purse and after taking the same, he would come back within 1520 minutes but accused did not return. He further deposed that he marked the attendance of all the workers in attendance register including accused Narender @ Lala reflected at serial No. 2. He proved on record the photocopy of the attendance register as Ex. PW 19/B. He further deposed that in the evening, he came to know that accused Narender @ Lala has murdered his wife. He further deposed that on 22092016, accused came to the factory and thereafter he left the factory and in the evening he came in the factory in the custody of police.
Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 7 of 34 823. PW 20 Sh Amit Kumar Singh is the executive Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi, who on 22092016, on receiving information from SHO, PS Mangol Puri about the present incident to the effect that a lady was brought dead in SGM Hospital and her dead body was preserved in the Mortuary by the local police, reached there. In the Mortuary of SGM Hospital he met Smt. Kanti (mother of deceased Anju) and recorded statement of Smt. Kanti. He proved on record the statement of Smt. Kanti (mother of deceased Anju) which was recorded by him on 22092016, as Ex. PW 1/A, his signatures at points X and Y and that of complainant Kanti at point A. He deposed that the statement is in his handwriting and he made his endorsement and forwarded the same to SHO, PS Mangol Puri to take action as per law. He proved his endorsement at point Z on Ex. PW 1/A. He also filled form 2535 for inquest proceedings which he proved as Ex. PW 20/A.
24. He further deposed that he got recorded the dead body identification statements of Rakesh Kumar and Smt. Kanti as Ex. PW 3/A and Ex. PW 1/B respectively which bears his signatures at point X on both the statements. He further deposed that he also made request to perform the autopsy. He proved his application in this regard as Ex. PW 20/B.
25. PW 21 Sh. Harvir Shastri brought the summoned record i.e. original marriage certificate of accused Narender and Kumari Anju. He also brought the documents submitted by the parties at the time of marriage. He proved on record the photocopy of the marriage certificate as Ex. PW 21/A and photocopies of 10 documents submitted by the parties at the time of registration Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 8 of 34 9 of marriage as Ex. PW 21/B1 to Ex. PW 21/B10 which bears the signatures of accused Narender and deceased Anju.
26. PW 22 Dr. Gurdeep Singh, CMO, SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi deposed that on 22092016, patient Anju was brought to casualty in unconscious state who was examined by Dr. Aekansh the then J.R. Patient was declared brought dead and after preliminary examination the body of the deceased was shifted to mortuary for postmortem. He proved the MLC as Ex. PW 22/A, bearing the signatures at Dr. Aekansh at point A. PW 22 identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Aekansh as he had worked under his supervision.
27. PW 23 Ct. Rajpal deposed that on 29072016, he was posted at CPCR, PHQ, Delhi and on that day, at abut 19:09 hours, he received an information from mobile number 9643244890 and caller informed him that there was a quarrel at L152, Mangol Puri, Delhi. He filled up the said information in the PCR form which he proved as Ex. PW 23/A and forwarded the said information to the concerned District at Police station.
28. PW 24 ASI Suresh Kumar is the MHC(M). He proved on record the relevant entries made by him in register No. 19 with regard to the depositing of exhibits of the case in the malkhana. He proved on record the copy of entries made by him in register No. 19 at serial No. 3990 and 4026 as Ex. PW 24/A and Ex. PW 24/B respectively. He also proved on record the copy of RC No. 322/21/16 as Ex. PW 24/C vide which the exhibits of the case were sent for depositing at FSL Rohini.
Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 9 of 34 1029. PW 25 SI Amit Rana is the first IO of the case. He unfolded the sequence of investigation done by him. He proved on record the seizure memo of cut portion of bed sheet which was blood stained as Ex. PW 25/A and seizure memo of one piece of Jhumka (earring) as Ex. PW 25/B. He further proved on record seizure memo of two sealed pullandas with the seal of SGMH Mortuary Mangol Puri, Delhi alongwith sample seal which was collected by him after postmortem as Ex. PW 25/C, seizure memo of artificial jewellery of deceased Anju as Ex. PW 25/D, site plan of the spot as Ex. PW 25/E, arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW 25/F, personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW 25/G and disclosure statement of the accused as Ex. PW 25/H, pointing out memo of the place of occurrence as Ex. PW 25/J and seizure memo of the electric wire with which Anju was strangulated as Ex. PW 25/K. He identified the accused and the case property.
30. PW 26 is Dr. Munish Wadhawan, who on 22092016, at 3:30 p.m, conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Anju. He proved on record the postmortem report as Ex. PW 26/A. He also proved on record the application moved by the IO for subsequent opinion as Ex. PW 26/B and the subsequent opinion given by him as Ex. PW 26/C. He identified the electric wire which was examined by him which is Ex. P4.
31. PW 27 Israr Babu is the alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. After seeing the customer application form, call details record and certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act of mobile No. 9643244890 for the period from 20072016 to 10082016, he deposed Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 10 of 34 11 that as per records, the said mobile number was issued in the name of Narender S/o Munni Lal. He proved on record the certified copy of customer application form alongwith identity proof as Aadhar card as Ex. PW 27/A and Ex. PW 27/B respectively. CDR for the said period as Ex. PW 27/C. Certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of the aforesaid CDR as Ex. PW 27/D. He further deposed that all the documents were supplied to IO during investigation vide covering letter dated 14102016, which he proved as Ex. PW 27/E.
32. PW 28 is Sita Ram who on 28072016, was posted at CPCR, PHQ, Delhi and on that day at about 17:14:48 hours, he received an information from mobile No 9643244890 regarding quarrel at L152, Mangol Puri, Delhi. He filled up the said information in the PCR form which he proved as Ex. PW 28/A and forwarded the said information to concerned District and Police Station. He further deposed that later on, Libra08, H.C. Prem who arrived at the spot passed the information that there was "2 padosiyo ki kaha suni" and such information is at point X in the PCR form Ex. PW 28/A.
33. PW 29 Inspector Rajpal is the second IO of the case. He also narrated about the sequence of investigation done by him. He proved on record the FSL result as Ex. PW 29/A and the forwarding letter as Ex. PW 29/B. He identified the accused and the case property.
34. After the closing of the prosecution evidence statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating evidence was put to him. Accused denied the same and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 11 of 34 12 implicated in the present case. He also stated that the mobile No. 9643244890 was being used by his wife and his mobile was not in working condition at the time of incident. He further stated that he never indulged in any extra marital affair and his inlaws were having suspicion over him for the same. He further stated that there used to be quarrels in his neighbourhood and his wife Anju used to call at 100 number to pacify the matter of neighbours. He further stated that he had told to the police that his house was found ransacked but no investigation was done by the police in this regard. No evidence in defence was led by the accused.
35. I have heard Ms. Usha Rani, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, and Ld. Addl. PP (substitute) for the state and have also gone through the records of this case.
36. It is stated by the Ld. Addl. PP (substitute) for the sate that on the basis of the evidence recorded and the material produced on record, the accused is liable to be convicted for the murder of his wife. It is further urged that the accused had extra marital affair with a younger girl who was residing in the street where accused used to reside which resulted in constant fights between deceased and the accused. It is further urged that in this regard DD No. 32 and 34 have been recorded. It is further urged that PW 2 and PW 3 have also stated about the affair of the accused with the said girl. It is further urged that his affair and fight with his wife gave him a motive to kill Anju. He further argued that it is for the accused to explain as to how his wife died in the matrimonial home.
Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 12 of 34 1337. On the other hand, it is urged by the Ld. Legal Aid counsel for the accused that the disputes between the accused and his wife were normal matrimonial disputes and they cannot be such which could have prompted the accused to murder his wife. She further urged that the prosecution has not made the said girl a witness with whom it is alleged that the accused had extra marital affair. It is further urged that the police has not conducted a fair investigation and has falsely implicated the accused.
38. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and the law as far as circumstantial evidence has been well settled. The principles of law governing the proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court available on the issue the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstance, circumstances against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstances must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime. The above said principles deducible from the 5 principals of law laid down by the Hon' Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.
39. The material witnesses in this case are PW 1 Smt. Kanti who is the mother of the deceased, PW 2 Sh. Ram Rattan who is the father of the deceased and PW 3 Rakesh who is the brother of the deceased. There is one more witness apart from these relatives who is PW 4 Simran who used to reside Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 13 of 34 14 in the neighburhood of the accused.
40. Now coming to the testimony of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. It is to be seen as to what they have stated about the extra marital affair of the accused. PW 1 has deposed that the accused and her daughter Anju got married in the year 2013 in a temple. Thereafter they both started residing at L Block, Mangol Puri. The marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed without informing her parents but lateron their matrimonial relations were accepted. She further deposed that the accused had not demanded any dowry at any point of time. She has further deposed that sisters of the accused used to taunt her deceased daughter, however, accused used to keep her happily and take her care.
41. She further deposed that after some time accused Narender made relations with a younger girl residing in the same street and due to such matrimonial affair, he started quarreling with the deceased and he also used to beat deceased Anju and did not allow Anju to touch his mobile phone. She has further deposed that because of such affair of the accused, her deceased daughter left the house at L Block and they started living in a house at C Block Mangol Puir but the accused continued his extra marital affair with the said girl. She has further deposed that on 19092016, it was birthday of daughter of Anju and her others daughters namely Suman and Neha attended her birthday ceremony and informed her that Anju was very happy. She further deposed that on 21092016 at about 10:30 p.m her daughter Suman made a telephonic call to Anju who told her that everything was fine now and she was happy.
Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 14 of 34 15But on 22092016, she was present with her son and husband at their tea stall. Two persons came to her shop at about 1011 a.m and told her son Rakesh that Anju had expired in S.G.M. Hospital. She went to the hospital and identified the dead body of her daughter. The accused was not found in the hospital. Her statement Ex. PW 1/A was recorded by the executive magistrate.
42. This witness was cross examined and in her cross examination she has stated that she had no knowledge if her deceased daughter Anju had taken divorce from Yashpal, her previous husband. She further stated that she is not aware about any dispute between said Yashpal and her deceased daughter Anju. She denied the suggestion that she was not happy with the marriage of her deceased daughter Anju with accused. She further stated that her deceased daughter Anju was having apprehension that accused was having extra marital affair with a young girl. She further stated that it was not a mere apprehension of her daughter but it was a fact that accused was having extra marital affair with a young girl. She has further stated that she was aware that a quarrel took place between accused and the girl with whom he was having extra marital affair and the matter was reported to the police. She further stated that she was not aware if the girl with whom accused Narender was having extra marital affair gave a chappal blow on the face of her deceased daughter Anju. She denied that after that incident she and her family members had quarreled with the said girl.
43. PW2 Ram Rattan is the father of deceased Anju. He has deposed more or less on the lines of PW 1 his wife. He deposed that his deceased Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 15 of 34 16 daughter Anju told her that accused was having extra marital affair with a girl with whom he used to talk on mobile phone. He has further deposed that this extra marital affair of the accused had become the bone of contention between the accused and his daughter Anju. He has also deposed that because of his extra marital affair his daughter alongwith accused shifted to some other location in Mangol Puri to avoid quarrel and extra marital affair of the accused but the circumstances did not change and the accused continued his extra marital affair and the quarrel between the accused and the deceased continued.
44. He has further deposed that his daughter Anju used to tell him about the extra marital affair of the accused and her quarrel with the accused. He further deposed that accused wanted to leave his daughter at his house but his daughter was not ready for this. He further deposed that whenever the accused visited his house he tried to make him understand. He has further deposed that once accused visited his house alongwith his deceased daughter Anju and told him about the quarrel between them.
45. He further deposed that accused Narender wanted him to give in writing that in case something happens to his daughter Anju then accused would not be responsible. He has further deposed that accused had told him that he was fed up with suspicious nature of Anju. He further deposed that on 22092016, at about 11:30 a.m he was informed that his daughter Anju had died in S.G.M. Hospital. He has deposed that neither the accused nor any one from his family was present in the hospital and after the postmortem he Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 16 of 34 17 cremated his daughter Anju.
46. In his cross examination he has stated that he was not aware if first husband of her daughter was not happy with her. He has further deposed that the girl with whom the accused was having extra marital affair lived near the house of his deceased daughter Anju. He has further deposed that he had an altercation with the family members of the said girl.
47. Another public witness is PW 3 Rakesh who is the brother of deceased Anju. He has also deposed that accused had developed extra marital affair with some girl and used to keep talking with her on his mobile phone and this extra marital affair of the accused was the bone of contention between the accused and deceased Anju. He has also deposed that accused and Anju shifted to Mangol Puir because of extra marital affair of the accused but the circumstances remained unchanged and there used to be quarrel between the accused and his sister because of extra marital affair of the accused. He has also deposed that accused wanted to leave deceased Anju at the house of her father but she was not ready and accused had even asked his father to give in writing that the accused would not be responsible if something happens to Anju. He has further deposed that on 22092016, at about 11:30 a.m he was informed that his sister has died and she is in SGM Hospital. In the hospital neither the accused was there nor anyone from his family was present and they had performed last rites of Anju after taking her body from the mortuary.
48. In his cross examination he stated it to be as correct that the said girl Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 17 of 34 18 had given a chappal blow to his sister and a DD entry was lodged in this regard. He further stated that there was an altercation with the family members of that girl with whom the deceased suspected the accused of having illicit relations.
49. PW 4 is Simran who is the neighbur of the accused, has deposed that on 22092016, she was present at her house and at about 9:30 a.m accused called her saying "Bhabi Dekhna Anju Ko Kaya Ho Gaya Hai". So she immediately rushed to the house of the accused and found that Anju was lying in the room and her feet were falling down from the bed and there was no movement in her body. A little amount of blood was visible which was coming out of one of her ears. She further deposed that accused told her that "Bhabi Hamare TV Ko Chalate Huye Current Aa Jata Hai Shayad Anju Ko Current Lag Gaya Hai". Thereafter she and accused started rubbing her hands and feet. Accused told her that he had gone to his factory but when he reached there he found that he had forgot his purse at home, so he came back from the factory and had told her that when he had left for factory Anju was perfectly all right.
50. She has further deposed that accused told her that when he had return from the factory to collect his purse Anju was lying on the floor and he had put her on the bed. She has further deposed that she asked the accused to call the doctor so he called a doctor from the neighbourhood who came and asked them to take Anju to hospital. She has further deposed that accused brought an Erickshaw and they took Anju to hospital.
51. In her cross examination she stated that she has never heard any Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 18 of 34 19 noises or any sort of quarrel or altercation from the house of the accused. She stated that accused used to be calm and behaved properly and in a decent maner in the locality. She stated that she has not noticed the accused going and returning from his work in the morning. She also stated that she did not notice any stranger going or coming out of the house of the accused. She stated that she could not admit or deny if any stranger or outsider had entered the house of the accused and killed Anju in his absence.
52. PW 7 is another public witness namely Premwati. She has deposed that on 22092016, at abut 9:30 a.m accused came to her house alongwith a female child and told her that she was crying despite his efforts. Accused handed over the female child to her and left for his house. She further deposed that since the child was crying so she took the child to the house of Narender (accused) and saw that wife of accused was lying on the bed and one lady was rubbing hands of Anju. She has further deposed that accused brought E rickshaw and she alongwith accused Narender took Anju to hospital.
53. In her cross examination she has stated that accused had good relations with his wife and she had not heard about any quarrel between them. She has further stated that Anju had never complaint to her about extra marital affair of her husband. She has further stated that police apprehended the accused in the hospital in her presence.
54. MOTIVE : There is no eye witness of this case and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Firstly it is to be seen whether the accused had any motive for the crime. According to the prosecution the accused was having Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 19 of 34 20 extra marital affair with one lady which was not to the liking of his wife deceased Anju, so the accused had a motive to do away with his wife. On the other hand, according to the counsel for the accused there were only normal matrimonial disputes and accused was not having any extra marital affair. It was also argued that the girl with whom accused is alleged to have extra marital affair has not been examined. Now in order to look for the motive, the statements of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 becomes relevant who are mother, father and brother of deceased Anju and also the defence taken by the accused.
55. As per these witnesses the accused and deceased had a love marriage and there was no demand of dowry from the side of the accused but they all have deposed that accused was having relations with a young girl residing in the same street and because of this extra marital affiar the accused used to beat Anju and did not allow to touch his mobile phone. When PW 1 was cross examined she categorically stated that she was not having mere apprehension about the accused's extra marital affair but she was sure that accused was having extra marital affair with a young girl. She even stated in her cross examination that she is aware about a quarrel which took place between her deceased daughter and the girl with whom the accused is said to have extra marital affair.
56. According to this witness because of this affair of the accused the accused and his deceased daughter had left their house at L Block Mangol Puri and started living in a tenanted house at CBlock Mangol Puri but the accused continued his extra marital affair. Now this part of her cross Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 20 of 34 21 examination has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. This shows that in order to avoid that girl with whom the accused is stated to have extra marital affair, the accused and the deceased shifted from their house which was near to the house of the said girl. This fact of shifting of the residence has also been deposed by other Pws i.e. PW 2 and PW 3 who are the father and brother of deceased Anju and their testimonies on this aspect have also gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Now this shifting of the residence of the accused from L Block Mangol Puri to C Block Mangol Puri gives force to the contention of the witnesses that because of the extra marital affair of the accused on the insistence of deceased Anju the house was changed by the accused.
57. Now coming to the quarrel between the deceased and the accused. During the course of the arguments counsel for the accused has submitted that the quarrel between the accused and the deceased were normal matrimonial quarrel and nothing more than that. In this context DD Nos. 32 PP, 33 PP, 34 PP and 40 PP are relevant. DD No. 32 PP is dated 28072016, which is Ex. PW 10/A and in response to that DD PCR has reached the house of the accused on the same day i.e. on 28072016 at about 8:30 p.m and it was found that a quarrel had taken place between the accused Narender and his wife Anju and he said DD No. 32 PP was filed vide DD No. 40 PP Ex. PW 10/B.
58. There is another DD on record which is Ex. PW 11/A which is DD No. 33 PP dated 29072016 made at about 7:20 p.m about a quarrel in house bearing No. L152 Mangol Puri. This call was attended to by PCR and H.C. Krishan who had received DD No. 33 PP reached at L152, Mangol Puri and Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 21 of 34 22 found that some arguments have taken place between deceased Anju and her neighbour Gita.
59. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the accused that the disputes between the accused and his wife deceased Anju were normal matrimonial dispute has no force because if the disputes were normal disputes then deceased Anju would not have made calls to the police. The disputes must have taken ugly turn because of which deceased Anju had to call the police.
60. One of the DD bearing No. 34 PP does talk about a quarrel between deceased Anju and one girl namely Geeta. No doubt the prosecution has not named the girl with whom the accused is alleged to have extra marital affair but all the witnesses i.e. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 who are the mother, father and brother of the deceased Anju have stated in tandem about the complaints made by deceased Anju to them regarding the extra marital affair of the accused and quarrel between them about the extra marital affair of the accused. These allegations made by these witnesses gets support from DD No. 34 PP and 40 PP. In my opinion, no lady would make a call to the police at the drop of the hat unless and until some serious issues have arisen between her and her husband. When PW 1 was under cross examination in an answer to a question put by the defence counsel this witness categorically sated that she was aware about the quarrel between the accused and the girl with whom he was having extra marital affair. In an another question put to this witness she has replied that she was not aware if the girl with whom the accused Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 22 of 34 23 Narender @ Lala was having extra marital affair gave a chappal blow on the face of her deceased daughter Anju. So in a sense the accused by putting these positive questions to this witness is admitting his extra marital affair with a girl.
61. PW 2 has categorically stated that the girl with whom accused was having extra marital affair lived near the house of his deceased daughter Anju and he further admitted it to be as correct that the said girl had given a chappal blow to his daughter. So they went there and a DD entry was recorded. He has further stated that an altercation had taken place with the family members of the said girl. So the replies given by this witness point towards the extra marital affair of the accused and there is not even a suggestion to this witness that the accused was not having any extra marital affair or that the answers given by him above are not correct.
62. Exactly the same questions as put to PW 2 were put to PW 3 who is the brother of the deceased and he also replied in the same manner as replied by his father PW 2. No suggestions were given to this witness also that no such incident as stated by him in replies to the questions put during the cross examination ever took place. So all these witnesses i.e. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 have clearly spoken about the extra marital affair of the accused.
63. Undoubtedly in cases of circumstantial evidences motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused and some time it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non existence.
Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 23 of 34 24The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law. Proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved.
64. Motive is to be culled out from the facts and circumstances of each case and on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution the accused can be said to have a motive for eliminating Anju. Though motive may in itself not be sufficient to convict the accused, so other circumstances are also to be looked into.
65. According to the accused on the date of the incident i.e. on 22092016, he had left his house in the morning for going to his work and at that time his wife Anju was hale and hearty. Now coming to the statement of the accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., he has stated that if he had committed the murder of his wife then he would not have come back to his house after marking the attendance in the factory and would not have taken the help of his neighbour to remove his wife to the hospital. He has also stated in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C that his house was found ransacked but no investigation was done by the police in this regard.
66. Now coming to the first contention of the accused according to whom, he forgot his purse at his home so he had come back from his office, though this fact of leaving his purse at his home has not been mentioned by him in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C but it has been suggested to the witnesses in their cross examination in order to give a reason for his presence at his house at about 9:30 a.m. It is the admitted case of the accused that he was Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 24 of 34 25 present at his house at about 9:30 a.m. on 22092016 as has been stated by PW 4 whom the accused had called on seeing his wife in unconscious state in his house. To this witness, the reason given by the accused about his presence in the house is that he had forgotten his purse and had also told to this witness that his TV gave electric shock, so Anju must have received electric shock from TV. Now nothing of this sort has been stated by the accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. There is nothing on record to show that the entry in the house of the accused was a forced entry. The accused has stated that his house was ransacked but PW 4 Smt. Simran who was the first person called by the accused to his house has not uttered a single word that when she came to the house of the accused, the house of the accused was found ransacked or any such thing was said by the accused. Now when the accused can tell this witness the reason of his presence in his house at about 9:30 a.m and he also gave a reason for the condition of his wife Anju then what prevented him from telling to this witness about the ransacking of his house.
67. Now if the accused would have told her about the ransacking then in my opinion, PW 4 would have definitely deposed in her testimony about this fact also. Moreover no suggestion to any witness has been given by the accused about the ransacking of his house except to PW 4. Accused has also not mentioned about the articles if any found missing by him, rather PW 4 in her cross examination has clearly stated that she has not noticed any stranger going or coming out of the house of the accused.
Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 25 of 34 2668. PW 7 is another witness who has deposed that on 22092016, at about 9:30 a.m accused had come to his house and dropped his female child with her. This witness after some time went to the house of the accused and saw his wife Anju lying on the bed. This witness has also not uttered a single word regarding ransacking of the house of the accused though this witness has stated in her cross examination that Anju had never complained to her about the extra marital affair of her husband. During the course of the arguments, the counsel for the accused has laid much stress on this point as stated by PW 7, but it is to be kept in mind that the accused and deceased Anju had love marriage and moreover, it is not expected of a lady to go about telling each and every one about the extra marital affair of her husband. Therefore, even if Anju had not told PW 7 about her husband's extra marital affair, no benefit of the same can be given to the accused.
69. PW 8 is Brijesh who used to work with the accused. He has deposed that on 22092016, accused had come to the factory and after some time he left the factory and came in the factory during evening time in handcuffed in the police custody. So this witness is also speaking about the fact that the accused left the factory on 22092016, to fetch his purse which he had left at his home. From the evidence discussed hereinabove, it is clear that the accused had first left his house in the morning when his wife was hale and hearty and when he came back at about 9:30 a.m. he found her dead. There is nothing to show that there was a forced entry in the house or any stranger entered the house in the absence of the accused. There were no traces of ran Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 26 of 34 27 sacking of the house or any missing articles.
70. False plea of the accused : From the evidence on record, the accused told PW 4 Simran that his wife has received electric shock from TV and to this witness a suggestion was given that the house was ransacked and some stranger or outsider had entered the house and killed Anju. But no suggestion of any stranger entering the house of the accused, ransacking his house and murdering Anju has been given to PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. In his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused is not talking of any electric shock having been received by his wife, rather he is stating that someone ransacked his house. So the accused is taking different pleas at different stages and it shows that the pleas raised being inconsistent are false pleas.
71. False defence plea taken by the accused also provides an additional circumstance against him. Reference may be made on this point to the pronouncement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Bhai Mohanbhai Koli Vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2011) 11 SCC 111 and Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2000) 5 SCC 7. As discussed above, the accused has taken false defence which is a strong circumstance against him. No doubt, it is not a case of direct evidence wherein direct eye witness account of commission of crime is given by the prosecution but it is a case where circumstances are such which gives a conclusive proof about the guilt of the accused.
72. Medical Evidence : According to the prosecution, the accused had strangulated Anju with an electric wire which was recovered at the instance of Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 27 of 34 28 the accused. The MLC of deceased Anju is Ex. PW 22/A and as per the MLC deceased Anju was brought to casualty in unconscious state by her husband and after the examination, she was declared brought dead. After preliminary examination, the body of the deceased was shifted to mortuary for postmortem as it was an unnatural death as per the inquest report Ex. PW 20/A. The postmortem was conducted by PW 26 Dr. Munish Wadhawan who proved the postmortem report as Ex. PW 26/A and as per the postmortem report PW 26 noticed the following injuries on the person of deceased Anju :
1. Ligature mark 2 cm wide and completely encircling the neck situated at the level of thyroid cartilage transversely located 5 cm below chin, 4.5 cm. below right ear and 4.8 cm. below left ear. Base of the ligature mark is red & inflamed. On exploration, effusion of blood seen in underlying deep neck muscles and grater cornues of hyoid bone.
2. Reddish bruise 2 x 1 cm on right cheek.
3 . Reddish bruise 5 x 4 cm on front of left lower abdomen.
73. PW 26 Dr. Munish Wadhawan opined that the death in this case is due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation. So according to PW 26 Anju died of strangulation. He has also deposed that on 10102016, IO of the case had moved an application for his opinion regarding ligature material.
After examining the ligature material he opined that the ligature mark present on the neck of the deceased is possible with the ligature material examined. He proved his subsequent opinion as Ex. PW 26/C. The ligature material in this Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 28 of 34 29 case is a pink, white and blue colour electric wire which is Ex. P4. PW 26 has not been cross examined so his testimony has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
74. Special knowledge of the accused : Deceased Anju had died in the matrimonial home, so the explanation from the side of the accused as to what happened with Anju as a result of which she died has to be probable. It is the admitted case of the accused that he was lastly seen in the company of his wife while leaving his house in the morning for his work and when he came back to his house at about 9:30 a.m he found his wife dead. The accused has given two explanations in regard to the death of his wife firstly he stated that she might have received electric shock from the T.V. and secondly he stated that his house was ransacked and somebody would have killed his wife but he failed to prove on record both these explanations which according to him were the reasons of death of his wife Anju. Who entered the house of the accused, how he entered and under what circumstances Anju died, it was for the accused to explain. These all facts were in the special knowledge of the accused and onus was upon him to discharge. So it was for the accused to explain as to in what circumstances somebody entered his house and ransacked his house as stated by him in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, who was to answer and explain the murder of the victim? It has to be none other than the accused; he was the only person other than the victim who was the occupant of the room where Anju was found dead because it is the case of the accused himself that he left his wife at his house hale and hearty and when he Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 29 of 34 30 returned for taking his purse at his house at about 9:30 a.m he found her wife dead. It is also pertinent to note that the accused had returned to his house in a very short span of time to collect his purse. So the probability of someone else entering the house and murdering Anju is remote and needed an explanation form the accused. When according to the accused he came back to his house and found Anju lying on the floor, he called his neighbour Simran (PW 4) and told her that Anju might have received electric shock but in the cross examination it was suggested to PW 4 Simran that some stranger had murdered Anju. So accused is clearly hiding the facts and is changing his stand every now and then. No suggestion of any stranger entering the house of the accused and ransacking his house and murdering Anju has been given to PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 who are the mother, father and brother of deceased Anju, therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the accused being the husband of deceased Anju should have clearly spelt out as to what happened to his wife in the matrimonial home.
75. Section 106 of the IPC specifically postulates that where any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving it is upon him.
76. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under : "106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 30 of 34 3177. It was for the accused to explain and answer as to how his wife has died. In the present case the relationship of the deceased and the accused was of husband and wife; the place of death was their matrimonial home; the place where the dead body was found was also the matrimonial home; there was no evidence of any intruder; so in such a situation the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased stood shifted to be explained by the accused, for it is only he who is to be expected to know the manner and the circumstances under which his wife had died, but he has failed to do so.
78. ARREST AND RECOVERY : It is urged by the Ld. Legal Aid counsel for the accused that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and was arrested on 2102016, though, he was available to the IO from the date of incident. It is further urged that accused had even attended the cremation of deceased Anju and in case the accused had committed the crime then he would not have attended the cremation and have escaped.
79. The argument of the Ld. Legal Aid counsel for the accused is to be rejected in the light of the testimonies of PW 25 SI Amit Rana and PW 29 Inspector Raj Pal who have categorically deposed in their examination in chief that on 02102016, the accused did not join the investigation of the case as he was not present at his house. They further deposed that an information regarding the presence of the accused at Mangol Puri Railway Station was received. Accordingly they reached at Mangol Puri Railway Station in a private car where accused was found standing in the left side of platform and after seeing the police party, accused started running towards other side. They Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 31 of 34 32 chased the accused and apprehended him. Both the witnesses have also deposed that in that process accused fell down on the railway line but he was over powered. IO inspector Raj Pal made interrogation from the accused and thereafter, at 9:55 a.m. accused was arrested. PW 25 proved the arrest memo of the accused as Ex. PW 25/F, his personal search memo as Ex. PW 25/G and his disclosure statement as Ex. PW 25/H.
80. No doubt, the accused was available to the IO from the date of the incident but the sequence of events shows that the accused had been joining the investigation and it was only on 2102016, that the accused did not join the investigation which resulted in his arrest on the same very date. It is one such case where the IO has not arrested the accused first, rather in the instant case the IO had collected the evidence and only when the evidence pointed unerringly towards the accused only then he has proceeded to arrest him formally in this case.
81. PW 25 and PW 29 have further deposed that they alongwith the accused reached at House No. C899 Mangol Puri and accused pointed out the place of occurrence and pointing out memo was prepared vide memo Ex. PW 25/J. They further deposed that thereafter accused led them to his bed room and pointed out towards the cooler and the electric wire with which Anju was strangulated. They further deposed that recovered wire was kept in a cloth pullanda and was sealed with the seal of AN and PW 29 seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW 25/K.
82. PW 25 SI Amit Rana and PW 29 (IO) Inspector Raj Pal were not Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 32 of 34 33 cross examined on the point of arrest of the accused and the recovery of electric wire at his instance, so their testimonies in this regard have gone unrebutted and unchallenged. In his cross examination PW 29 (IO) has denied the suggestion that accused was detained on the same day of incident or that he was detained in the police station for 10 days in order to exhort his confession by giving him beatings. Except this suggestion, there is no serious challenge to the arrest of the accused and recovery of electric wire at his instance. So in view of the unrebutted and unchallenged testimonies of PW 25 and PW 29 I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the arrest of the accused and the recovery of electric wire at his instance.
83. Therefore, in view of the discussions mentioned hereinabove, the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused had the motive to kill his wife Anju who was lastly seen alive in the company of the accused in her matrimonial home; the accused failed to discharge the burden which shifted upon him after the prosecution having established its version. As per Section 106 of the Evidence Act it was for the accused to explain and answer as to how his wife died which has not been done by the accused and he is totally silent. Moreover, the explanations given by the accused as reasons for the death of his wife Anju exclude the reasonable possibility of anyone else being the perpetrator of the crime, so the chain of evidence in the present case in my opinion can be considered to show that within all human probability the crime must have been committed by the accused. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 33 of 34 34 accused. So the accused is liable to be held guilty and convicted. Accordingly, accused Narender @ Lala is held guilty and convicted U/s 302 IPC. Put up for arguments on the point of sentence on 06042018.
(Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 20032018) (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH / WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Sessions Case No : 88/17 Page 34 of 34