Delhi District Court
State vs . Amit Chanda Page No. 1 on 15 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG: ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE-03 (CENTRAL), DELHI
SC No.: 64/11
State
... Complainant
Versus
Amit Chanda
S/o Shishir Chanda
R/o Flat No.2, Nandini Apartment
Garhi Burari, Delhi
... Accused
FIR No. 238/10
PS : Burari
U/S : 302/201/498-A IPC
Date of institution : 11.10.2010
Date of arguments : 21.10.2014
Date of judgment : 15.11.2014
JUDGMENT
1. Standards of proof to convict a person on circumstantial evidence has been couched by the Apex Court in the proposition that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. Those FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 1 circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused, when taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction 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. It needs no reminder that legally established circumstances and not merely anguish of the court can form basis of conviction and more serious the crime the greater should be the care taken to scrutinize the evidence, least suspicion takes place of proof.
2. Whether the prosecution could establish a complete chain of evidence which is conclusive in nature and consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence? For this facts of this case are to be scanned. Facts in FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 2 detail are that vide DD No.7-A dated 12.08.2010, the police was informed at about 7:25 hours about lying a dead body in Shalimar Banquet Hall in front of Burari. The above said information was assigned to SI Dharmender. Inspector Hari Kishan ATO had also reached to the spot and found SI Dharmender and other police officials there. Four or five ladies and gents of the apartment were also present. There was vacant land in Khasra No.535 Garhi Burari in front of Nandni Apartment. Plot was surrounded from the wall of the height of 7-8 ft. or at some places at the height of 4 to 5 ft. Dead body was lying outside the boundary wall in front of plot No.A-1, Nandni Apartment. Inspector Hari Kishan came to know that the deceased Niti Chanda alongwith her husband and father in law was living in plot no.2, Nandni Apartment on rent. He was married with Amit Chanda in the year 2008. Quarrel had been erupted usually. Husband and father in law was present in the house. Dead body was inspected. Head of the dead body was lying on the Northern side and foot were on the southern side. FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 3 Foot were turned half. Fist of the hands were half opened. It appears to the Inspector that the dead body was thrown after murdering. Bed room of the deceased was inspected. One pillow and bed cover on the double bed was found scattered. Dog sitting in the attached bath room was found afraid. The above said facts were endorsed and the police had registered a case U/S 302/201 IPC. During the course of investigation, the police collected evidence, recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the accused person in the present case.
3. After being heard, vide order dated 30.12.2010, accused Amit Chanda was charged for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/302/201 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution had relied upon as many as forty one witnesses in all, namely, Hardev Singh, Smt. Gurpreet Kaur, Deepika Malik, Rajan Malik, Gurdeep Singh, Dimple Thakur, Poonam, Soniya, Manisha Kesri, Dwarka Prasad, Amita Jain, Sunil Kumar Jaswal, Rajan FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 4 Malik, Ct. Inder Pal, Ct. Suresh, Ct. C.J. Roy, Ct. Ravinder, HC Raj Kumar, Ct. Mukesh, Ct. Anil Kumar, L/Ct. Renu, L/Ct. Avinash, ASI Kishan, HC Mahipal, SI Dhiraj, SI Ankul, SI Dharmender, Dr. Akash Jhanjee, Dr. Rajesh Aggarwal, Ashok, MHC(M) PS Burri, Emmanuel, HC Ram Kishan, HC Jagbir, Praveen, Draftsman SI Mahesh Kumar, Pt. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Deepak Chaudhary, Manish Kumar, G.S. Meena Sadar Kanongo, Insp. Hari Kishan. However, the prosecution had examined thirty five witnesses in all. Witnesses mentioned at serial number 5,6,7,8,20 & 40 namely, Gurdeep Singh, Dimple Thakur, Poonam, Soniya, Anil Kumar and G.S. Meena were dropped by the prosecution being unnecessary.
5. Prosecution evidence consist of three set of evidence. First set of evidence consists of oral testimonies of Hardev Singh, Gurjeet Kaur, Sonia, Dimple, Dwarka Prashad, Sunil Kumar, Manisha Kesri, Anita Jain, Rajan Malik, Deepika Malik, Manish Kumar, Deepak Chaudhary, Emmanuel, Praveen and Rajesh Kumar Mishra examined as PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6, PW7, FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 5 PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW25, PW26, PW27, PW28 and PW30 respectively by the prosecution. The second set of evidence consists of medical evidence of Dr.Rajesh Aggarwal and Dr. Akash Jhanjee examined as PW31 and PW33 respectively by the prosecution. Remaining witnesses are of the police officials, who had carried out the investigation in the present case.
6. PW16 and PW17 were posted in PCR HQ on 12.8.2010.
They had received call at about 7:21 a.m. and 7:22 a.m. from mobile phone no.9971019497 and 9891986243 respectively. They had recorded the above said message and sent the message through wireless net. They had brought the computer generated copy of the PCR form in respect of the said two calls and proved the same as Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW17/A respectively. PW19 being the Duty Officer had received a message from Control Room at about 7.25 a.m. regarding one dead body lying in front of Shalimar Banquet Hall Burari and reduced the same into writing at serial no.7 in Register-A of the police station. He again FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 6 received a call at 7:27 a.m. from the control room and reduced the same into writing at serial no.8 in register A. He proved the copy of the said information reduced by him in writing in Rojnamcha as Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B respectively. PW18 had scribed the FIR and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW18/A. PW13 was handed over the copy of the FIR with direction to deliver the same to the Ilaka Magistrate as well as to senior officers of the police. He had delivered the same. PW20 was given rukka by the IO after making endorsement for registration of the case. He had got registered the FIR.
7. PW24 SI Dheeraj Kumar, being the Incharge of Mobile Crime Team had inspected the scene of crime after receiving the information from the control Room. He prepared the detailed scene of crime report and proved the said report as Ex.PW24/A. PW5 had taken the photographs of the scene of crime at the instance of Incharge Crime Team as well as of the investigating officer and proved the same as Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/25.
8. PW12 had taken the accused at the instructions of the IO FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 7 to the Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital (hereinafter referred as Hospital) for his medical examination. After making examination of the accused, he collected the MLC. Doctor handed over him the blood sample of the accused in sealed condition. He had handed over the sealed blood sample to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. PW23 SI Anukul had taken the accused Amit Chanda to the FSL for the purpose of taking blood sample. In his presence, the blood sample was taken and accused Amit Chanda had signed the vial of the blood sample. The said blood sample was deposited in the office of FSL for DNA analysis. He had seen the document Ex.PW22/B which bears his signatures. The said document was acknowledged against acceptance in the office of FSL Rohini. PW29 HC Ram Kishan had collected the exhibits of the present case from the MHC(M) Burari and deposited the same at the FSL Rohini vide road certificate No.89/90/91/21/2010. During his custody, the case property were not tampered with by anybody.
9. PW30 had performed the marriage of Amit Chanda with FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 8 Niti Kaur at Arya Samaj Vaidic Marriage Mandal, 2115, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi on 28.08.2008. He proved the marriage certificate as Ex.PW26/A being priest of the said Marriage Mandal. PW14 was handed over one letter by the IO directing him to collect the marriage documents of Niti Chanda from Arya Samaj Vedic Marriage Mandal, 2115, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi. He had taken thirteen documents from Rajesh Kumar Mishra in respect of the marriage of Niti Chanda. He proved the said documents collectively as Ex.PW14/X1 to X-13.
10. PW15 deposed that in the intervening night of 11/12.08.2010, he was on night emergency duty. In the morning time, he was in area of PS Burari and went there for attending the call. At about 7:27 a.m. duty officer gave him the message regarding the fact that one lady was lying unconscious at D-534, Nandni Apartment, Part-II, Burari Garhi, Delhi. At that time, Ct. Mukesh was also with him and on receipt of the call, he alongwith Ct. Mukesh reached there where SI Dharmender alongwith Ct.Raj Kumar were already present. He had seen dead FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 9 body of a lady lying near the wall in the vacant plot of khasra no.
535. The name of that lady reveals as Niti Chanda. On the spot the public persons including the locality people were also present. Accused Amit Chanda, husband of Niti Chanda was also present there. SI Dharmender informed regarding the incident to the senior officials. Crime team was called at the spot and place of occurrence was inspected and preserved. Photographer was also alongwith the crime team and the photographs of the scene of crime were taken from different angles. Inspector Hari Kishan had also reached to the spot alongwith the staff who conducted the local enquiry. They went to the flat where Niti Chanda was living. Father in law of Niti Chanda was present at the flat. The bed room of Niti Chanda and Amit Chanda was also inspected by Inspector Hari Kishan and it was noticed that the bed sheet of the bed of Amit Chanda was not proper. Upon local enquiry conducted by the IO from the neighbourhood, everyone had raised suspicion about the involvement of accused Amit Chanda in the murder of Niti Chanda. In his presence, IO had lifted the FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 10 exhibits from the spot near the dead body i.e. the blood stained soil, earth control, soil enclosed in the left hand of the deceased and one black colour hair band. All the said exhibits were kept in different plastic container and sealed with the seal of HKR. Seizure memo was prepared by the IO and the same is Ex.PW15/A. IO had also seized the bed sheet lying on the bed of the Amit Chanda and Niti Chanda from their bed room and the same was taken into possession. He further deposed about preparation of the site plan by the IO. SDM was also called at the spot and documents related to Niti Chanda was prepared by the IO and dead body was sent to the mortuary for postmortem and he was made free by the IO. Accused Amit Chanda was kept in custody and IO interrogated him and arrested him. He further witnessed the personal search of the accused and disclosure statement of the accused Amit Chanda recorded by the IO. Baniyan of accused Amit Chanda was found blood stained which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/F. Accused Amit Chanda had pointed out the place where he had FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 11 thrown the dead body of Niti Chanda. He joined the investigation on 13.8.2010 as well as on 24.09.2010. On 13.8.2010 house of the accused was searched in his presence and one notebook and certain other documents relating to the ultrasound of the deceased were taken into possession by the IO. On 24.09.2010, IO had taken into possession all the photo copies of the rent agreement and other documents from the landlord who had come in the police station. He had proved the hair band, printed colour bed sheet and white baniyan as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.
11. PW34 and PW35 are the police officials who reached at the spot after receiving information. PW34 also narrated the facts as deposed by PW35 regarding lifting of the exhibits. He further deposed the fact as deposed by PW15. He further deposed the fact regarding arrival of the SDM as well as interrogation of accused Amit Chanda. He further witnessed the taking over the possession of baniyan of the accused by the IO. PW34 deposed that on 13.8.2010 as per the instructions of the IO he had taken the parents of the deceased to the office of SDM Civil Lines for FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 12 getting their statements recorded. On 12.8.2010 their statement could not be recorded by the SDM as the ld. SDM had arrived at the spot but being busy he left the spot after giving instructions to the IO. On 13.8.2010, Ct. Mahipal had also accompanied them to the office of the ld. SDM. After recording the statement of the parents of the deceased, he alongwith ld. SDM, Ct. Mahipal and parents of the deceased went to the Subzi Mandi mortuary, where other relatives of the deceased also arrived. Ld. SDM got the postmortem conducted of the deceased. He was instructed by the ld. SDM to hand over the dead body of the deceased to her father and accordingly, he did the same. He also proved the case property as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.
12. PW35 Inspector Hari Kishan is the IO. He had also deposed the facts as deposed by PW34. He further proved the fact about the disclosure statement made by accused Amit Chanda. He further proved the pointing out memo prepared by him at the instance of the accused already Ex.PW15/G. He deposed that one representative of NGO Anchal Ki Chaon, FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 13 namely, Deepika Malik arrived in the police station alongwith her husband and handed over one letter/ complaint written in the handwriting of the deceased regarding cruelty and harassment by her in-law and pressure for abortion. He further deposed that he had recorded the statement of Deepika Malik under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Deepika Malik told him that the deceased had handed over the complaint on 29.6.2010 and she sought help from the NGO. Thereafter three girls associated with the NGO at Burari came there and gave their statement which the PW35 had recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of accused Amit Chanda. He further deposed about medical examination of Amit Chanda at Hospital. He had sent Ct. Roy for this alongwith accused to Hospital for obtaining the blood sample of the accused and examination of the injury on the person of the accused as there were scratches on the body. Ct. Roy handed over to him the blood sample in the sealed condition alongwith sample seal which he took into possession vide memo already Ex.PW12/A, MLC of the accused which is now Ex.PW35/E. He further FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 14 deposed that on 13.8.2010, accused was taken out from the lock- up and was taken to his house i.e. flat no.2, Nandni Apartment, Burari, Delhi. Accused had got recovered one note book containing the noting of the SMS details and told to them that it was maintained by his wife. The said note book is Ex.PW34/D. Some documents relating to the diagonistic centre already Ex.PW31/A and Ex.PW31/D were also recovered and the same were taken into possession alongwith note book through seizure memo Ex.PW15/H. He further deposed that on 17.08.2010, mother of the deceased handed over to him the list of dowry articles which she had given at the time of marriage under his signatures already Ex.PW2/B, which he had seized through seizure memo Ex.PW35/E. He had collected the PCR forms already Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW17/A on 19.08.2010. On 28.8.2010, he collected the postmortem report already Ex.PW33/A from the hospital. PW35 further deposed that he had received the priority letter from the reader of the SHO to deposit and examine the case property. On 7.9.2010 the case property FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 15 was deposited at FSL in different division through HC Ram Kishan alongwith forwarding letter and priority letter. On 15.09.2010, he received the negatives of the photographs taken by the photographer of the crime team and got developed 25 photographs in three set. On 18.10.2010, he alongwith SI Mahesh Kumar, draftsman visited the place of occurrence and he took the measurement. He recorded his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. He had collected the death summary of Shishir Chanda and copy of the marriage certificate, and other corresponding documents of Niti Chanda. He proved the FSL report No.FSL2010/C-3999 dated 24.1.2011, FSL report the DNA No. 109/2010/73 dated 4.2.2011 running into four pages including the forwarding letter alongwith its annexures in one page and FSL report No.2010/B/3998/1065 dated 31.1.2011 and FSL report no.2010/D-5506 dated 29.4.2011 running into four pages as Ex.PW35/X-1 to Ex.PW35/X-4.
13. PW31 was the consultant Radiologist and Ultrasound Sonologist. He deposed that on 7.7.2010, he performed FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 16 obstetrical ultrasound of Niti aged 22 yrs. for foetal well being and prepared his report. He proved his report as Ex.PW31/D signed by him at point A. As per his report, Niti was having single viable intra utreine pregnancy of 12 weeks 6 days. PW33 had conducted the postmortem of the deceased. He deposed that on 13.8.2010 at 12:45 p.m. he had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Niti Chanda aged 22 years. On external examination of the dead body, he found the following injuries :-
1. Contusion swelling, 4X3 cm, reddish over left parietal region of the head lying 4.8 cm above the top of the right ear pinna.
2. Multiple abrasions contusions, reddish, 6x3.5 cm over left forehead region above left eye brow level.
3. Multiple abrasions contusions, reddish, 4x3 cm over left side cheek region of the face, below left eye outer angle.
4. Abrasions, contusions, reddish 1x0.5 cm over nasal bridge lying 0.2 cm below root of the nose level.
5. Contusions, reddish 1.2 x 0.5 cm over nasal bridge lower half region.
6. Contusions swelling with overlying grazed abrasions, reddish 2.5x1 cm over nostril opening fold outer surface.
7. Contusions, swelling, reddish 2.5x1 cm over middle portion of FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 17 lower lip.
8. Contusions, swelling, reddish, 1.5x1 cm over left chin region of the face 1.5 cm below left angle of the mouth region.
9. Contusions, abrasions, reddish 3x2 cm over outer front of middle half of left side neck.
10. Abrasions, reddish 1x0.5 cm over left side neck lying 1.5 cm outer to injury No. 9.
11.Multiple abrasions, reddish 1x0.5 cm over lower half of inner front left side neck region.
12. Abrasions reddish 1x1 cm over outer aspect of right shoulder region.
13. Abrasions contusions, reddish 6x3 cm over outer front lower half of right arm region.
14. Abrasions, contusions, reddish 2x2 cm over back of upper half right forearm region.
15. Multiple abrasions, contusions, reddish, 4.3x1.5 cm over front of middle half of right forearm.
16. Abrasions, reddish, 2x1 cm over inner aspect of left wrist region.
17. Contusions, swelling, reddish, 3.5x1 cm over back of right hand region overlying knuckle of middle and ring finger.
18. Multiple contusions, reddish, 6x4 cm over inner half of left breast region.
19. Contusions swelling, reddish 3x3 cm over front of left side FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 18 shoulder region.
20. Multiple abrasions, reddish, 9 x 5 cm over front of lower half right side chest region below right breast region.
21. Multiple abrasions, reddish 6x3 cm over front of middle half right abdomen region.
22. Contusions, swelling, reddish 2x2 cm over outer front of lower half of right abdomen region.
23. Multiple contusions, reddish 8x3 cm over front of lower half of right abdomen region inner half.
24. Multiple contusions, reddish 5x2 cm over inner half of right side ingunial fold region.
25. Contusions, swelling, reddish 8x3 cm over inner front of upper half of right thigh.
26. Contusions, swelling, reddish 4x3 cm over inner front of upper half of right leg region.
27. Contusions, swelling, reddish 4x4 cm over front surface inner front aspect of middle half of right leg region.
28. Multiple contusions, swelling, reddish 15x6 cm over left ingunial fold region.
29. Multiple abrasions, contusions with swelling reddish 20x6 cm over lower half of left side axillary region and outer front of left side of abdomen region.
30. Contusions, swelling, reddish 6x3 cm over lower front of left side chest below left breast region.FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 19
31. Contusions, reddish 4x3 cm over inner front of lower half left side arm region.
32. Contusions, abrasions, reddish 10x4.5 cm over front of middle and lower half of left forearm.
33. Contusions, swelling, reddish 5x3 cm over back surface of lower half of left forearm region.
34. Contusions, swelling, reddish 4x3 cm over back of left hand region.
35. Contusions, swelling, reddish 1x0.5 cm, 1.5x0.5 cm, 0.8x0.4 cm, 0.6x0.4 cm, over back surface of right index, right middle, right ring and right little finger of the hand respectively.
36. Multiple contusions, reddish, 15x10cm over back surface of upper half of left side abdomen.
37. Contusions, swelling with grazed abrasions reddish, 11x8 cm over back surface of lower half of left side abdomen region.
38. Contusions, swelling, reddish 3x3 cm overlying left buttock region.
39. Contusions, swelling, reddish 4x3 cm over back surface of upper half of left thigh region.
Internal examination :
1. Head :-
Scalp showed sub scalp bruising over left side of the head. Skull bones were intact. Brain was pale.FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 20
2. Neck :-
Soft tissues were intact except bruising via injury no.9. Cartilages were intact.
3. Chest :-
Left sides ribs intact. Right sides ribs seventh and eighth at the level just inner to the outer angles fractured with fractured ends, reddish and bruised. Seventh inter costals space muscles found lacerated and contused exposing right side chest cavity. Right side cavity contained around 900 ml of fluid blood with clots. Right side lung lower lobe front surface was found lacerated. Left lung was pale. Heart was NAD.
4. Abdomen and pelvis:-
Liver showed lacerations of the under surface of right side lobe. Spleen was found lacerated over the lower pole. Abdominal cavity contained around 1.5 liters of the fluid blood with clots. Right side kidney showed perinephric haemotoma around. Left kidney was pale. Stomach contained around 250 ml of the semi digested food material, non-identifiable in nature with walls normal and no specific smell present. Bowels loops were intact and contained gases and faeces. Small intestinal mesentry showed multiple contusions at places. Bladder and rectum were empty, uterus was enlarged and pregnant measuring 19 cm x15 cm x6 cm and on opening it contained gestational sac with dead female FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 21 foetus of around 4 to 5 months intra uterine gestational age with crown heel length of 19 cms. Lanugo hairs present on the body with meconium in the duodeum with body weight 150 gms.
5. Spinal Column intact.
Opinion : After completing the post mortem examination, he gave cause of death as haemorrhage and shock consequent upon blunt force impact to the limbs, chest and abdomen region, which are sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature. All injuries were antemortem and fresh in duration. PM findings were consistent with blunt assault before death. Time since death was around 12 to 18 hours prior to the receipt of the dead body in the mortuary. The clothes, viscera, blood sample in gauze piece, full foetus, loose cloth piece around the neck were handed over in the sealed condition to the police along with 10 inquest papers which were all initialed. He has proved the detailed postmortem report as Ex. 33/A bearing his signatures at point A. On 25.10.2010, on the request of IO, he also gave his subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW33/B which also bears his signatures at point A.
14. PW1 was the father of the deceased. He deposed that deceased was his youngest daughter. He got married with accused in August, 2008. He was not in favour of the marriage of FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 22 his daughter with accused. So for the first six month of the marriage is concerned, they do not have contact with his daughter Niti but they were knowing that they were living in Kalkaji. He further deposed that in the middle of April, 2009, her daughter informed that she needed money of the treatment of his father in law who was suffering from cancer, so they have transferred an amount of Rs.15,000/- in the account of the husband of his daughter in his ICICI Bank with its branch at Janak Puri. Even on several occasion he had deposited the amount of Rs.5000/- and sometime Rs.2000/-. He further deposed that on 25.04.2009, he was informed by the mother of the accused that Neeti was pregnant and she had a miscarriage. His wife had visited the hospital. He further deposed that on one occasion accused had asked his daughter to left his house alongwith her belongings and gave him divorce. After 15 or 20 days, sister of Amit and Amit Chanda had called her daughter back and joined her sister at Burari. During her stay for 15-20 days at Moti Nagar, message was sent by Amit to his daughter FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 23 and her daughter has noted down all these messages in a copy and she gave the title on each pages as Dhokebaj Pati. He further deposed that on 12.8.2010, he received an information from the PS regarding the murder of his daughter. They saw the dead body of his daughter lying in a plot adjacent to the boundary wall of their apartment. He proved his statement given to the police as Ex.PW1/A.
15. PW2 is the mother of the deceased. She also deposed that the marriage of her daughter was love marriage with the accused. They started living in Kalkaji. Thereafter, they shifted to Burari prior to seven or eight months of the incident. She also deposed about giving an amount of Rs.15000/- or Rs.20000/- to her daughter which she had taken for the treatment of his father in law after six months of her marriage. She further deposed about receiving a call of one lady about the miscarriage of her daughter. She reached to the Hans Clinic where she was admitted. She further deposed that on one occasion, her daughter had borrowed an amount of Rs.11000/- from Bittoo friend of her FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 24 husband. Even on one occasion, her daughter had taken six gold bangles by saying that she was going to attend a function in relation to the engagement of her sister in law. She further deposed that on 12.8.2010 she was informed by the neighour about the death of his daughter. She deposed SDM had recorded her statement on 13.8.2010 which is Ex.PW2/A.
16. PW3 Sonia deposed that she had met the deceased one year prior to her death. Deceased told him that her husband was not on talking terms with her and she was also pregnant. Due to financial constraint, her husband pressurized her to get abortion. She further told her that her husband used to suspect that she was having relations with other boy. She further deposed that they were planning to appoint the deceased, a helper in National Opening Learning Process because of the above said fact.
17. PW4 also deposed the above said fact stating that he was associated with the Extension Centre of Gender Resources Centre. She deposed that in the extension centre, Niti and two three girls met her. Niti was not only under depressed but also FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 25 look to be suffering from malnutrition and on counseling she told that she was hardly eating anything as her husband was not providing anything to her. PW10 and PW11 are husband and wife. PW11 was running a NGO in the name of 'Aanchal Ki Chhaon'. PW11 deposed that in the month of June, 2010, he had gone to attend some function at some NGO in Burari where Niti Chanda wife of Amit Chanda met her and she was crying at that time. She asked her what was the reason for her crying. She told that she was being beaten and harassed by her husband at the instigation of his sisters. She further informed her that her husband was not even providing meals to her. She advised her to visit her NGO and make a complaint regarding this. She further deposed that on 29.6.2010, Niti Chanda visited her office and handed over one complaint to her. On the same day, she alongwith Niti Chanda went to the PS Burari and met the SHO and asked her to help Niti so that she could live peacefully in her matrimonial home. She asked to give a complaint in writing in PS also but Niti was not willing for the same. She requested the FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 26 SHO to help Niti in some other manner, then SHO sent one police official to the house of Niti, who made her husband Amit Chanda understand. She further deposed that on 12.8.2010, she was watching TV and there was a news that Niti has been murdered. She contacted the SHO PS Burari who was also aware of this incident. Thereafter, she alongwith her husband went to the PS Burari with the original complaint given in the office, which the SHO had taken into possession.
18. PW7 was residing just above the residence of Neeti, the deceased. He also deposed that deceased met him about two weeks prior to her death requesting him to get a job and he had suggested him to approach an NGO operating from the same apartment and thereafter she had started working there.
19. PW8 deposed that on 12.8.2010 at about 7.00 a.m. while she was coming to her house after dropping his children to the school, father of the accused called him from inside his flat asking him to open the main door of his house which was bolt from outside. He opened the said door and thereafter he came FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 27 back to his house. After 15-20 minutes, one Dwarka Prasad living in his neighbourhood came outside his house and started shouting saying that Yeh Kya Pada Hai. He immediately came out of his house and saw in vacant plot opposite to his house and found Neeti lying there. Thereafter, he had raised the noise. At this, Amit and his father came out from their house. PW6 had noticed the dead body of a female lying in vacant plot which is adjacent to the wall of the apartment. He was a new occupant in the apartments and did not know anyone but he approached the occupants of a floor below and apprised them about the dead body in the vacant plot. One lady came out from her flat and after noticing the dead body, she identified the dead body and thereafter she informed the others.
20. PW9 had got arranged the said flat on rent for Niti Chanda and her husband Amit Chanda. She deposed that Niti had become very close to him and she told her that it was their love marriage. Initially for about a year, Niti and her husband lived happily. Niti used to tell her that behaviour of Amit towards her FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 28 had become uncomfortable and she tried to make Amit understand as to why there was a tension between him and his wife. She identified the accused in the court. She further deposed that at about 7.00 a.m. or 7.30 a.m., she was sleeping at her house and her neighbour Manisha came to her and said 'Dekho Niti Ko Kya Ho Gaya Hai'. She saw from across the wall that Niti was lying in a vacant plot opposite to their flat. Accused Amit was also present there and he was checking the heart beat of Niti. She told Amit that Niti seems to be dead, thereafter Amit came back to his house. She telephoned to the police at 100 number from her mobile phone no.99710119497. Initially, Amit did not disclose anything but lateron, he said that he had killed Niti.
21. PW25 was the owner of the flat, who had rented out two rooms to Amit Chanda and his wife through one lady Sunita Jain, his neighbour. PW27 had found crowd of peoples collected on the ground floor near his flat when he returned back to his home on 12.08.2010 at about 7.00 a.m. after dropping his son for the FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 29 school at the bus stand. He had come to know that one lady had been murdered and her dead body was lying in the vacant plot opposite to his flat. Since, he was having a mobile phone with him, so he informed the police at number 100. PW28 was running a photo studio in the name of Himachal Digital Studio at Nehru Gali, Sant Nagar, Burari. On 13.09.2010, one police official from PS Burari arrived at his photo studio and he handed over him twenty five negatives. He developed twenty five negatives and prepared three photographs of each negative i.e. total 75 photographs and handed over the said photographs and negatives to the said police official.
22. In order to afford an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence accused was examined U/S 313 of Cr.P.C. Entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused to which the accused claimed innocence and false implication. He had submitted that on 11.08.2010 he had left the office for his job, at the time his wife was in the house and she told him that today evening she had to go to her parents so that FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 30 she will accompany them to Nanderd, Maharastra, he had to return to his house at 10.30PM. His wife and father was using the same mobile phone and his wife had left the house leaving the phone to his father. His father had told him that Niti had left the house at 4.30pm. He came to know in the morning of 12.08.2010 that his wife was murdered. He had preferred to examine the witness in defence. In fact, he had examined one Neha, his friend in defence.
23. On behalf of the State, Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the prosecution has established that the deceased Niti Chanda used to take money from their parents stating that her husband and her father in-laws used to harass her. They sometime had deposited the money in the account of the husband of their sister and daughter. prosecution further proved that the deceased was died in the intervening night of 11/12.08.2010 while he was in his room. Autopsy surgeon had opined the cause of death as hemorrhage and shock consequent upon blunt force impact to the limbs, chest and abdomen region, FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 31 which are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time since death was 12 to 18 hours. There was no other person who had access in the flat in question so that he would have an opportunity to kill the deceased except the accused. There is no motive of the stranger to kill the deceased rather than it is the accused who used to beat her. Number of public witnesses had also supported the prosecution case that Niti used to be harassed and tortured by her husband. PW10 and PW11 were husband and wife and they had handed over a complaint to the police about harassment meted out to the deceased. This complaint was self written by the deceased. Hand writing on the letter given by the deceased to the NGO 'Aanchal ki Chhaon' has been matched with the admitted hand writing of the deceased. DNA of the foetus has been matched with the DNA of the accused. He has submitted that the prosecution has proved the circumstantial chain leading to the death of the deceased and it only pin-point that it was accused who had killed the deceased. He has submitted that the accused had murdered brutally his pregnant FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 32 wife who was carrying the advance pregnancy.
24. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the accused has rebutted the arguments and stated that it is highly improbable for the accused to murder the deceased while he was found in his house which was closed from the outside and it was opened by Smt. Manisha Kesari, PW8. He further submitted that medical evidence also falsify the prosecution case. There are thirty nine injuries and nature of injuries and opinion of the doctor Akash Jhanjee regarding abrasions and use of blunt force falsify the prosecution case of causing injuries by fist and leg blows by accused Amit Chanda and his throwing the body of the deceased Niti Chanda in the adjacent plot of land. He has further submitted that it is highly improbable that the accused will not suffer scratch, bruises, abrasions, nail marks on his body when he is alleged to have caused as many as thirty nine injuries. However, there shall not be any blood stain in the entire flat including the bed room of the accused Amit Chanda. He further submitted that it is highly improbable that neighbours of adjacent flat will not FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 33 hear the cry, scream, shrieks or noise of the victim Niti when she was subjected to fist and leg blows resulting in as many as thirty nine injuries and more so when she has put up resistance and struggle. He further submitted that non-examination of material witnesses casts serious doubt over the prosecution case. Jasmeet brother of the deceased and her sister was not examined. SHO of PS Burari and HC Harkishan were not examined. Even Bittoo, friend of Jasmeet was also not examined who is stated to have given Rs.11,000/- to the deceased Niti Chanda. He has relied upon K.V. Chacko @ Kunju Vs. State of Kera,a (2001) 9 Supreme Court cases 277 where it was held that the prosecution has failed to chain the circumstances. He further submitted that it was the parents of the deceased, who had committed the murder because admittedly they were not happy with the marriage and even on the intervening night of 11/12.08.2010, deceased was not at her house and she had left for her parents house for going to Nanded. He has submitted that accused deserves to be acquitted.
FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 34
25. I have heard the arguments, perused the judicial record and analyze the evidence. To constitute the offence of murder, the prosecution has to prove that it is the accused who had killed the deceased with the intention and caused such bodily injuries as it likely to cause death. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. Accused here in was charged with the murder of his pregnant wife by giving fist and leg below.
26. Motive assumes importance when the case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Motive by itself hardly establishes the guilt. Presence of motive may add to the probabilities of the commission of offence by the accused, if assessment of ocular evidence points that way.
27. From the evidence of PW 33 Dr. Akash Jhanjee,the autopsy surgeon, prosecution has proved the fact that the deceased was died in the intervening night of 11/12.08.2010 while he was in his room. Autopsy surgeon had opined the cause of death as hemorrhage and shock consequent upon blunt force impact to the limbs, chest and abdomen region, which are FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 35 sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time since death was opioned to be of 12 to 18 hours. Defence has not disputed the above fact.
28. In the present case, marriage of the accused with the deceased was not disputed. It is an admitted fact that it was love marriage. It has been proved on record from the various testimonies that the deceased and the accused had been residing in the flat in question as husband and wife at Burari. As per witness PW31, deceased was pregnant and she was carrying foetus of twelve weeks six days on 07.07.2010 when she was murdered meaning thereby on the date of death, she was carrying foetus of about sixteen weeks. As per the testimony of PW11, the deceased had given a complaint to her where she had alleged about the harassment and cruelty meted out to her by her husband and father in law. She had given the said complaint to the police when PW11 had come through the TV channel that the deceased was murdered. PW4 Dimple had stated that Niti and some 2-3 girls have met her in the Extension Centre of Gender FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 36 Resources Centre at Burari and they were planning to appoint Niti in their organization. Niti was not only under depression but also looked to be suffering from malnutrition and she told that she was hardly eating anything as her husband was not providing anything to her. PW7 had also deposed that he has been approached by Niti for the purpose of getting the job and he had advised him to approach NGO operating from the same apartments.
29. From the testimony on record, it has been proved that the deceased Niti had been harassed and tortured and beaten. Mere fact that PW4 had admitted that Niti was close friend of her, does not discredit the testimony of the witness where she had deposed that Niti had told him that she was not provided any food, harassed and tortured by her husband. These are the independent sitnesses and are not related to the deceased or her family members.
30. Ld. Counsel for the accused had argued that it is highly improbable that the accused does not suffer any injury while FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 37 causing as many as thirty nine injuries to the deceased in a room when the deceased had also protested but that argument does not appeal to this court because the deceased had already suffered cruelty at the hands of her husband, even she was pregnant lady and had been carrying foetus of sixteen weeks. Further argument of the defence that postmortem belies the fact that there was contusion mark on the body of the deceased which cannot be caused by leg and fist blow, that also does not stand anywhere. The deceased and accused had been residing in the same flat and it is the only accused who had access and nobody can enter. Arguments of the defence that it is the deceased parents, who had got killed the deceased does not appeal to this court because after six months of the marriage, the parents of the deceased used to meet the deceased. Even mother of the deceased had also gone to see her daughter at Hans Charitable Clinic. Even an amount of Rs.2000/- and Rs.5000/- had been deposited by PW1 in the account of the accused.
31. The next leg of arguments of the counsel for the accused is FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 38 that PW8 had stated that he had opened the door when the father of the accused had called him because the same was bolted from outside and for that reason; the accused was not able to murder his wife because he was not aware. That arguments has no force because as per investigating officer PW35, the accused can bolt the door from outside if he entered his hands in the jali adjacent to corridor. Even disclosure statement of the accused has also states so. So this argument also does not favour him.
32. If the husband and wife are residing together in a rented accommodation and the wife was found murdered even nearby place, then surely suspicion/ guilt pointed out towards the accused. It is the accused who has to disprove the above said fact, however here the accused failed to discharge the burden. Here there is no occasion to the deceased wife Niti to go from the house in question. Defence has not been established by the accused that his deceased wife had gone to Nandad Maharashtra alongwith her parents. If that is the defence then there was no occasion to the parents to kill their daughter. The accused had FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 39 stated that mobile phone had been used by his wife and father-in- law jointly and the wife before leaving the house had left the mobile phone with her father in law but this life of defence had been created to escape the fact of the presence of his wife in the rented accommodation. Moreover, DNA report Ex.PW35/X-2 establish the fact that accused Amit Chanda was the biological father of the foetus in the womb of the deceased. Moreover as per FSL report, the writing on the letter addressed to Sanstha 'Anchal ki Chhaon' is match with the admitted writing/ signatures mark A-1 to A-35 of the deceased. All these facts pin point that the deceased was not treated well by the husband and there was motive on the part of the husband to murder the deceased.
33. Circumstances detailed above form a complete chain of evidence leaving no gap for the accused to slip away. Even a strong motive for the offence has been established from the events detailed above. Evidence is conclusive in nature and lead to a single hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, which is in consistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. Taking into FIR No.238/10 State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 40 account the aforesaid circumstances in consideration, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased was beaten by the accused from leg and fist blow in the room of flat in question and thereby dragged the dead body and thrown the same into a vacant plot adjacent to the wall of Nandni Apartment. The prosecution has been able to establish the case under Section 498-A as the witness deposed about the cruelty meted out to the accused. Therefore, I convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 as well as 498-A IPC. Accordingly, accused is convicted.
Announced in open court (ATUL KUMAR GARG)
On 15.11.2014 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)
Delhi
FIR No.238/10
State Vs. Amit Chanda Page No. 41