Delhi District Court
State vs . Shailesh @ Rinku on 20 May, 2013
SC No.15/13
FIR No.296/11
PS: Dabri
State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
SC No. : 15/13
FIR No. : 296/11
Police Station : Dabri
Under Section : 392/397/302/201/411IPC and
25/27/54/59 of Arms Act
Received on assignment : 13.12.2011
Reserved for orders on : 13.05.2013
Judgment announced on : 20.05.2013
State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku
S/o Sh. Shriniwas Sharma
Village Mutawai, PS Fatehabad
District Agra, UP.
J U D G E M E N T
1. Accused has been sent up for trial for the offence punishable u/s 392/397/302/201/411 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act.
2. Stating briefly, as per prosecution story, it is alleged that after receiving DD No.27A dt.31082011, SI Sitaram along with Ct.Surender reached at House No. C197/5, III floor, Som Bazar SC No.15/13 Page 1 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku Road, Jeewan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and TV was found on high volume and door of the room as well as main gate was found opened and complainant Mahender Mehra was found present at the scene of occurrence and the said SI Sitaram along with police staff went into the room where one lady namely Meena Mehra W/o Mahender Mehra was found lying with her head on the sofa on eastern side and rest of the body was lying on the central table and her mouth and neck was smeared with blood and there was a deep wound on the neck near collar on the left hand side and blood was also found lying on the floor. SI Sita Ram after checking found the almirah opened and goods were scattered all around and SI Sita Ram informed the senior officers and SHO came present at the scene of occurrence and crime team was called which inspected the scene of crime and took the photographs of the scene of occurrence and the body of deceased Meena Mehra was sent to DDU Hospital and she was brought declared dead vide MLC No.17739.
3. It is further alleged that complainant Mahender Mehra, husband of deceased got recorded his statement that he was living at the above said address along with his two daughters and wife and elder daughter namely Sangeeta is married and she is living separately and younger daughter Anupama had SC No.15/13 Page 2 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku gone to her shop at 9 am on 31082011 and at about 11 am he had gone to his property dealing office leaving his wife Meena Mehra at his residence. He has further stated that as per routine today also at about 2.20 pm he had come to have food at his residence and found the main gate opened and TV was found on with high volume and his wife was found lying with her head on the sofa on eastern side and rest of the body was lying on the central table and blood was coming out from her mouth and he called his wife but she has not responded and he immediately called Kamal Bassi, who resides in his neighbourhood and made a call at 100 number and he, thereafter, saw goods lying there scattered and he found an amount of Rs.40,000/ and gold locket was missing and that some unknown person has committed the murder of his wife with a dangerous weapon.
4. On the basis of his statement, FIR was lodged as rukka was sent through Ct. Surendra to lodge FIR. IO lifted the exhibits for depositing with the MHCM. Post Mortem of the deceased was conducted on 01092011 in DDU Hospital in terms of MLC No. 17739. It has been further alleged that IO got recorded the statement of Prem Pal also who stated that he is doing business of ironing the clothes in the gali where house of the deceased was situated and he told police that Shailesh @ Rinku, the SC No.15/13 Page 3 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku person known to the complainant was coming from the gali/ lane from the side of the house of complainant Mahendra Mehra and he was perplexed and instead of going from the main road, he went from the narrow lane hurriedly, and on suspicion, Shailesh was tried to be located and his call details were taken and on 15092011 accused was arrested from near bus stand Anand Vihar on the secret information and he made his disclosure statement and thereafter Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act was added. The accused got recovered the knife but blood stained clothes of the deceased could not be traced. Samples/ exhibits were sent to FSL and Charge sheet was filed.
5. After supplying copy of the charge sheet to the accused by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, case was committed to the Session and charge under section 392/397/302/201/411 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence to establish its case as per law. Prosecution has tendered 24 witnesses in all in support of its case namely:
PW1 HC Baljeet Singh PW2 Sh. Sanjeev Gupta SC No.15/13 Page 4 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku PW3 Smt. Rambo Devi PW4 Sh. Mahender Mehra PW5 Const. Arun Kumar PW6 ASI Ishwar Singh PW7 Sh. Prem Pal PW8 Sh. Surender Kumar PW9 HC Jagdish Prasad PW10 Const. Anuj PW11 Dr. Santosh Kumar PW12 Const. Balu Palve PW13 Const. Surender Kumar PW14 HC Ramesh Kumar PW15 Dr. Ajay Sharma, Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, New Delhi.
PW16 Const. Sandeep PW17 Const. Praveen Kumar PW18 Inspector Sita Ram Kumawat, Indian Custom Mumbai, New Custom House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai.
PW19 SI Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman, Crime Branch, Police Head Quarters, New Delhi. PW20 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Bhatnagar PW21 Sh. Naresh Mehra PW22 Inspector Ram Kishan Yadav, SHO, PS Dwarka, Sector23, New Delhi.
PW23 Ms. Sangeeta Singh SC No.15/13 Page 5 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku PW24 Sh. Jyotish Moharana, Nodal Officer, Sistema Shyam Tele services Ltd., Okhla Industrial Area, Phase1, New Delhi.
7. PW1 is HC Baljeet Singh who has recorded the FIR No. 296/11, u/s 302/397 IPC after receiving rukka and he has proved FIR as Ex.PW1/A and endorsement made on the rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
8. PW2 is Shri Sanjeev Gupta who is a scrap dealer who told that a lady has come in the month of August, 2011 to his shop intending to sell her second hand house hold articles and he has purchased the same for Rs.4000/.
9. PW3 is Smt. Rambo Devi who has stated that accused stayed in her house as a tenant for about one month and accused vacated the room in the evening of 31082011 and a kabari had taken away the household goods of the accused during the day time on 31082011.
10. PW4 is Shri Mahender Mehra who has made his statement to the police and police recorded his statement vide Ex.PW4/A and he further stated that police lifted blood samples from various places in the room and also the earth control, one SC No.15/13 Page 6 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku bed sheet which was lying on the sofa and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. This witness has identified the case property namely one check bed sheet as Ex.P1, one printed ladies suit as Ex.P2 and torn blood stained piece of sofa cover as Ex.P3. Testimony of this witness will be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
11. PW5 is Ct. Arun Kumar who has lifted three chance fingerprints from a wooden almirah and a door of one of the rooms on the third floor of the house of the complainant and prepared his report and proved the same as Ex.PW5/A.
12. PW6 is ASI Ishwar Singh who is the In charge of the crime team and he inspected the spot on 3182011 and prepared his report and proved the same as Ex.PW6/A.
13. PW7 is Shri Prem Pal who was carrying out the business of ironing the clothes in the lane where house of the complainant was situated but he turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
14. PW8 is Shri Surender Kumar, Assistant Nodal Officer who has proved the customer application form of the mobile phone SC No.15/13 Page 7 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku of the accused bearing no.8750595281 as Ex.PW8/A, photocopy of his PAN Card as Ex.PW8/B, call detail records of the mobile phone of the accused for the month of August, 2011 as Ex.PW8/C and certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act in respect of call details records as Ex.PW8/D.
15. PW9 is HC Jagdish Prasad who has received an information from wireless operator regarding murder of wife of the complainant and he reduced the information into writing vide DD No.27A and he proved the photocopy of the same as Ex.PW9/A.
16. PW10 is Ct. Anuj who has typed the FIR in the present case.
17. PW11 is Dr. Santosh Kumar who has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and proved the PM Report as Ex.PW11/A. He has further opined that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock caused by tearing of large blood vessels of the neck consequent upon stab injury by a sharp edged pointed weapon like knife etc.. All the injuries found on the dead body were ante mortem in nature. The external injury no.1 mentioned in the postmortem report was sufficient to SC No.15/13 Page 8 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku cause death in ordinary course of nature. The manner of death was homicidal. He has further stated that the knife was produced before him for subsequent opinion and upon examination of the knife and after going through findings contained in postmortem report, he opined that external injury no.1 and 2 found on the dead body were possible by the said knife and he prepared the sketch of the knife and proved the same Ex.PW11/B and his subsequent opinion as Ex.PW11/C.
18. PW12 is Ct. Balu Palve who has deposed that on 17092011, he along with SI Sita Ram took accused Shailesh @ Rinku to DDU Hospital for medical examination and after medical examination, doctor handed over to SI Sita Ram three sealed pullandas which were seized by SI Sita Ram vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A.
19. PW13 is Ct. Surender Kumar who on 3182011, on the direction of SI Sita Ram removed the dead body to DDU Hospital where the doctor declared her brought dead. Thereafter, he deposited the dead body in the hospital mortuary.
20. PW14 is HC Ramesh Kumar who on 31082011 taken the rukka from SI Sita Ram and went to the police station for SC No.15/13 Page 9 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku registration of FIR and he got FIR registered and after registration of FIR, he handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to SI Sita Ram.
21. PW15 is Dr.Ajay Sharma who has proved the MLC of deceased prepared by Dr.Avdesh as he has worked with him and Dr. Avdesh left the services of the hospital and same is Ex.PW15/A.
22. PW16 is Ct. Sandeep who is a finger print proficient and he deposed that on 01092011 on the directions of IO, he took the finger prints of deceased lady and handed over the same to SI Sita Ram.
23. PW17 is Ct. Praveen Kumar, photographer who took 18 photographs of the place of incident from different angles on the directions of I/C Crime Team and he proved the said photographs as Ex.PW17/A1 to Ex.PW17/A18 and he also proved negatives of the same as Ex.PW17/B1 to Ex.PW17/B18.
24. PW18 is Inspector Sita Ram Kumawat who deposed that on 3182011 he was posted as SI in PS Dabri and on that day at about 2.30 pm, Ct.Surinder handed over to him DD and he went SC No.15/13 Page 10 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku to the house of the deceased and he found dead body of a lady lying in one of the rooms having its head on the sofa and the legs as well as feet on a nearby table. It is further stated that he has summoned the crime team and after recording the statement of husband of deceased, he prepared rukka Ex.PW18/A and sent HC Ramesh for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, the investigation was taken over by Inspector Ram Kishan who has lifted one blood stained bed sheet from the sofa, a portion of sofa cover, blood, earth control, blood near the kitchen in his presence from the spot and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. Inspector Ram Kishan also prepared rough site plan of the incident at the spot in his presence and they left the spot at about 10.30 pm. This witness has further deposed that on 01092011, the post mortem of dead body was got conducted and doctor handed over three sealed pulandas along with one sample seal to Inspector Ram Kishan vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/B.
25. He has further deposed that on 15092011, he along with SHO Inspector Ram Kishan, HC Ramesh and a secret informer reached at Anand Vihar Bus Terminal and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/C and personal search of the accused was taken vide memo Ex.PW18/D and disclosure SC No.15/13 Page 11 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku statement of accused was recorded vide memo Ex.PW18/E and pursuant to his disclosure statement, a sum of Rs.6340/ were seized vide memo Ex.PW18/F. He has further deposed that accused took them to the place near drain behind bus stand Jeewan Park on Pankha Road where he had hidden the weapon of offence and on reaching there, accused recovered a knife from a heap of garbage on the bank of the drain and sketch of the knife was prepared by the IO vide memo Ex.PW18/G, knife was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/H and accused also pointed out spot of incident vide memo Ex.PW18/I. He has further deposed that on 16092011 and 17092011, he along with SHO Inspector Ram Kishan, HC Ramesh and members of crime team went in search of the clothes of the accused which he was wearing at the time of incident but clothes could not be found at that place despite intense search. This witness has also identified the case property,i.e. One blood stained check bed sheet as Ex.P1, one torn blood stained piece of sofa cover as Ex.P3, one kitchen knife having black colour plastic handle as Ex.P4 and 11 currency notes of Rs.500/, 7 currency notes of Rs. 100/, 2 currency notes of Rs.50/ and 4 currency notes of Rs. 10/ which were recovered from the pant pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest collectively Ex.P5.
SC No.15/13 Page 12 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku
26. PW19 is SI Mahesh Kumar who prepared the scaled site plan and handed over the same to IO and proved the same as Ex.PW19/A.
27. PW20 is Shri Sudhir Kumar Bhatnagar who deposed that on 3182011 at about 1.30 pm when Mahender Mehra was sitting in his shop and accused Rinku came there in a very terrified and frightened state and they asked him what the matter was and accused replied that he is coming from Sagarpur and he has received a message from his native place that his grandfather is about to breathe his last and he has to leave for his native place along with his father immediately and he sat in the shop for sometime and took water and thereafter left.
28. PW21 is Shri Naresh Mehra, younger brother of Shri Mahender Mehra, who stated that his sister in law Neelam Mehra had paid Rs.3 lacs to the complainant and thereafter complainant Mahender Mehra had vacated her office owned by his brother, husband of Neelam Mehra. He has further deposed that he had seen accused Shailesh @ Rinku coming to the office of Mahender Mehra.
29. PW22 is Inspector Ram Kishan Yadav who deposed that SC No.15/13 Page 13 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku on 31082011, he was posted as SHO PS Dabri and on that day, a PCR call was received regarding a murder and same had been entrusted to SI Sita Ram and he left for spot. He has further deposed that he along with other staff also reached at spot where they found the dead body of a female lying with its head on a sofa set and the lower part of the body on the center table in the drawing room of the flat on the third floor and there were injury marks on the throat of the deceased and there was blood on the center table and on the sofa and on the floor. Some drops of blood were also near the kitchen door. The almirah in the bedroom was open and its articles were lying scattered in the room. The main gate of the flat as well as doors of all the rooms were open. He has further deposed that he called the crime team who inspected and photographed the place of incident from various angles. Thereafter he sent the dead body to DDU Hospital through Ct.Surender and in the mean time, SI Sita Ram prepared rukka and FIR got registered and after registration of FIR, he took over the investigation of the case.
30. He has further deposed that he lifted the exhibits from the spot namely blood stained bedsheet, blood stained part of sofa cover, blood lying on the floor, a piece of blood stained floor, earth control and blood drops near the kitchen door, sealed SC No.15/13 Page 14 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku them in separate pullandas with the seal of RK and seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW4/B. Thereafter he recorded the statement of witnesses. This witness has further deposed that on 01092011, he went to DDU Hospital and filled up inquest papers and he proved form no.25.35 as Ex.PW22/A, the dead body of the deceased was identified by husband of deceased Mahender Mehra and one Kamal Bassi vide memos Ex.PW22/B and Ex.PW22/C. Thereafter postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted and dead body of deceased was handed over to complainant vide receipt Ex.PW22/D. He has further deposed that on 15092011, on the secret information, he along with HC Ramesh, SI Sita Ram and informer went to ISBT, Anand Vihar and arrested the accused vide memo already Ex.PW18/C and his personal search was taken vide memo already Ex.PW18/D, Disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW18/E and thereafter accused led them to crime spot vide memo already Ex.PW18/I, thereafter accused led them to the spot on the banks of ganda nala and he recovered knife which was used in the commission of offence and same was seized vide memo Ex.PW18/H and its sketch already Ex.PW18/G.
31. This witness has further deposed that on 17092011, SC No.15/13 Page 15 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku accused was got medically examined and his blood sample was obtained. Thereafter on 22112011, he obtained subsequent opinion of the autopsy doctor which is already Ex.PW11/C and at the time of arrest of accused Rs.6340/ was recovered which was seized vide memo already Ex.PW18/F. This witness has further stated that on 3182011, he prepared rough site plan of the spot of incident Ex.PW22/E and after completion of the investigation, he had prepared charge sheet and filed in the concerned Court. Thereafter, this witness has identified the case property.
32. PW23 is Ms. Sangeeta Singh who has deposed that mobile phone no.9136290363 of MTS Company was in her name and she has handed over the same to her father Mahender Kumar Mehra after its activation in the month of March, 2010 and on 3182011, her father had made a call to police on 100 number regarding murder of her mother.
33. PW24 is Shri Jyotish Moharana, Nodal Officer who has proved customer application form of mobile no.9136290363 as Ex.PW24/A, photocopy of election card as Ex.PW24/B and call details of said mobile phone from 2082011 to 02092011 as Ex.PW24/C collectively. He has also proved cell ID chart as SC No.15/13 Page 16 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku Ex.PW24/D and certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW24/E.
34. Thereafter, accused was examined under section 313 Cr. PC and he pleaded false implication and led DE.
35. DW1 is Const. Mahesh Chand Dubey, who has proved the GD No. 27 dated 14.09.2011 vide Ex. DW1/A, which was written in the handwriting of Const, Pawan Kumar, who was on medical rest as he had suffered fracture in his leg and this witness had identified the handwriting of Const. Pawan Singh as he had seen him writing and signing in the due course of official duties. As per Ex. DW1/A, accused Shailesh @ Rinku was apprehended by HC Ramesh Chand and Const. Mahesh Chand.
36. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.
37. It has been contended by the Ld. Counsel for the State that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete. It is further contended that accused was known to the husband of the deceased namely Mahender Mehra PW4 and he did rekki SC No.15/13 Page 17 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku about the movements/whereabouts of the PW4/husband of the deceased at least about one week prior to the date of the incident and even on the date of incident, he after verifying the fact that the PW4 is about to leave his residence and going to his office, he went to the house of the deceased and committed murder of the deceased after robbing her and in order to create a false plea of alibi, he appeared in the office of PW4 at about 1:30 pm despite being called by PW4 to reach his office in the morning but accused sought time in coming to the office of PW4 and after reaching office of PW4 left the office hurriedly by saying that his grandfather is on death bed and after disposing off his household good, he left Delhi. Therefore, his conduct pre and post to the incident demolishes the presumption of innocence. It is further contended that the accused got recovered the knife and the blood present on the said knife is tallied with the blood of the deceased and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted.
38. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence is snapped and there is no evidence on record to convict the accused. It is further contended that the witness who was claiming to be the witness to the last seen together of the accused near the house SC No.15/13 Page 18 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku of the deceased has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that the conduct of the accused is not relevant in order to convict him as mere abscondance cannot proved a guilty mind of the accused and even a honest person may like to fled away from the place of crime. It is further contended that the accused was not arrested as per the prosecution story, otherwise, accused had proved on record by leading DE that accused was arrested by the Delhi Police officials from Agra and, therefore, the recovery alleged to have been effected at the instance of accused is planted one and accused has been falsely implicated in this case and, therefore, accused deserves to be acquitted.
39. By now, it is evident that the case of the prosecution rests squarely on the circumstantial evidence. There is no direct eye witness to the crime. Experience shows that very rarely are crimes committed in full public view at a public place. Often, the crimes including murder are accomplished secretly far from public gaze so as to avoid their detection. In such cases, the culprits are tracked either on the basis of last seen together or other circumstances appearing on the scene including motive of crime, from which their guilt is inferred. Such type of evidence is called as 'circumstantial evidence'. In cases based upon SC No.15/13 Page 19 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku circumstantial evidence, burden upon the prosecution is heavier to prove each and every circumstance leading to the death of the deceased, beyond any reasonable doubt. The facts and circumstances so established should lead to only one inference i.e the guilt of the accused and should be complete without any missing link in the same so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
40. It is settled principle of law that such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established.
(ii) those circumstances should be of such tendency which point towards guilt of the accused.
(iii) the circumstance, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanations of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such SC No.15/13 Page 20 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
41. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. In order to prove its case prosecution has led evidence to prove the fact that accused Shailesh was having mobile phone number 8750595281 (herein after referred to as mobile No.X) in terms of Ex.PW8/A and complainant, PW 4 Sh. Mahinder Mehra, deceased who was using mobile phone number 9136290363 (hereinafter referred to as mobile No.Y) owned by PW23 Ms. Sangita Singh D/o complainant in terms of Ex.PW24/A as proved by PW24, Sh. Jyotish Mohrana. PW23 has deposed that the mobile No. 'Y' was being handed over to her father and her father was using the same. It is case of prosecution as deposed by PW4 that accused Sailesh @ Rinku was known to him as once upon a time accused Sailesh @ Rinku happened to be his tenant at his house bearing No. RZ74, Raghu Nagar, Pankha Road, Delhi and accused initially staying with his parents in his house and later on accused shifted to some other house. PW4 has further deposed that about 7 to 8 days before the incident accused Shailesh @ Rinku had called him on his mobile No. Y and at the time he was present in his house. PW4 has further deposed that accused was told by him that he is at his house and SC No.15/13 Page 21 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku PW4 would be coming to his office in a short while and PW4 came to his office but accused visited his house in his absence. PW4 has further deposed that when he returned to his home for lunch in the after noon the deceased told him that accused had come to his house and he was surprised as PW4 had asked the accused not to come to his house but had asked the accused to come to his office. PW4 had further deposed that his wife, since deceased had told him that accused asked for water and after having water the accused left from his house.
42. PW4 has further deposed that on 31st of August 2011 at about 11.06 AM the accused called him from his mobile NO. X on the mobile phone No. Y of PW4 and asked PW 4 if he is coming to his office and PW4 told him that he will be coming to the office soon after having breakfast and PW4 went to his office and he did not find the accused around his office and he called the accused on his mobile and accused, in turn, told PW4 that he would be coming to his office soon but after about half an hour when accused did not come to him office, PW4 again called him on his mobile and accused told him that he will be coming soon. PW4 has further deposed that he called the accused twothree time and on each occasion accused told him that he is coming soon and ultimately accused reached his office SC No.15/13 Page 22 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku at about 1.30 PM in a frightened state as if the accused had come running from somewhere and when PW4 asked him as to why accused was so frightened the accused replied that he had come from Sagarpur. PW4, thereafter, deposed that accused called somebody on mobile phone and told him that grandfather of accused is on death bed and he has to rush to his native village immediately and, thereafter, accused left his office.
43. The connectivity of mobile number 'X' and 'Y' belonging to the accused and PW4 is reproduced hereunder:
Date Time A Number (X) B Number (Y) 22.08.2011 02:16:29 PM 918750595281 919136290363 22.08.2011 05:03:17 PM 918750595281 919136290363 24.08.2011 11:18:21 AM 9136290363 918750595281 24.08.2011 12:36:41 PM 918750595281 919136290363 24.08.2011 05:28:53 PM 9136290363 918750595281 26.08.2011 06:50:14 PM 918750595281 9136290363 27.08.2011 01:47:38 PM 918750595281 9136290363 29.08.2011 04:43:24 PM 9136290363 918750595281 29.08.2011 09:38:25 PM 9958949338 918750595281 30.08.2011 10:53:51 AM 9136290363 918750595281 30.08.2011 10:55:02 AM 9136290363 918750595281 SC No.15/13 Page 23 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku 30.08.2011 04:02:45 PM 918750595281 919136290363 30.08.2011 07:21:32 PM 919911813923 918750595281 30.08.2011 07:23:24 PM 9136290363 918750595281 31.08.2011 08:50:00 AM 9136290363 918750595281 31.08.2011 10:45:18 AM 9136290363 918750595281 31.08.2011 11:00:00 AM 9136290363 918750595281 31.08.2011 11:53:37 AM 9136290363 918750595281 31.08.2011 12:20:46 PM 9136290363 918750595281 31.08.2011 05:54:11 PM 919891392836 918750595281 31.08.2011 05:55:55 PM 919911813923 918750595281 31.08.2011 06:59:29 PM 919911813923 918750595281 31.08.2011 07:05:57 PM 918750595281 153066 9911813920
Relevant call details of mobile number 9136290363 (Y) used by PW4 from 20.08.2011 to 02.09.2011 are reproduced hereunder:
Calling Number Called number Date Time (Y) (X) 919136290363 8750595281 20.08.2011 09:42:22 AM 919136290363 9716812961 21.08.2011 12:26:51 PM 919136290363 9999280860 21.08.2011 01:00:16 PM 8750595281 919136290363 21.08.2011 02:08:12 PM 919136290363 8750595281 21.08.2011 06:26:15 PM SC No.15/13 Page 24 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku 919136290363 8130468927 21.08.2011 06:28:22 PM 919136290363 9250164430 21.08.2011 06:33:51 PM 919136290363 8750595281 21.08.2011 06:36:42 PM 919136290363 8750595281 21.08.2011 06:50:04 PM 9015284626 919136290363 22.08.2011 12:14:45 PM 8750595281 919136290363 22.08.2011 02:17:43 PM 919136290363 9015284626 22.08.2011 04:15:20 PM 8750595281 919136290363 22.08.2011 05:04:31 PM 919136290363 9289058869 22.08.2011 06:43:25 PM 919136290363 9312501572 22.08.2011 07:01:34 PM 919136290363 1125641842 24.08.2011 10:12:43 AM 919136290363 1125641842 24.08.2011 10:20:52 AM 919136290363 9868114294 24.08.2011 11:10:12 AM 919136290363 8750595281 24.08.2011 11:19:36 AM 919136290363 9289058869 24.08.2011 11:57:24 AM 919136290363 8130468927 24.08.2011 12:28:06 PM 8750595281 919136290363 24.08.2011 12:37:56 PM 919136290363 8750595281 24.08.2011 05:30:08 PM 8750595281 919136290363 26.08.2011 06:51:28 PM 8750595281 919136290363 27.08.2011 01:48:52 PM 8750595281 919136290363 27.08.2011 07:11:42 PM 919136290363 8750595281 28.08.2011 11:27:47 AM 919136290363 8750595281 29.08.2011 04:44:38 PM 919136290363 8750595281 30.08.2011 03:50:06 PM 919136290363 8750595281 30.08.2011 03:53:54 PM SC No.15/13 Page 25 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku 919136290363 8750595281 30.08.2011 03:59:51 PM 8750595281 919136290363 30.08.2011 04:03:59 PM 919136290363 8750595281 31.08.2011 08:51:15 AM 919136290363 8750595281 31.08.2011 08:52:56 AM 919136290363 8750595281 31.08.2011 11:08:36 AM 919136290363 8750595281 31.08.2011 11:54:52 AM 919136290363 8750595281 31.08.2011 12:22:01 PM
44. A bare perusal of this chart, it is crystal clear that accused had contacted PW4 from his mobile phone bearing No. X on the mobile phone 'Y' of PW4. It may be noted here that the testimony of PW4 is further corroborated by PW20 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Bhatnagar who has deposed that he had seen the accused coming to PW4 shop which is situated in the vicinity of the shop of PW20. He has further deposed that he is engaged in the business of tour and travels at RZ 73 Raghu Nagar and PW4 is carrying on the business of property dealing in the shop adjoining to the shop of PW4. PW20 has further stated that on 31st of August 2011 at about 1.30 PM when PW4 was sitting in his shop the accused came there in a frightened state and PW4 and PW20 inquired from the accused as to from where he is coming then accused told that his grandfather is on death bed and he has to leave for his native place and he sat in the shop cum office of PW4 for some time and thereafter he left.
SC No.15/13 Page 26 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku
45. It is relevant to note here that PW4 has further stated that at about 2.00 PM he left for home for having lunch and reached his house at about 2.20 PM and rang the door bell and usually his wife, since deceased used to open the door but on that day she did not open the door and when he went upstairs he found his wife since deceased lying in the pool of blood and the deceased was bleeding from her throat and mouth and he called Sh. Kamal Bassi a neighbour and, thereafter, he called the police at 100 number. The police came and inquired as to whether PW4 had received any mobile phone and PW4 recollected that he received a call from accused Rinku. PW4 called the accused on his mobile but the accused did not pick up the phone. He has further deposed that he had made a statement to the police Ex. PW4/A on the basis of which FIR was lodged. PW4 has further deposed that the financial condition of accused was very weak and he had lured PW4 to do some business with the accused but PW4 changed his mind. The oral testimony of PW4 is further corroborated by the connectivity of the accused with PW4 at least one week prior to the date of incident and on the fateful day i.e. 31/8/2001 in terms of the call detail records of mobile phone of no. X belonging to the accused in terms of Ex.PW8/C and mobile No.Y used by PW4 owned by PW23 his daughter in SC No.15/13 Page 27 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku terms of Ex.PW24/C. The details of such connectivity has been depicted in the foregoing para.
46. From the above discussion it can be inferred that accused was in search of the occasion to rob the deceased in the absence of her husband PW4 as he had inquired from PW4 atleast one week prior to the date of incident as to his whereabouts and when PW4 stated that he will be present in the office after having breakfast accused paid a visit to the house of PW4 in his absence and after having water accused left the house of the PW4. It may be noted here that on the day of incident accused again inquired from PW4 as to his whereabouts and PW4 told him that he will be present in his office and asked accused to be present in his office and after reaching office PW4 inquired as to where the accused has gone and accused told PW4 that he is coming soon and from 11.00 AM to 1.30 PM PW4 contacted the accused on his mobile number 'X', a number of times as accused had to come to his office but accused each and every time stated that he is coming soon and ultimately accused came present at 1.30 PM in a frightened state and immediately left the office by saying that he is going to his native place as his grandfather is on death bed. No cross examination of this witness has been there on record on this aspect meaning SC No.15/13 Page 28 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku thereby the accused had contacted the complainant/PW4 as deposed by him and the accused was in search of occasion to find the wife of PW4 alone in her house as and when the deceased found alone the accused robbed her and murdered her. The above said conduct of accused pin points to the irresistible conclusion that the accused was in search of the occasion to find the deceased alone in her home and that is why he after giving the time to PW4 that accused was coming to his office on the fateful day and prior to that accused had not reached the office of PW4 i.e one week before the incident and when PkW4 asked him to come to his office and he instead of going to his office went to his house in the absence of PW4. Therefore this conduct of accused is relevant as it pin points to the incriminating nature of his conduct on or before the relevant fact /fact in issue/date of incident. It is relevant here to note that conduct of the accused on the day of incident also incriminates the accused in as much as the accused disposed off his house hold articles on the day of incident and left the rented premises. It may be noted relevant to note that the conduct of accused after the death of the deceased also incriminates and the conduct which demolishes the presumption of innocence is relevant under section 8 of Indian Evidence Act.
SC No.15/13 Page 29 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku
47. In addition to it, it is worth while to mention here that PW2 Saneev Gupta who is a Scrap dealer has deposed that in the month of August 2001 his son Rohit was present in his shop at Sankar Road, Sagar Pur and a lady came to his shop who intended to sell her house hold goods lying in her house and PW2 went to the house of the lady who was residing in the neighbourhood of his shop whom he had known as she was the tenant in that house and he inquired from the said landlady about the genuineness of that goods and he purchased the said house hold articles of said lady for Rs. 4000/ and he brought one fridge, cooler and TV and had left the double bed there to be brought later on. Although this witness has not identified the accused as the husband of that lady but during cross examination he has admitted that the said lady from whom he had purchased the said house hold articles was residing as tenant in the house of Mrs. Ramo Devi which is situated at a distance of 25 mtrs. from his shop. During cross examination he further admitted that the husband of said lady, who had sold the goods, looked like the accused present in the court. During cross examination by the counsel for the accused PW2 had admitted that the said lady had stated that she is disposing off those house hold articles as some person was sick in their family and she has to vacate the rented accommodation.
SC No.15/13 Page 30 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku
48. The testimony of PW2 is further corroborated by PW3 Smt. Ramo Devi who had stated that accused had stayed in her house on rent for about one month and the accused vacated the said house in the evening of 31st of August 2011 and a Kabadi (scrap dealer) had taken the house hold goods during the day time on 31st of August 2011 and the accused alongwith his wife and four children had left the house by saying that somebody was sick in their family. Although PW3 has not stated in her statement u/s. 161 CrPC that accused had sold his house hold goods to a Kabadi but PW2 had corroborated PW3 that the lady who had sold the house hold articles was a tenant in the house of PW3, therefore, the alleged improvement in the statement of PW3 over her previous statement did not tantamount to any material contradiction so as to create any doubt with regard to the fact that the accused after disposing his house articles to PW2 has vacated the tenanted premises and left for some place on the pretext that someone is sick in his family. Therefore the conduct of the accused incriminates him and such conduct is relevant.
49. Therefore from the conjoint reading of the testimony of PW2 and PW3 it can safely be inferred that accused on the day of incident after having sold his house hold articles left hurriedly SC No.15/13 Page 31 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku without disclosing anything to PW3.
50. It is settled law that mere absconding by itself does not necessary lead to a conclusion of a guilty mind. The act of self preservation is such that an innocent man may feel paniky and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime. The act of absconding is no doubt a relevant piece of evidence to be considered alongwith other evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case. For instance, the circumstance of abscondence can be extremely fatal, if the prosecution is able to prove that the victim was last seen in the company of the deceased and that the accused is absconding after the death of the victim. Normally, the courts are disinclined to attach much importance to the act of absconding, treating as a very small much item in the evidence for recording conviction. It can scarcely be held as a determining link in the chain of circumstance evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis then that of the guilt of the accused. In this regard, I found support from Matru Vs State of U.P. AIR 1972 SC 1050.
51. It is settled law that mere abscondance is no offence but the act of abscondence without any explanation of such SC No.15/13 Page 32 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku abscondance make the conduct of the accused highly incriminating. As in the present case the act of abscondance is attributed to some sickness of family member of the accused as accused had stated before PW4 and PW20 that he had to leave for his native place on account of illness of his grandfather but no defence evidence has been led to prove that the grandfather of accused was seriously ill on the day of incident and whether he had recovered or whether he had been suffering from same ailment till date. In the present case the accused has not denied that PW4 is not known to him and he had not reached house of PW4 a week prior to the date of incident and on the fateful day, he had not called PW4 on his mobile and accused reached in a perplexed condition in the office of PW4 at about 1:30 pm and left immediately his office as well as his rented accommodation. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, abscondence of an accused person is considered a strong link in the chain of circumstantial evidence for establishing the guilt of the accused and I consider it safe to rely upon the circumstances of abscondence of the accused after the robbery and murder of deceased to convict him. The contention of the counsel for the defence that conduct of the accused is not unnatural as the accused paid a visit to the office of PW4 at about 1:30 pm and had he murdered the deceased after robbing her, what was the SC No.15/13 Page 33 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku occasion to the accused to met her husband PW4 on the fateful day, is wholly erroneous in as much as that regarding human behaviour, one cannot predict as to how after the commission of offence, the mind of the individual works. An accused may be perplexed after committing a ghastly crime on the place of incident and ran away towards any direction which he may be falling, the other may be clear headed even after the commission of such offence and may follow the proper escape route to save his skin, therefore, the story of prosecution cannot be held to be unnatural only because accused chose to visit office of PW4 and, thereafter, he absconded from the said office as well as from Delhi immediately.
52. So far as motive is concerned. The prosecution has proved on record that accused had a motive to rob the deceased as it was known to the accused that PW4 had received money in the month of June 2011 for vacating some premises as he was well known to PW and accused was in search of an occasion to rob the deceased, in case, she was found alone and his conduct as discussed above also led to an inference that accused was in search of such opportunity/occasion and the offence of robbery committed upon the deceased by accused is further substantiated by the recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,000/ from SC No.15/13 Page 34 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku the possession of accused at the time of his arrest. Otherwise also, it has also been observed regarding motive by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mulak Raj vs Satish Kumar AIR 1992 SC 1175 that in the absence of motive, conviction can be sustained.
"The question then is , who is the author of the murder? The contention of Sri Lalit is that the respondent had no motive and the High Court found as a fact that the evidence is not sufficient to establish motive. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and motive being absent, the prosecution failed to establish this important link in the chain of circumstances to connect the accused. We find no force in the contention. Undoubtedly ion cases of circumstantial evidence 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 the accused and some time it is difficult to unlock.SC No.15/13 Page 35 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11
PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its nonexistence. The 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. Therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime nor militates against the prosecution case."
53. Apart from that there was a golden opportunity for the accused to explain any they including circumstance during his examination U/s 313 CrPC. There also he choose to remain silent and did not offer any plausible explanation regarding his presence and how the deceased died of strangulation. Recording of statement of accused U/s 313 Crpc is not a mere formality. It is a statutory requirement which provides an opportunity to the accused to state his case and explain the exculpatory SC No.15/13 Page 36 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku circumstances proved against him.
54. It is for the accused to either remain silent or provides answer to the question put to him. However, keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for incriminating circumstances would sustain the charges against him.
55. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined U/s 313 CrPC to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him and the court must take note of such explanation, even, in case of circumstantial evidence, in order to decide as to whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete when the attention of the accused is drawn to the circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of crime and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation with respect to the same, the said act may be considered as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstance. In this regard & found support from State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471, Musheer Khan VS State of M.P.(2010) 2 SCC 748.
56. During his examination U/s.313 CrPC the accused has not given any explanation as to under what circumstances he left his SC No.15/13 Page 37 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku rented accommodation immediately by disposing off his house hold goods or with regard to the serious illness of his grandfather. Therefore the act of abscondance of accused accompanied by his previous and subsequent conduct which is of highly incriminating nature and which demolishes the presumption of innocence led to the conclusion that the accused had left his house after robbing and murdering the deceased.
57. Now coming to the next piece of evidence that accused was last seen in the company of the deceased. In order to prove this piece of evidence the prosecution has led evidence of PW7 Sh. Prem Pal who is alleged to have seen the deceased in the company of accused on the fateful day but this witness turned hostile and has stated that he was beaten by police personals to give false evidence before this court. During cross examination by state counsel he has not fallen in line with the prosecution story as such his testimony with regard to last seen theory stands dissipated.
58. It may be noted here that another piece of evidence led by the prosecution is that the accused had got recovered the weapon of offence used in the commission of offence. PW23 SC No.15/13 Page 38 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku Inspr. Ram Kishan Yadav, IO has deposed that on 15 th of September 2011 he received a secret information that accused Shailesh @ Rinku would be coming to ISBT Anand Vihar and had planned to go to Haridwar and IO alongwith HC Ramesh, SI Sita Ram and secret informer reached at ISBT Anand Vihar and apprehended the accused. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted in terms of arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW18/C and 18/D and accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PW18/E and thereafter the accused led the police party on the banks of Ganda Nala behind bus stand Jeevan park from where accused got recovered a knife which was used in the commission of offence and said knife was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/H and sketch of said knife was prepared vide memo Ex.PW18/G. PW23 has further deposed that he produced the weapon of offence i.e. knife before the autopsy doctor who conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased on 22.11.2011 and obtained the subsequent opinion of said doctor vide opinion Ex.PW11/C. PW23 has further deposed that at the time of arrest a sum of Rs. 6340/ was recovered from the possession of accused which was seized by the seizure memo Ex.PW18/F.
59. PW23 and PW18 has identified the weapon of offence i.e. SC No.15/13 Page 39 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku knife as Ex.P4. As per the opinion of the doctor who had conducted the postmortem i.e. PW11 Dr. Santosh Kumar has deposed that the deceased died of homicidal death in terms of his report Ex.PW11/A and cause of death was hamorragic shock caused by the tearing of large blood vessel of neck consequent upon stab injury by a sharp edged pointed weapon like knife etc. All the injuries found on the dead body were antemortem in nature. The external injury No.1 mentioned in the postmortem report was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The manner of death was homicidal. PW11 has further deposed that he has given the subsequent opinion regarding the weapon of offence and as per his opinion external injury No.1 and 2 were found present on the dead body of deceased were possible by the said knife.
60. It may be noted here that apart from the opinion of the doctor i.e. weapon of offence i.e. knife got recovered from the accused in terms of his disclosure statement may have been used in the commission of murdering the deceased as injury No. 1 and 2 could have been inflicted by the said weapon. FSL report Ex. PX 1 and Ex. PX2 clearly points out that the DNA profiling performed on the exhibits namely blood stain piece of sofa seat recovered from the spot (Ex.3), weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.4, SC No.15/13 Page 40 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku having biological stains i.e blood present on the source of these exhibits is found similar with stains on the source of exhibit 2 (blood of deceased on gauze). A perusal of this report clearly dipicts that the knife got recovered from the accused in terms of disclosure statement of accused was not also having the blood stains but the DNA profiling performed on these blood stains is found matching with the blood stains from the articles lifted by the police from the scene of crime as well as the blood of the deceased taken in the gauze.
61. So far as the recovery of knife is concerned. Law has been well settled as laid down in Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010(2) SCC 748 where it has been observed as under:
In para 20, page 662 of the report it was held when discovery is made pursuant to any facts deposed by the accused, the discovery memo prepared by the investigating officer is necessarily attested by independent witnesses. But if in a given case, no witness is present or nobody agrees to attest the memo, it is difficult to lay down as a proposition that the discovery SC No.15/13 Page 41 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku must be treated tainted or that the discovery evidence is unreliable. In such a situation, the Court has to consider the report of the investigating officer who made discovery on its own merits.
62. To the same effect, the observation of Hon'ble High Court in Delhi in Updesh @ Chintu vs State 2012IIAD(delhi) 626 is also relevant which is reproduced hereunder:
A perusal of the testimony of PW6, PW7 and PW8 shows that recovery of the arms and ammunition was made pursuant to his disclosure in case FIR No. 154/09. Thus, recording of a disclosure statement in the present case could not have taken place. The contention of the learned counsel that recovery was not pursuant to disclosure statement of the appellant is liable to be rejected. The recovery of the articles is pursuant to disclosure statement which is admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The registration of FIR is not a sine qua non for the recovery to be effected.SC No.15/13 Page 42 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11
PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku Recovery can be effected even on an oral disclosure statement. Further the conduct of the accused leading the police party to his house and the specific place in the house from where the recovery of arms and ammunitions is consequently made is also admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act. Reference in this regard is made of Himachal Pradesh Administration vs. Om Prakash MANU/SC/0118/1971: (1972) 1 SCC
249.
63. So far as the arrest of the accused Shailender @ Rinku by the Agra police and his custody being taken by the Delhi Police is concerned. It may be noted that DW1 Const. Mahesh Chand Dubey has proved the photocopy of the GD No. 27 dated 14.09.2011 (EX. DW1/A). It is further deposed that accused Shailesh @ Rinku was apprehended by Delhi Police officials and they had informed that accused is being taken to police station Dabri, South West for inquiry. In cross, he has admitted that accused was not formally arrested by the Delhi Police officials and such Ex. GD 27 does not bear the signature of any of the Delhi Police official. From the bare perusal of the testimony of SC No.15/13 Page 43 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku DW1 only inference can be drawn that the accused person was taken by Delhi Police officials for enquiry. It is not the evidence on record that the accused was formally arrested and handed over by the Agra Police to Delhi Police. But in view of the testimony of IO, Inspector Ram Krishan Yadav that he has arrested the accused from Anand Vihar Bus Terminal, Delhi at the instance of the secret informer. Counsel for the accused Shailesh @ Rinku has given suggestion that accused was arrested from Agra and not from Anand Vihar Bus Terminal but this suggestion has been declined by IO, Inspector Ram Krishan Yadav. Therefore, the testimony of Inspector Ram Krishan has remained unrebutted so far as the arrest of the accused is concerned. So even the defence evidence led by the accused cannot doubt the prosecution story regarding the involvement of this case as well as arrest from the Anand Vihar Bus Terminal, Delhi.
64. It may be noted here that the recovery has been effected from the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused from near the ganda nala and said weapon of offence i.e knife was having blood stain which tallied with DNA profiling of the blood of the deceased. Therefore, it can be safely held that the recovery of the knife has been effected at the instance of the SC No.15/13 Page 44 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku accused Shailesh @ Rinku.
65. It may be noted that the accused was found in the possession of Rs. 6340/ at the time of his arrest and he was unemployed person having no source of income having failed to give any explanation as to how such amount happened to be in his possession at the time of arrest even in his statement recorded U/s. 313 CrPC.
66. From the above discussion, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has proved the following circumstances/links in the chain of circumstances that:
(i) deceased, wife of PW4 was known to the accused as accused was on visiting term with PW4.
(ii) as per deposition of PW4, the accused happened to be tenant in the premises owned by PW4, thereafter, the accused left and taken on rent another premises nearby the residence of PW4.
(iii) There was a connection/connectivity between the mobile phone of accused bearing No. X with of mobile phone bearing SC No.15/13 Page 45 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11 PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku No. Y of PW4 before, on or after the said incident.
(iv) About one week prior to the murder of the deceased, accused had enquired about the whereabouts of PW4, husband of the deceased and PW4 had given time to the accused at his office but accused, instead of going to the office of the PW4 went the house of PW4 in his absence for no rhyme or reason as deposed by PW4.
(v) On the date of incident, accused again contacted the deceased from his mobile number 'X' on the mobile number 'Y' of PW4 and enquired about his whereabouts and stated to PW4 that he wanted to meet him and PW4 had given time to the accused about 11:00 am on 31.08.2011 at his office but instead of going to the office of PW4, he stated each and every action as and when contacted by PW4 that he is coming to the office but he has not reached his office upto 1:30 pm.
(vi) The accused reached in the office of PW4 at 1:30 pm where PW4 and PW2 were found present and on enquiry why he is in perplexed stage, accused explained that his grandfather was on death bed and he left the office of PW4 immediately after taking water.
SC No.15/13 Page 46 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku
(vii) Accused after robbery and murder of the deceased had disposed off the household goods in a hurriedly manner as deposed by PW2.
(viii) Accused had vacated the tenanted premises owned by PW3 on the same day and by evening, he left Delhi.
(ix) PW4 as and when tried to contact the accused after his wife being robbed and murdered but accused had not responded.
(x) Accused had given the explanation that his grandfather is on death bed but no evidence is led as how, when and who had suffered from serious ailment and what is the condition of the person who was so seriously ill on the date of the incident.
(xi) In the absence of any plausible explanation, the act of abscondance of the accused pinpoints to his guilt. The conduct of the accused before, on or after the robbery and murder of the deceased is relevant as the same destroys the presumption of innocence of the accused.
SC No.15/13 Page 47 of 48 SC No.15/13 FIR No.296/11PS: Dabri State Vs. Shailesh @ Rinku
(xii) The weapon of offence I.e knife has been got recovered from the instance of the accused and blood present on the knife is matching with the DNA of the blood found present in the scene of incident.
(xiii) So far as the motive is concerned, the same is proved on record by the prosecution as the fact that the husband of the deceased had received an amount of Rs. 3 lakh in the month of June 2011 and accused was in search of the occasion to rob the deceased as and when found alone and as he got the opportunity, he robbed the deceased and murdered her.
67. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence that the deceased was murdered by the accused. Therefore, accused Shailesh @ Rinku is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 411/392/397/302/201 IPC and 27 Arms Act.
68. Put up for order on sentence on 28.05.2013.
Announced in the open court (Vijay Kumar Dahiya) on the 20th Day of May 2013 ASJ/ Dwarka Courts New Delhi SC No.15/13 Page 48 of 48