Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Anil Kumar Sharma on 24 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02:SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
IN RE: ID No.02406R0000772011
SC No.06/15
FIR No.273/10
PS Sun Light Colony
State Versus 1. Anil Kumar Sharma
S/o Shri Ram Swaroop
R/o 102, Akhara Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi
2. Ramesh Kumar
S/o Shri Ram Swaroop
R/o H. No.659, Gali No.39A,
Molarbandh Extension,
New Delhi
3. Bindu Sharma
W/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma
R/o 9C, Chanchal Park, Street
No.3 nearby Bakkar Wala More,
Nangloi, Delhi
__________________________________________________________
Date of Institution : 15.11.2010
Date of receipt of file by way
transfer in this court : 24.01.2015
Date of arguments : 28.04.2016
Date of judgment : 24.05.2016
SC No.06/15 1 of 29
JUDGMENT
1. As per case of prosecution, on 28/29.07.2010, Ct. Roop Singh (PW14) received information that 'caller ki maa ka gala daba ke maar diya hai aur ghar main chori ho gai hai' from the Police Control Room (PCR). The caller made call from mobile number 9873023596. He recorded the said information in DD Register at Serial Number 35A. The said DD entry was marked to SI Dharmender Kumar (PW12) for necessary action.
2. SI Dharmender Kumar (PW12), on receipt of DD No. 35A, went to the place of incident i.e. H. No. 102, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi where he found that ASI Ganga Prakash (PW10) was already present. He also found a dead body of a woman aged about 45 years old on the inner room on the mattress
- bed sheet lying on the floor. He came to know the name of deceased was Meenakshi Sharma wife of Gopal Sharma. He also found one string (naada) around the neck of the deceased and one green colour salwar in the outer room without string. The AC was found on in the room. Gopal Sharma and Shivang Sharma were also found present there. SI Dharmender Kumar recorded statement of Shivang Sharma (PW7) and made endorsement vide Ex.PW12/A and gave the same to Ct. Brij Pal (PW11) for registration of FIR.
SC No.06/15 2 of 29
3. Ct. Brij Pal (PW11) went to police station with tehreer and gave the same to HC Meena Arora (PW6) who recorded FIR bearing No. 273/10 under section 302/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC"). She also made endorsement on tehreer vide Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter, Ct. Brij Pal came to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original tehreer to Insp. V. K. P. S. Yadav (PW20) for further investigation.
4. Matter was investigated as per law. IO of the case conducted various stages of investigation in the matter. The accused persons were found involved in the commission of offence in the case. Therefore, on conclusion of investigation, they were charge sheeted to face trial.
5. Accused persons, on their appearance before the court of learned MM, were supplied copy of charge sheet and complete set of documents and thus, compliance of section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") was made.
6. As the offence under section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law.
7. Prima facie, sufficient material was found to frame charge against accused persons for offence punishable under section SC No.06/15 3 of 29 302/120B IPC. Therefore, charge for the said offences was framed against accused persons on 26.04.2011, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. In order to bring home the guilt against accused persons, prosecution has examined twenty eight witnesses. The details of which are given as under: i. ) PW1 Gopal Sharma is the husband of deceased. ii. ) PW2 Hemant Sharma is nephew of deceased. iii. ) PW3 Neeraj, aged about 12 years, is the most crucial and star witness of the prosecution.
iv. ) PW4 Rakesh Sharma is the witness, who was having the barber shop at Ashram Chawk near the shop of accused Ramesh Kumar. He turned hostile during the course of his deposition and has not supported the prosecution case.
v. ) PW5 Ct. Satish Kumar is a formal witness of the prosecution.
He took exhibits of the case from Police Station Sunlight Colony vide RC No.50/51/21/10 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini and brought receipts vide number B/3953 and C/3943 from FSL and handed over the same to MHC(M). As per the witness, the exhibits were not tampered in any manner till they remained in his possession.
vi. ) PW6 HC Meena Arora, the duty officer, is a formal witness of SC No.06/15 4 of 29 the prosecution. She recorded FIR in the case. vii.) PW7 Shivang Sharma, son of deceased, is also main, crucial and star witness of the prosecution.
viii.) PW8 Ct. Sunder is also a formal witness of the prosecution. He took copies of FIR from duty officer, Police Station Sunlight Colony and handed over the same at the office of ACMM and senior officers of the police.
ix. ) PW9 Ct. Neetu Yadav joined the investigation along with the IO of the case on 29.07.2010. She stated that she reached at the spot at H. No.102, Hari Nagar Ashram, Delhi, where IO arrested accused Bindu Sharma vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW7/H. She took personal search of accused vide memo Ex.PW9/A. She identified accused Bindu Sharma in the court.
x. ) PW10 SI Ganga Prakash is the witness, who on receipt of DD No. 35A, went to the spot along with Ct. Ghanshyam. He also joined the investigation in the case on 30.07.2010. xi. ) PW11 Ct. Brijpal is the witness, who on 29.07.2010 went to the spot along with the IO of the case. This is the witness through whom IO got the FIR registered in the case. He participated in various proceedings conducted by Investigating Officer at the spot.
xii.) PW12 SI Dharmendra Kumar is the witness, who was on SC No.06/15 5 of 29 emergency duty at the relevant time in Police Station Sunlight Colony on 29.07.2010. He, on receipt of DD No. 35A, went to the spot. He recorded statement of Shivang Sharma son of deceased Ex.PW7/A. He made endorsement on the said statement vide Ex.PW12/A and thereafter, gave the same to Ct. Brijpal for registration of FIR in the case. He also participated in the various proceedings conducted by Investigating Officer at the spot. xiii.) PW13 W/Ct. Kiran is a formal witness of the prosecution. On 29.07.2010, while posted in PCR, she received message at about 7:43 am from mobile number 98730236593. She communicated the said message to the concerned Police Station. She proved PCR Form Ex.PW13/A. xiv.) PW14 Ct. Roop Singh, the DD Writer, is also a formal witness of the prosecution. He recorded DD No.35A dated 29.07.2010 Ex.PW14/A and proved the same.
xv. ) PW15 HC Girdhar Singh, the photographer of Mobile Crime Team, is also a formal witness of the prosecution. He took 15 photographs of the spot of crime and the dead body of deceased from different angles on the directions of Investigating Officer and Crime Team, Incharge. He developed the photographs from the negatives. He proved the photographs Ex.PW15/A1 to Ex.PW15/A15. The negatives of photograph are Ex.PW15/B1 to SC No.06/15 6 of 29 Ex.PW15/B15.
xvi.) PW16 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, the draftsman, Crime Branch, PHQ is also a formal witness of the prosecution. He took rough notes and measurements of the spot at the instance of IO. He prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW16/A and thereafter destroyed rough notes and measurements.
xvii.) PW17 Dharam Singh, an official of Punjab and Sindh Bank, Siddharth Enclave, New Delhi is also a formal witness of the prosecution. He brought the summoned record pertaining to bank account bearing no. 6195 which was in the name of Meenakshi Sharma (deceased).
xviii.) PW18 Bhawna Chawla, an official of ICICI Bank, Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan, New Delhi is also a formal witness of the prosecution. She brought the summoned record pertaining to ownership of credit card no.377041543788003 and 4477475504768003 which were issued in the name of Meenakshi Sharma (deceased).
xix.) PW19 Harsh Sharma, an official of Axis Bank, Khan Market, New Delhi is also a formal witness of the prosecution. He brought the summoned record pertaining to credit card UTI Bank bearing no. 4718 6301 0031 3427 from July 2007 till July 2010 which was issued in the name of Meenakshi Sharma (deceased).
SC No.06/15 7 of 29 xx.) PW20 Inspector V.K.P.S. Yadav is Investigating Officer of the case, who conducted various stages of investigation in the matter and on conclusion of investigation, filed challan in the court. xxi.) PW21 Ajinder Singh, ASI posted at Finger Print Bureau, PTS, Malviya Nagar, Delhi, is also a formal witness of the prosecution. He stated that he went to the spot, inspected the site and lifted four chance print from main wooden door and ventilator. As per the witness, no chance print was found from almirah and door of bed room. He proved report no.24/FTB/2010 which is Ex.PW21/A. xxii.) PW22 Inspector Jitender Kumar, Incharge, Crime Team, South is also a formal witness of the prosecution. On receipt of information from Control Room on 29.07.2010, he along with photographer Girdhar and HC Raj Kumar (proficient) went to the spot. He and his team inspected inside the house, where dead body of Meenakshi Sharma was found lying. He proved his report regarding inspection of scene of crime which is Ex.PW22/A. xxiii.) PW23 Shri Saurabh Kulshreshtha is the learned MM, who recorded statement of Neeraj Ex.PW3/A under section 164 Cr.P.C.
xxiv.) PW24 Anil Sharma is brother of deceased. xxv.) PW25 Dr. Sahjal Dhooria examined Meenakshi Sharma, when SC No.06/15 8 of 29 she was brought in JP Narayan Trauma Center, AIIMS hospital, New Delhi on 29.07.2010. He proved her MLC which is Ex.PW25/A. xxvi.) PW26 Dr. Adarsh Kumar identified signature of Dr. Subhash Chandra on the postmortem report Ex.PW26/A of deceased Meenakshi Sharma.
xxvii.) PW27 Yashpal is the witness through whom Neeraj (PW3) got employment in the house of accused Anil Sharma; and xxviii.) PW28 Inspector Avadesh Kumar is Finger Print Expert, who examined four chance print Mark Q1 to Q4 and compared the same with the specimen finger and palm prints and thereafter, gave his detailed report which is Ex.PW20/K. He stated that as per his examination, the result was chance print Q4 was not identical with finger and palm print of the persons mentioned in para 1 (C). Chance print Q1, Q2 and Q3 were partial and smudged and did not disclose sufficient number of ridge details in their relative position for comparison. Hence, were unfit for comparison search. In his cross examination, he admitted that no positive finding came out in matching of the finger / palm print with the questioned chance print.
9. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein SC No.06/15 9 of 29 all incriminating material/circumstances was put to them, to which they claimed innocence and alleged false implication.
10. Accused persons preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence.
11. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, Shri Jitender Tyagi, learned counsel for accused Anil Kumar Sharma & Ramesh Kumar and Shri Parmeshwar Jha, learned Amicus Curiae for accused Bindu Sharma and carefully perused the record of the case.
12. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness, who saw the accused persons committing murder of deceased. It is well settled that an offence can be proved either by way of direct evidence or indirect or circumstantial evidence.
13. In the case of Bodh Raj @ Bodha vs. State of J & K AIR 2002 SC 3164, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that ;
"For a crime to be proved, it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances, be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons, who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by SC No.06/15 10 of 29 circumstantial evidence also. The principle fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consist of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together, they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed."
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the condition precedents which needs to be satisfied before the circumstantial evidence can be made the basis of conviction. It was held; (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned `must' or `should' and not `may be' established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive SC No.06/15 11 of 29 nature and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
15. The law is, thus, well settled that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and the guilt of any other person. In the case of Bhagat Ram vs. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621, it was laid down that where the case depends upon conclusion drawn from circumstances, the "cumulative effect" of the circumstances must be such as to negative innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any "reasonable doubt".
16. The basic principle of criminal law remains that while deciding about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of an offence, the Court has to judge the evidence by SC No.06/15 12 of 29 the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. The outcome of each case would depend upon its own facts and circumstances. While considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the Court has to be conscious not only about the cardinal principle of law that a person arrayed as an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, but at the same time, the presumption of innocence should not be carried too far, the dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule should not be forgotten particularly in the light of escalating crime and escape of criminals. Keeping this philosophy in mind, the Hon'ble Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Shivaji Sahib Rao Bobade vs. State AIR 1973 SC 2622, has observed as under: "Our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice more potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish marginal innocence."
17. Keeping in view the above principle of law in mind, the evidence on record needs to be scanned through to arrive at a SC No.06/15 13 of 29 conclusion. PW3 Neeraj and PW7 Shivang Sharma are the material and star witnesses of the prosecution to prove the involvement of accused persons in the murder of deceased Meenakshi Sharma. PW3 Neeraj, a child witness was brought by accused Bindu Sharma in the house of accused Anil Kumar Sharma for domestic help. He was present in the house of accused on the date of incident. He has deposed that he was living with his maternal uncle (mama) Chunchun Ram at Civil Lines, who brought him from his village Panditpur, Bihar for studying here in Delhi. He deposed that accused Bindu Sharma brought him to Hari Nagar Ashram to take care of child of Anil Sharma. He stated that house of Anil Sharma is in front of Mandir at Hari Nagar Ashram. As per the witness, he came to the house of Anil Sharma on 26.07.10 and was staying there with him.
18. PW3 Neeraj further deposed that on 28.07.10, it was birthday of the son of Anil Sharma. He stated that after the ceremony of birthday was over at night, he was called by Anil Sharma for opening the door of one aunty, who was in a room in front of the house of Anil Sharma. He deposed that as the room was bolted from inside, he was made to climb on the ventilator (roshandan) to open the door from inside. He stated that Anil SC No.06/15 14 of 29 Sharma helped him to climb up to the ventilator. He entered the room through ventilator and opened the bolt from inside and thereafter, he came out and Anil Sharma entered into the room. He stated that he went upstairs to sleep. As per the witness, when he left, Bindu and one other person was also there alongwith Anil Sharma. He identified accused Anil Sharma and Bindu in the court. He deposed that when he woke up in the morning, he found that crowd had gathered at the door of the said room which he had opened on the previous night and it was revealed that murder of a lady had taken place. He stated that police reached there and made inquiries from him. He stated that his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate on which he had signed. He proved his statement which is Ex. PW3/A.
19. In his cross examination, PW1 Neeraj stated that he had met Bindu aunty two days prior to coming to Hari Nagar Ashram. His mama had dropped him at her house. He stated that accused Bindu took him to the house of accused Anil Sharma at Hari Nagar Ashram. He stated that nobody had told him as to what he had to tell to the police. He denied the suggestion that under the pressure of police, he had named Anil Sharma and Binbdu Sharma. PW3 Neeraj was cross examined at length by learned counsel for accused persons, but nothing has come in his cross SC No.06/15 15 of 29 examination to belie his testimony and to doubt his veracity. He remained consistent and firm throughout his deposition. His testimony remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. He has deposed about the facts whatever he saw with his naked eyes.
20. PW23 Shri Saurabh Kulshrestha, the then learned MM recorded statement of Neeraj (PW3) Ex. PW3/A under section 164 Cr.P.C. He proved his proceedings which is Ex. PW23/A. He also proved the Certificate Ex. PW23/B given regarding correctness of the statement recorded by him. He deposed that before recording the statement of Neeraj, he inquired from him, if he was under any kind of inducement or pressure for making the statement. He further deposed that he satisfied himself that Neeraj was able to give rational answers of the questions put to him and thereafter, he proceeded to record his statement.
21. PW7 Shivang Sharma is the son of deceased Meenakshi Sharma. He deposed that his father got married in the year 1988 with his mother Meenakshi Sharma. His father is having property of about 700/800 square feet at Main Mathura Road. His house No.102 is also situated in the said property. He further deposed that his father treated accused Anil Sharma as his son and wanted to adopt him as his son which was not liked by his mother and due to this reason, his father and mother used to quarrel.
SC No.06/15 16 of 29
22. PW7 Shivang Sharma deposed that on 28.07.10, it was birthday of the son of accused Anil. As per him, the birthday function was attended by his father and other relatives, but due to the aforesaid reason, he and his mother were not invited and therefore, they did not attend the function. He further deposed that accused Anil was on talking terms with him, while he was not on talking terms with his mother. He stated that as he was a student and he had to study till late at night, he was having a separate room away from the room of his mother. He deposed that his father used to sleep in a separate room which was on the other side of the plot.
23. PW7 Shivang Sharma further deposed that birthday function of his child continued till after 1 AM on 29.07.10. According to him, on 29.07.10 at about 3 or 4 AM, he wanted to answer the nature call and for that purpose, he tried to open the door of his room, but could not do so as it was bolted from outside. Therefore, he called out for his mother to open the door, but there was no response from her side. He, therefore, tried to contact her on her mobile, but the mobile was responding as switched off. He tried the landline number of MTNL which was installed in the room of his mother, but no one picked up the phone. He considered his mother to have slept, therefore, he also SC No.06/15 17 of 29 went to sleep in his room.
24. PW7 Shivang Sharma further deposed that in the morning, at about 7 AM, their servant Sachin, who used to come for cleaning knocked the main gate. On hearing the knock, he also pulled the door of his room and from the space that was between the doors, he shouted and instructed Sachin to open his door as well. He deposed that as no one opened the door from inside, Sachin climbed on the roof and from there, came down and opened the bolt of door of his room. Then, he went to the room of his mother. The door was closed but was not bolted from either side. He went inside and found that the articles were scattered and lying on the floor. His mother was lying on the floor. Her neck was tied with a string (nada). He deposed that on checking, he found that she had already expired. He stated that the almirah in the room was also opened and its articles were scattered on the floor. He immediately called the police by dialing number 100 by his mobile. Police came. Meanwhile, others including his father also reached there. Police recorded his statement Ex. PW7/A. He stated that in his complaint that he had suspected accused persons i.e. Anil Sharma and his associates.
25. PW7 Shivang Sharma further deposed that the accused persons were interrogated. On interrogation, Anil made some SC No.06/15 18 of 29 disclosure and thereafter, took the police to his room from where, he got recovered cheque book of different banks, signed cheques, insurance papers of his mother, VISA cards and other articles including some jewellery which were missing from the room of his mother from the almirah in his room. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/C. Some other documents namely ration card and marriage card etc. of Anil were also seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/D. The police also seized blood stained bed sheet, towel and some other articles vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/B. He stated that accused also got recovered one sheet of thermocol and grill of exhaust fan from near the room of his mother which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/E. Accused Anil was arrested vide memo Ex. PW7/F and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW7/G. Accused Bindu was arrested vide memo Ex. PW7/H, while accused Ramesh, brother of accused Anil was arrested vide memo Ex. PW7/I. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW7/J.
26. The dead body of deceased was sent to hospital by IO for postmortem. On 30.07.10, PW7 Shivang Sharma identified the dead body of his mother vide Identification Memo Ex. PW7/K. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them vide SC No.06/15 19 of 29 memo Ex. PW7/L. He identified all the three accused persons in the court and also the articles i.e. towel having cut marks Ex. P1, two bed sheets of multi colour design having cut marks Ex. P2 and other documents Ex. P3 (colly), one pejami of green colour with yellow zig zag print Ex. P4, driving license, ration card and marriage card of accused Anil Ex. P5 (colly), one square thermocol sheet and cover (jaali) of table fan made of iron Ex. P6 which were recovered at the instance of accused Anil.
27. In his entire cross examination, PW7 Shivang Sharma remained firm and consistent. His testimony could not be impeached despite lengthy cross examination conducted by learned counsel for accused persons. He deposed about the facts which he saw with his naked eyes. Nothing has come on record in his test to doubt his veracity. He doest not have any ill will or previous enmity with the accused persons. Therefore, there is no reason as to why he will depose falsely against them and unnecessarily involve the accused persons in a false case. PW7 Shivang Sharma appears to be a truthful, reliable and credible witness of the prosecution.
28. PW7 Shivang Sharma, on seeing the dead body of his mother, immediately made call to the police at 100 number from his mobile phone number 9873023596. DD No.35A Ex. PW14/A SC No.06/15 20 of 29 was recorded at Police Station Sun Light Colony by Ct. Roop Singh (PW14). SI Dharmender Kumar, on receipt of DD No.35A reached at the place of incident i.e. House No.102, Hari Nagar Ashram, where ASI Ganga Prakash (PW10) was already present there. He found a dead body of a woman aged about 45 years old on the inner room on the mattress. He also found one string (nada) around the neck of deceased, one green colour salwar in the outer room without string (nada). The A/C was found on in the said room. SHO also came at the spot. ASI Ganga Prakash (PW10) got the scene of crime photographed from the crime team officials. Thereafter, dead body was shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre. He supported the version of PW7 Shivang Sharma regarding recovery of different articles at the instance of accused Anil Sharma. He identified the articles Ex. P1 to Ex. P7 recovered at the instance of accused Anil Kumar Sharma.
29. PW25 Dr. Sahjal Dhooria medically examined patient Meenakshi Sharma in AIIMS Trauma Centre. He stated that after examination, he found her to be dead on arrival as he found her pulse and breathing absent. Her pupils were dilated and fixed. He proved MLC of Meenakshi Sharma which is Ex. PW25/A.
30. On 30.07.10, Dr. Subhash Chandra conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased. The deceased was declared SC No.06/15 21 of 29 brought dead when brought to AIIMS Trauma Centre. Multiple petechial haemorrhages were found on the right side of face, right eye lid swollen and giving a boggy look. Over the under surface of both upper and lower lips, a small abrasion seen due to pressing of teeth against the lips. A ligature mark was seen in the neck completely encircling the neck, 4 cm wide in the mid of anterior aspect of neck, 6 cm above the suprasternal notch in extended head. The ligature mark running to the right 9 cm below right angle of mandible, 5 cm wide going backward to nape of neck, where it was 1.5 cm wide. Coming to the left, the ligature mark was 5.5 cm below left angle of mandible, 4 cm wide and meeting the mid line. On dissection, the base showed bruise and haemorrhage, base of epiglottis and tongue haemorrhagic. No fracture of thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone.
31. On internal examination, various organs were found congested, bruise over right parietal area with subdural bleed in parietal area of brain. As per opinion of the doctor, the time since death was approximately thirty six hours plus and minus two hours. The cause of death was asphyxia due to antemortem ligature strangulation and smothering. PW26 Dr. Adarsh Kumar identified signature of Dr. Subhash Chandra on the postmortem report of deceased Ex. PW26/A. SC No.06/15 22 of 29
32. PW12 SI Dharmender Kumar deposed that accused Anil Sharma was interrogated by Inspector V.K.P.S. Yadav (PW20), IO of the case in his presence and thereafter, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW12/F. Disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW12/B was recorded. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Anil Sharma, they reached at his house in the same compound and at his instance, one ATM card of UTI, some health insurance documents and some more documents of deceased were recovered from the Almirah lying in the room of accused Anil Sharma and they were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/C.
33. PW20 Inspector V.K.P.S. Yadav has also deposed that at the instance of accused Anil, he had seized two ICICI Bank cards in the name of Meenakshi, one UTI bank card, one ICICI Lombard Health Insurance Card, both in the name of Meenakshi and one cheque of Canara Bank in the name of Meenakshi and all the cheques were bearing signatures of Meenakshi. PW17 Dharam Singh brought the original record of Saving Bank Account Opening Form. He stated that as per record, on 19.09.03, a Saving Bank Account bearing No.6195 was opened in the name of Meenakshi Sharma W/o Gopal Sharma r/o 102, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi 110014. He proved certified copy of Bank Account Opening Form Ex. PW17/A. He also brought SC No.06/15 23 of 29 transaction records of the said account from 07.05.11 till 26.03.15. As per records brought by him, there was no transaction in the said account after 07.05.11 as the account holder had died. He proved the transaction record which is Ex. PW17/B. He further stated that the bank had provided details of cheque book bearing serial number 110023074 and as per the detail, the cheque book containing serial number 710101 to 710120 was issued on 20.06.06 in the account number 6195 which was in the name of Meenakshi Sharma. He proved the said details which is Ex. PW17/C.
34. PW18 Bhawna Chawla brought the summoned record i.e. ownership of Credit Card Number 377041543788003 and 4477475504768003 of ICICI Bank. As per her, the said cards were issued in the name of Meenakshi Sharma on 16.03.07. She stated that both the above cards were blocked on 31.03.11. She proved the computer generated statement which is Ex. PW18/A.
35. PW19 Harsh Sharma deposed that Credit Card of UTI Bank bearing number 4718 6301 0031 3427 valid from July, 2007 till July, 2010 was issued to Meenakshi Sharma. As per the witness, the card was of UTI Bank which was renamed as Axis Bank in the year 2007. He proved the statement of Credit Card of the office which are Ex. PW19/C1 to Ex. PW19/C3.
SC No.06/15 24 of 29
36. The documents belonging to deceased were recovered at the instance of accused Anil Sharma. The accused failed to account as to how the documents of deceased came in his possession. He has also failed to give any reasonable explanation as to why he was keeping the documents of deceased with him.
37. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution shows that the date of alleged incident is 28/09.07.10. PW3 Neeraj entered in the room of deceased Meenakshi Sharma through ventilator. Accused Anil Sharma helped him to climb up to the ventilator and he (PW3) Neeraj entered into the room through ventilator and opened the bolt from inside and came out and thereafter, Anil Sharma entered into the room. PW3 Neeraj has deposed that when he left, Bindu and one another person was there alongwith Anil Sharma. He identified accused Anil Sharma and Bindu Sharma in the court. He could not identify accused Ramesh Kumar as the person, who was present at that time.
38. PW7 Shivang Sharma deposed that birthday function of child of Anil Sharma continued till after 1 AM on 29.07.10. At about 34 AM on 29.07.10, he wanted to answer the nature call and for that purpose, he tried to open the door of his room but he could not do so as it was bolted from outside. He called his mother but there was no response from her. Even the deceased SC No.06/15 25 of 29 did not reply on phone calls made to her. In the morning, when the gate was opened, Meenakshi Sharma, the deceased was found dead in the room. Accused Bindu Sharma was present at the spot when accused Anil Sharma helped Neeraj (PW3) to enter in the room of deceased through ventilator. No other person was seen in the room of deceased. One thermocol sheet and one jaali of fan was found at the spot and the same was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/E. PW3 Neeraj is the main witness, who with the assistance of accused Anil Sharma entered in the room of deceased through ventilator. The facts and circumstances brought and proved on record by the prosecution suggest that it was accused Anil Sharma, who murdered Meenakshi Sharma by strangulating her. The cause of death as per postmortem report Ex. PW26/A is asphyxia due to antemortem ligature strangulation and smothering. Accused Bindu Sharma conspired with accused Anil Sharma and assisted / helped him in committing the murder of deceased. There is no material on record to suggest that accused Ramesh Kumar helped the other accused persons in any manner or participated in conspiracy in committing the murder of deceased.
39. As per case of prosecution, the motive for committing the murder of deceased by accused Anil Sharma is that Gopal SC No.06/15 26 of 29 Sharma (PW1), husband of deceased Meenakshi Sharma, wanted to adopt him (Anil Sharma) as his son. Deceased was already having a son named Shivang Sharma (PW7). The deceased did not like that her husband should adopt accused Anil Sharma as his son. Accused Anil Sharma is alleged to have committed the murder of deceased in conspiracy with other accused persons as she was coming in the way of his adoption as son by her husband.
40. PW7 Shivang Sharma during the course of his deposition has stated that his father Gopal Sharma wanted to adopt Anil as his son. His mother was not in favour of it and on account of this, his father and mother used to quarrel. He stated that he had grown up seeing the quarrels between both of them. PW1 Gopal Sharma, the husband of deceased when examined in the court, did not support the prosecution story. He was declared hostile and thereafter, lengthy cross examination was conducted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Despite lengthy cross examination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he did not support the case of the prosecution.
41. PW20 Inspector V.K.P.S. Yadav deposed that accused Anil Sharma from the Almirah of his room produced one ration card, driving license and marriage card in the name of Anil Sharma and they all were showing Gopal Sharma as father of Anil SC No.06/15 27 of 29 Sharma. He seized the said documents vide Ex. PW7/D. PW24 Anil Sharma in his deposition has stated that his sister Meenakshi Sharma was married with Gopal Sharma in the year 1988 and was residing at her matrimonial home i.e House No.102, Ashram Chowk, Phula Pahelwaniji ka Akhara. She was having a son named Shivang Sharma. As per the witness, there used to be a quarrel between his sister and her husband Gopal Sharma as Gopal Sharma had kept one boy namely Anil Kumar at his house and the said Anil Kumar used to come at Akhara and Gopal Sharma had developed friendly terms with him. He further deposed that Gopal Sharma started treating Anil Kumar as his son and his sister informed that Gopal Sharma wanted to adopt Anil Kumar as his son. He further stated that his sister used to protest in this regard saying that since she was having her own natural son, so there was no need for adopting Anil Kumar and that the property would be divided to the adopted son also. In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely that there used to be quarrel in the house of his sister Meenakshi on account of adoption of Anil Kumar. Thus, the motive for committing the murder of Meenakshi Sharma stands proved from the deposition of PW7 Shivang Sharma and PW24 Anil Sharma.
SC No.06/15 28 of 29
42. For the reasons discussed above, in my considered view, prosecution has succeeded to prove on record that it was accused Anil Sharma, who committed the murder of Meenakshi Sharma in conspiracy with coaccused Bindu Sharma. Accused Bindu Sharma conspired with accused Anil Sharma in committing the murder of deceased. Therefore, accused Anil Sharma is hereby held guilty and convicted for committing the offence punishable under section 302 IPC, accused Bindu Sharma is convicted for committing the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 120B IPC. Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Ramesh Kumar beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to him. Accused Ramesh Kumar is hereby acquitted for the offences with which he was charged.
43. Accused Ramesh Kumar is directed to furnish personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ in terms of section 437A Cr.P.C.
44. Accused Anil Sharma and Bindu Sharma be heard separately on the quantum of sentence and also on the aspect of award of compensation to the victims.
Announced in the open (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
court today i.e. 24.05.2016 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
SC No.06/15 29 of 29