Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Ravinder Solanki on 29 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMARI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05 SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No. 60/17 ( I.D. No. 629/16)
FIR No. 41/2013
P.S. Jafrabad
U/s 302/34 IPC
State Versus 1. Ravinder Solanki
S/o Late Sh. Karan Singh
R/o H. No. D83, Gali No. 7,
Ashok Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi
(at present in JC)
2. Smt. Suman
W/o Sh. Ravinder Solanki
R/o H. No. D83, Gali No. 7,
Ashok Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi
Date of institution : 03062013
Date of arguments : 04092018
Date of Judgment : 29092018
J U D G M E N T
The accused persons have been sent up for trial by the
prosecution on the allegation that on 19022013 at unknown time
at the first floor at House no. D83, Ashok Mohalla, Maujpur,
Delhi both the accused persons Ravinder Solanki and Smt. Suman
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 1 of 55
in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of
a six years old male child namely Shaurya @ Prince S/o Sh.
Yogender Solanki.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19022013 on
receipt of DD No. 7A ASI Chajju Lal No. 2210/NE alongwith Ct.
Suraj No. 3038/NE reached at the place of occurrence i.e. House
No. D83, Gali No. 7, Ashok Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi where he
found a dead body of a child smeared with blood lying on the First
Floor of the house in front of the door of a room opposite staircase
having mark of some sharp edged weapon on the neck of the child
and on enquiry the name of the deceased was came to be known as
Shaurya @ Prince S/o Sh. Yogender Solanki, aged about six years.
Upon this after disclosing the circumstances to the persons present
there ASI made enquiry from the persons but no eye witness met at
the spot meanwhile SHO PS Jafrabad alongwith staff also reached at
the spot and on the DD entry endorsement was made upon which
the present case was registered and investigation of the present
case was assigned to Inspector Dheeraj Singh. Mobile Crime Team
was called at the spot which arrived at the spot and Ct. Neeraj, the
photographer of the Mobile Crime Team took the photographs from
different angles on the instructions of the Inspector Dheeraj Singh
and the Incharge of the Crime Team and the Crime Team also
inspected the spot and IO prepared the site plan.
The dead body of deceased Shaurya @ Prince was sent to the
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 2 of 55
mortuary for postmortem. The case property was seized from the
spot vide seizure memo.
The IO inspected the place of occurrence and when the room
cum bathroom opposite staircase were inspected, it was revealed that
the wearing clothes of the accused Suman wife of accused Ravinder
Solanki and the leather gloves of accused Ravinder were freshly
washed. It was also revealed that both the accused persons alongwith
their daughter used to reside at the First Floor of the house and
Yogender Solanki father of deceased and his son Shaurya @ Prince
used to live on the Ground floor of the premises. Shikha wife of
Yogender Solanki who was pregnant had already left for her parental
house due to some dispute.
Accused Ravinder Solanki in order to mislead the investigation
had made PCR call stating that one drunkard father had murdered his
son. During the course of investigation when it was enquired from
accused Ravinder Solanki then he told that Yogender Solanki had
murdered his son and had run away. When the Ground Floor
premises was chekced, it was found that Yogender Solanki was drunk
and sleeping on the Ground floor in the room and was under the
influence of liquor. When his hands and legs and his clothes were
checked, it did not show that he had tried to wash his clothes or
himself and there was no evidence of any scuffle on the person of
Yogender Solanki. Inspector Dheraj expressed his suspicion that it
was out of place that murder of a child had taken place in the house
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 3 of 55
of the accused and accused Suman was washing her clothes and
gloves of her husband accused Ravinder Solanki. FSL Experts from
Rohini were called on which Mrs. Manisha Upadhaya, SSO Biology,
FSL Rohini, Delhi arrived at the place of occurrence and inspected
the spot. The room cum bathroom of the accused persons had been
freshly washed and the blood stained water had flown down the
drain and it was also revealed that no outsider could enter the
house without the wishes and consent of the house owners and at
the time of investigation it was suspected that both the accused
persons Suman and his husband Ravinder Solanki had committed
the murder of Shaurya @ Prince.
During the investigation of the case, statement of witnesses U/s
161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and in his statement Yogender Solanki
father of the deceased stated that accused Suman who is his Bhabhi
(sister in law) was pregnant at that time and she was already having
a daughter aged about 3 years, and prior to the incident she had
asked Yogender whether a boy or girl will be born to her (batao uske
ladka hoga ya ladki) upon which Yogender instantly replied that it
would be a girl upon which accused Suman and her husband accused
Ravinder became annoyed and Yogender had to tender apology to
them and he withdrew his words.
Further, accused Ravinder was having some money obtained
from ancestral property which he was not giving to Yogender despite
his repeated demands and during the investigation it was further
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 4 of 55
revealed that the flat was with the two brothers Ravinder Solanki
and Yogender Solanki and accused Ravinder knew that Yogender is
a habitual drunker and used to consume liquor and his wife has also
left for her parents house and if Shaurya @ Prince was murdered then
Yogender will go to Jail and all the property would go to the accused
persons.
Further during investigations, statement of Nirmala was
recorded who had stated that on the day of incident she had seen
blood spot on the face of the accused Suman and on being enquired
about the same accused Suman rushed into the bathroom and came
out after considerable time. Statement of one Gayatri and Sarita
were also recorded who had also stated in their statements that about
two months prior to the incident Suman had told them that she was
having a daughter and Yogender was having a son and accused
Suman also stated that Yogender was proud of his son and on
being asked Yogender had also stated to accused Suman that a
daughter would be born to accused Suman.
Further, during the course of investigation, one Pratap Singh,
who was already residing separately from both Ravinder and
Yogender had stated that both the accused persons Ravinder Solanki
and his wife accused Suman were of cunning mind and that
Yogender was in the habit of drinking liquor and the property of their
deceased father was in the hands of accused Ravinder which Ravinder
has not returned to Yogender. Drinking liquor was weakness of
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 5 of 55
Yogender and the accused persons had taken the advantage of the
same.
Further on 09022013 on the occasion of birthday of Shaurya
@ Prince, Yogender had requested accused Suman to prepare some
exotic dishes on the birthday of his son but accused Suman did not
prepare on which Yogender himself had cooked some dishes on the
birthday of his son and invited the children of the neighbourhood
and served the dishes to them.
The postmortem on the dead body of Shaurya @ Prince was
got conducted, exhibits were taken into possession, the dead body
after the postmortem was handed over to the relatives. Postmortem
report was obtained and as per postmortem report the cause of
death was opined as Haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante mortem
injury to neck and associated blood vessels produced by sharp
edged weapon injury no. (1) is sufficient to cause death in ordinary
cause of nature.
Accused Ravinder Solanki was arrested on 26022013 and
his wife accused Suman was arrested on 25042013 in the present
case, weapon of offence i.e. kitchen knife was recovered at the
instance and pointing out of accused Ravinder Solanki and was
taken into possession and the case property was sent for analysis
to FSL Rohini and thereafter after completion of the investigation
chargesheet U/s 302/34 IPC was filed in the court against the
accused persons, for trial of the accused persons mentioning
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 6 of 55
therein that on receipt of FSL result or any other clue supplementary
chargesheet U/s 173 (8) Cr.P.C. will be filed.
Offence U/s 302 IPC being triable exclusively by the court of
Session, the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Shahdara after compliance
of the provisions of U/s 207 Cr.P.C. i.e. supplying of copies of
chargesheet etc. to the accused persons committed the case to the
court of Session, which in turn was assigned to this court by the
Ld. District & Sessions Judge Shahdara for disposal in accordance
with law.
Ld. Counsel for the accused persons conceded to framing
of charge, a charge U/s 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was
framed against both the accused persons on 13122013 to which both
the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the
matter was adjourned for prosecution evidence.
Prosecution in order to establish its case against the accused
persons examined 24 prosecution witnesses.
PW1 is Smt. Gayatri W/o Sh. Yashpal who has deposed that
she is housewife and she knows the accused Ravinder and his
brother Yoginder as they are her brother in laws (devar) in distant
relation. Yogender had a son aged about 6 years. On 19022013
morning, she came to know that six years old son of Yogender
had been murdered. On hearing this, she went to the house of the
accused. Accused Ravinder used to reside on the first floor while
his brother Yogender used to live on the ground floor and she
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 7 of 55
found the body of Shorya lying at the first floor gate. Accused
Suman is the wife of accused Ravinder Solanki. She has further
deposed that in her presence Ravinder and his wife did not state
anything with regard to Yogender and his son. She has further
deposed that she had heard that there were disputes between the
family of accused and his brother. Suman did not tell her anything.
She was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State
on the ground that she was resiling from her previous statement and
crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel was nil and
discharged.
PW2 is Smt. Savita wife of Sh. Umesh who has deposed
that she is a housewife and she knows the accused Ravinder and
his brother Yoginder as they are her brother in laws (devar) in
distant relation. Accused Suman is the wife of accused Ravinder.
She has further deposed that on 19022013 she came to know
about the murder of Prince aged about 5/6 years son of Yogender.
On hearing this, she went to the house of accused. Police was already
present in the house. Yogender lives on the ground floor of the
house, while both the accused used to reside on the first floor.
The body of Prince was lying on the first floor and has further
stated that she does not want to say anything and further stated
that accused Suman did not tell her anything. She was crossexamined
by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the ground that she is resiling
from her previous statement, crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 8 of 55
for the accused Suman and crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused Ravinder was nil and discharged.
PW3 is Sh. Pratap Singh, son of Sh. Ram Raj Singh, Step
brother of accused Ravinder and Yogender. He has deposed that
Yogender and accused Ravinder are his step brothers. Smt. Ved Wati
is his mother and she is also the mother of Yogender and accused
Ravinder but the name of their father is late Karan Singh. He has
further deposed that he has been living in a separate house since the
year 2007 but Yogender and accused Ravinder have been living
together in the same house. Accused Suman is the wife of accused
Ravinder. He has also deposed that on 19.02.2013 at about 7.00
7.15 am, he received a telephone call from accused Ravinder about
the murder of Shaurya, son of Yogender. He has further stated that
he rushed to the house of accused at D83, Gali No. 7, Ashok
Mohalla, Mauj Pur. Lot of public persons had gathered at the spot.
The police was also present at the spot. Police conducted the
investigation and sent the body to mortuary of GTB Hospital for
postmortem. Next day, he was called at mortuary where he and the
brother in law of Yogender identified the body of the deceased vide
Exbt. PW3/A and after postmortem, the body was handed over to
him. He has also stated that he was not on visiting terms at the
house of the accused since the year 2007 when he started living
separately and therefore he does not know what type of relationship
accused Ravinder Solanki and his brother were having with each
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 9 of 55
other and has further stated that he does not want to say anything
else. He was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State
on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement, cross
examined by the Ld. Defence counsels and discharged.
PW4 Smt. Nirmala Devi, W/o Shankar Dayal Sharma who has
deposed that accused Ravinder is her neighbourer. Ravinder used to
live on the first floor while his brother Yogender used to reside on the
ground floor. She has stated that on 19.02.13 at about 7.00 am
accused Ravinder called her husband by his name while standing near
the grill of the balcony of the first floor of his house. She came out
and asked him as to what was the matter and then he said that
Yogender has run away after killing his son Shaurya. She informed
her husband and then they went to the house of accused but the door
was bolted from inside. She asked her husband to inform the relative
of accused Ravinder who used to reside in the neighbourhood.
Accused Ravinder opened the door and she went inside and found
Shaurya lying dead in front of the staircase and outside the chaukhat
of the door of the room. Accused Suman who is the wife of accused
Ravinder was also present at the spot. She was wearing gown and was
having blood stains on the face near nosepin. PW4 has further
stated that she questioned her about the blood whereupon she went
inside the bathroom and later came out wearing a suit and after
cleaning the blood from her face. She was crossexamined by the
Ld. Defence counsels and discharged.
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 10 of 55
PW5 is Sh. Pramod Kumar, S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh who has
deposed that he is a Milk Vendor and supply milk packets door to
door. He started making supply of 1 liter milk everyday at the house
of Ravinder Solanki since 12.02.13. On 19.02.13 he went to the house
of accused Ravinder Solanki at about 7.00 - 7.10 am for supply of
milk but was informed by the accused Ravinder Solanki that he did
not require the milk that day. He therefore left from there and later on
he came to know about the murder of the child in the house. He was
crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Ravinder Solanki
and crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Suman
was nil. opportunity given and discharged.
PW6 is Dr. Neha Gupta, Assistant Professor, Department of
Forensic Medicine, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi who conducted the
postmortem of the dead body of Shaurya Solanki @ Prince S/o
Yogender, aged about six years. She has deposed that on 20.02.2013,
she was posted as Senior Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic
Medicine, GTB Hospital, Delhi where she conducted the postmortem
on the body of Shaurya Solanki @ Prince son of Yogender, six years
male with the alleged history of physical assault and has stated that
autopsy was started at 11.30 am and was concluded at 12.40 pm and
she has proved her detailed postmortem report Ex. PW6/A and
has deposed that time since death was about one day and has
given the cause of death as haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante
mortem injury to neck and associated blood vessels produced by
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 11 of 55
sharp edged weapon and has opined that Injury No. 1 was sufficient
to cause death in ordinary course of nature. She has further stated
that sealed bottle containing blood for alcohol, sealed envelope
containing blood on gauze and sealed pullanda containing clothes
were sealed with the seal of NG along with the sample seal and were
handed over to the Investigating Officer. As such, PW6 has proved
the detailed postmortem report is Exbt. PW6/A and has deposed
that the same is in her own handwriting and bears her signatures at
point A and she was again called for further examination upon
which she has deposed that around one week back exact date she
does not remember at present, she was present in the hospital and IO
of the case namely Dheeraj Singh came to her with an application to
give subsequent opinion with regard to possibility of causing the
injury as mentioned in PM Report No. 235/13 by one weapon i.e.
knife. She has further deposed that IO produced one envelope duly
sealed with the seal of ASJ alongwith photocopy of Postmortem vide
one Road Certificate. She has further stated that after opening the
envelope, she found one kitchen knife having purple and white handle
and she prepared the diagram of knife which is at point A in her
report. After going through the PM Report and knife she gave her
opinion that injury Nos.1 to 6 were possible by the weapon produced
before her or any similar type of weapon. She has also stated Injury
No.1 & 2 were cut throat wound while injury 3 was the scratch
abrasion. Injury No.4 to 6 were superficial incised wound and she has
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 12 of 55
proved her report to that effect which is Ex.PW6/B which she has
stated is in her handwriting and bears her signatures at point B and C.
PW6 was crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsels and
discharged.
PW7 is Sh. Yoginder Solanki, father of the deceased. He has
deposed that he has been residing at the above said address since
his birth. He alongwith his wife and his son Shaurya @ Prince were
residing on the ground floor of the above said property. Accused
Ravinder who is his brother alongwith his wife Suman and daughter
Khushi were residing on the first floor of the said property. He has
further deposed that on 24.01.2013 his wife was pregnant and went
to her matrimonial house. 1 ½ month before the incident i.e. the
murder of his son Shaurya one day exact date he does not remember
at present, accused Suman who was pregnant on that day came to him
at around 12.00 noon and asked him whether she would deliver male
or a female baby, and he told her that a female child would be
delivered. After hearing the same she started weeping and went
towards first floor of the house. After around 4 to 5 minutes she called
him and he went to the first floor. He has further stated that she
asked him why he used such a word for her. He has further deposed
that he felt sorry for the same and told her that he does not know
what would be the child and he said the same only as a joke. She
asked him whether "tum apne ladke ka jyada ghamand karte ho kya"
and he returned back towards his room.
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 13 of 55
He has further deposed that on 09.02.13 there was birthday
of his son Prince and he asked accused Suman to cook food for his
birthday but she refused and he himself cooked the food for his son
and his friends.
He has also deposed that about six years back, in the year
2007, accused Ravinder had taken a loan of Rs.1,20,000/ from him
and he demanded the said money repeatedly from accused but he
failed to return the same despite his requirement. He has also
deposed that there was Rs.32,400/ in the account of his father with
SBI Bank and he was entitled for half of the same i.e. Rs.16,200/.
Accused Ravinder had taken the same from the bank and induced him
to sign some document but accused Ravinder never paid anything to
him. He has further stated that he repeatedly demanded the same
and has also stated that accused was having evil eye on his property
as his wife had left him and accused was having all the documents of
their ancestral property.
PW7 has further deposed that thereafter accused person
started thinking that he is a drunkard and that by killing his son, they
would get all the property. They also made a plan to implicate him in
the killing of his son as they had thought that he would be remained
in the jail.
PW7 has also deposed that on 19.02.2013 he alongwith
accused Ravinder, Suman and his son were present inside the house.
The main door was bolted from inside. There was no other person in
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 14 of 55
the house. On that night he went to sleep at around 9.30 - 10.00 pm
and in the morning he was woken up by the police officials and they
enquired whether he had fighting with anybody. They also checked
his hands and clothes. He was taken to PS and was enquired about
his son. He has further deposed that he told them that his son
goes to the accused persons at the first floor to get ready for school
and he might be there upon which the police informed him that his
son was lying dead at the first floor in front of the room of the
accused persons and he has further stated that thereafter accused
Suman admitted before the police that accused Ravinder cut the throat
of his son Shaurya @ Prince while she was holding his son. He has
further deposed that thereafter they returned to our house and
thereafter accused Suman and Ravinder left the house and ran away
somewhere.
PW7 has also deposed that on 26.02.13 accused Ravinder was
arrested by police. On the next day i.e. 27.02.13 at around 12.00 to
1.00 pm accused Ravinder alongwith police persons including SI Gaurav and Inspector Dheeraj came to the house. Accused Ravinder pointed out a spot in the naali on the left side of the main door and told that he had thrown the weapon i.e. one knife in the same. Police recovered the knife. Police prepared rough sketch of the knife on a paper and obtained his signatures. PW7 has deposed that the rough sketch of the knife is Ex.PW7/A which bears his signatures at point A. The knife was put up in a pullanda and it was duly sealed with the State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 15 of 55 seal of DS, same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B which bears his signatures at point A. PW7 has deposed that accused persons had killed his child as his child went to the room of accused persons to be ready for going to school.
PW7 has also deposed that accused Suman used to remain irritated with Shaurya. He has deposed that one day he gave a 10 rupees note to Shaurya and asked him to purchase a packet of biscuit and to share the same with the daughter of accused. Accused Suman asked Shaurya to buy the biscuits for rupees 10. Shaurya refused and tore the note in two pieces and gave one piece of the note to Suman. Due to this reason Suman got annoyed with Shaurya. PW7 has identified the knife Ex.P1 as same which was recovered at the instance of accused Ravinder Solanki and he has also identified the blue colour jeans and one bluish grey colour inner Ex.P2 (collectively) as the same belonging to his deceased son. He was crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsels for both the accused persons and discharged.
PW 8 is Ct. Unit who has deposed that on 12.03.13 he was posted at PS Jafrabad and on that day MHC(M) handed over his exhibits of this case alongwith road certificate No. 127 and & 128/21 respectively to deposit the same at FSL Rohini. He went there and deposited the same and has stated that till that time case property remained in his possession it was not tempered with in any manner. He obtained the receipt and handed over the same to MHC(M). He State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 16 of 55 was crossexamined and discharged.
PW9 is Ct. Suraj who has deposed that on 19.02.2013, he was posted at PS Jafrabad. On that day he along with ASI Chajju Lal were on night emergency duty and at around 7:30 am they received DD No. 7A about the murder of a child by his father. He along with IO ASI Chajju Lal reached at First floor of the house at Ashok Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi and they saw dead body of the child aged about 6 years outside the room in covered Varanda. IO ASI Chajju Lal informed the police station about the incident and called Inspector Dheeraj at the spot. He has further stated that ASI Chajju prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for the registration of the FIR. He went to the police station Jafrabad and got the FIR registered and after registration of FIR he returned back to the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of the FIR to Inspector Dheeraj. Dead body of the child was covered in the body pack. Dead body was handed over to him and he took the same to the mortuary, GTB Hospital and he remained there. He has further deposed that on 20.02.2013 post mortem of the dead body was got conducted by Inspector Dheeraj. After post mortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. He has further stated that Doctors handed over to him twothree sealed pulandas duly sealed with the seal of the hospital and he handed over the same to Inspector Dheeraj Singh vide memo Ex. PW9/A which bears his signature at point A and thereafter he was discharged from the investigation. He has State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 17 of 55 proved the dead body identification statements Ex. PW9/B and PW9/C and has stated that both bear his signature at point A and he has also proved the dead body handing over memo Ex. PW9/D and has stated that the same bears his signature at point A and has deposed that the name of the child was Shaurya. PW9 Ct. Suraj Kumar was recalled for fresh examination in compliance of order dated 28072016 U/s 311 Cr.P.C. and in addition to the earlier statement he has deposed that he alongwith IO reached at the spot. The father of the deceased was present in the ground floor room and he was sleeping and smell of alcohol was coming from him and he was appearing under influence of liquor and he has further stated that they made him wake up but he was drowsy (besudh sa tha) and he was not able to talk properly. He has also deposed that he did not notice any other sign over his body. He was crossexamined and discharged.
PW 10 is Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi. She has deposed that on 19.02.13 she alongwith her unit and one photographer reached at H. NO. D83, Gali No.7, Ashok Mohalla Mauzpur, Delhi and on examination they detected blood on stairs and wall near the first floor room and water drain area in the first floor room. They prepared two blood gauge from the spot and handed over to the IO who prepared the pullandas of the same. Later on she prepared her report and the copy of the same is Ex.PW10/A which bear her signatures at point A. She has State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 18 of 55 further deposed that on 12.03.13, 13 parcels were received in the office and later on the same were examined by her. Parcel No.1 to 10 and 13 were having seal of DS and rest two were having seal of NG. On examination she found that there was blood on exhibits 1(thread with metallic piece), 2 (dirty browninsh blackish tabeeze, 3 (dirty brownish blood gauge), 4 cemented material, 5 (dirty brownish blackish mat), 6(dirty blackish browninsh sweater), 9 & 10 (dirty lightish brown gauge clothe), 11a(inner warmer), 11b (dirty pants/jeans), 12 (dirty brown clothe) and 13 (kitchen knife) and has stated that her report to this effect is Ex.PW10/B which bear her signature at point A and B. She has further stated that Serological Report of above said article is Ex.PW10/C which bear her signatures at point A and has stated that as per her examination blood found on blood gauge Ex.12 found in parcel No.12 was of 'A' Group. She was crossexamined and discharged.
PW 11 is ASI Ashwani Kumar, who has deposed that on the intervening night of 18/19.02.13 he was posted at PS Jafrabad and was working as duty officer from 12.00 midnight to 8.00 am. On that day at about 7.30 am one telephonic call was received about killing of a boy and same was recorded by him as DD No.7A. Copy of which is Ex.PW11/A (OSR).
PW 12 is Ct. Neeraj Kumar, who has deposed that on 19.02.2013 he was posted at Mobile Crime Team North East District. On that day Incharge Crime Team received a call at about 9.00 am State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 19 of 55 and they reached at D83, Ashok Mohalla Gali No.7, Mauzpur, Delhi and as per the directions of IO and Incharge he clicked 36 photographs of the spot and later on positive of the same were handed over to the IO and he produced the 36 negatives and has stated that six photographs are already Ex.PW7/DA to Ex.PW7/DD and Ex.PW7/D1 to Ex.PW7/D2 and he proved the other 30 photographs Ex.PW12/1 to Ex.PW12/30 and the negatives are collectively Ex.PW12/31. He was crossexamined and discharged.
PW 13 SI Ramji Lal, Duty Officer who has deposed that on 19.02.13 he was posted as SI at PS Jafrabad and was working as duty officer from 8.00 am to 4.00 am. On that day at about 10.45 a.m. he received rukka from Ct. Suraj Kumar sent by ASI Chaju Lal and on the basis of which he got registered the FIR No.41/2013 u/s 302 IPC through computer operator Ct. Ujjwal and he has proved the copy of the Ex.PW13/A and has stated that same bears his signature at point A and has stated that the same was generated from the computer of the police station and not tempered with in any manner. He has also deposed that he recorded DD No. 11A & 12A about registration of the FIR and the copies of the same are Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW13/C. He has also stated that he made his endorsement vide Ex.PW13/D and has stated that after registration of the FIR he gave the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Suraj Kumar for being given to SI Dheeraj Kumar as the further investigation was assigned to him. He has further deposed that Special messanger Ct. Salek Chand who State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 20 of 55 had left vide DD NO. 12A as special messenger returned to PS at about 2.15 pm and DD No. 14 A was recorded about the same by him, true copy of DD NO. 14A is Ex.PW13/E. His crossexamination was nil and he was discharged.
PW 14 is Ct. Salek Chand who has deposed that on 19.02.13 he was posted as Constable at PS Jafrabad and on that day, he was on motorcycle duty from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. At about 11.00 am duty officer called him and he reached to the DO Room and Duty officer SI Ramji Lal handed over him three envelopes containing copy of FIR for delivering the same at the office of DCP North East, concerned Ld. Magistrate Karkardooma Court, East Range, PHQ. He immediately went to all the above said addresses and delivered the same and has deposed that he returned to PS between 2.00 to 2.30 pm and made his arrival entry. His crossexamination was nil and discharged.
PW 15 is W/Ct. Saroj in whose presence accused Suman was interrogated and arrested. She has deposed that on 25.04.13 she was posted at PS Jafrabad and on that day she had joined the investigation of this case. On that day she alongwith Inspector Dheeraj went to the house of accused Suman and Ravinder at D83, Gali No.7, Ashok Mohalla, Mauzpur. The neighbourers informed that Suman was at the house of her mother Prabha who lives in the same gali. Thereafter they went to the house of Prabha. Harish Kumar, Father of accused Suman met them and informed that Suman was State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 21 of 55 pregnant and that she would report at the police station with her mother. Same day Suman came at police station with her mother. Suman was interrogated by the IO and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW15/A and her personal search was conducted by her vide memo Ex.PW15/B and she has stated that both memos bear her signatures at point A and has also stated that accused Suman was then taken to GTB hospital for medical examination. She was crossexamined and discharged.
PW 16 is ASI Shri Pal who has deposed that on 19022013 he was posted in CPCR and was on Dispatch Duty. On that day channel operator received a call that a Drunkard had beheaded a child at House No. 83, Gali No. 7, Ashok Mohalla, Moujpur. The channel operator forward the call to him which was received on his computer at 7.16 a.m. and he transmitted the call to district control room and PCR van at 7.17 a.m. He produced the PCR form alongwith certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act and the PCR form is Ex. PW16/A and the certificate is Ex. PW16/B. His crossexamination was nil and he was discharged.
PW17 is Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain, Draftsman who prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW17/A. He has deposed that on 29.04.2013, he was posted as SI draftsman, North East District. On that day, on the information of Inspector Dheeraj he reached at PS Jafrabad and thereafter they reached at spot i.e. first floor, H. no. D 83, Ashok Mohalla, Jafrabad, Delhi and at the instance of IO he State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 22 of 55 inspected the spot and took the measurements and prepared the notes. He has further stated that on the basis of said notes he prepared scaled site plans on 30.04.2013 at his office and the said site plan is Ex. PW17/A which bears his signatures at point A. He has also stated that after preparing the said site plan he destroyed the rough notes and handed over scaled site plan to the IO. He was crossexamined and discharged.
PW18 is Inspector N. R. Lamba who has deposed that on 19.02.2013, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as SHO. On that day, on the directions of Senior Officers he went to FSL Rohini and brought Ms. Manisha Upadhyay, SSO Biology, FSL to the spot i.e. the house of accused. The expert examined the spot and took out mud from the drain hole of the room/bathroom of the house of the accused and kept the same in a brown colour envelope and also lifted blood from the staircase of the first floor of the house on a blood gauge and kept the same in a separate envelope and handed over both the envelopes to the IO who sealed the same with the seal of DS. He was cross examined and discharged.
PW19 is Sh. Sheesh Pal who has deposed that on 14.03.2013, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as a Constable. On that day IO had handed over one authority letter for collecting PCR call from record room of PCR, Model Town regarding DD no. 7A, dated 19.02.2013 and he went there and obtained one copy of PCR form regarding the said DD entry and returned to PS and handed over to IO. IO had State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 23 of 55 recorded his statement. His crossexamination was nil and he was discharged.
PW20 is HC Sh. Surendra Pal Singh MHC(M) who has deposed that on 19.02.2013, he was posted at PS Jafrabad and working as MHC(M). On that day, Inspector Dheeraj Singh handed over 19 sealed pullandas along with copy of four seizure memo for depositing in the Malkhana in connection with case FIR no. 41/13. He had made entry in this regard in the register no. 19 at serial no. 477 and the photocopy of the said entry is Ex. PW20/A. He has also deposed that on 20.02.2013 Inspector Dheeraj Singh had also deposited three sealed pullandas, two sample seals along with copy of the seizure memo and he had made entry in the register no. 19 at serial no. 478. The photocopy of the said entry is Ex. PW20/B. He has further deposed that on 27.02.2013, Inspector Dheeraj Singh also deposited one sealed parcel along with the copy of seizure memo and he made entry in the register no. 19 at serial no. 484. The photocopy of the said entry is Ex. PW20/C. PW20 has further deposed that on 12.03.2013, on the direction of IO he had handed over 13 sealed pullandas along with one sample seal to Ct. Unit through RC no. 127/21/13. The photocopy of the said RC is Ex. PW20/D which bears his signatures at point A. He has further stated that he had also made entry in register no. 19 from point A to A. On the said day he had also handed over one parcel vide RC no. 128/21/13 for depositing at FSL. The photocopy of the RC is Ex.
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 24 of 55PW20/E which bears his signature at point A. He has also stated that he had also mentioned entry in register no. 19 from point B to B and has stated that after depositing the pullandas at FSL, Rohini, Ct. Unit had handed over acknowledge slip no. 2013/B1957 and 2013/C1947 and the photocopy of the said acknowledge slips are Ex. PW20/F and Ex. PW20/G. He has further stated that during his custody, the said pullandas were remained intact and safe and no one tried to temper the seal. He has also deposed that on 10.04.2013, he had received result of the 13 pullandas along with exhibits through Ct. Sandeep and he handed over the FSL result to the IO. He has also stated that on 10.08.2013, FSL result was received with regard to one pullanda through Ct. Sandeep and the same was also given to the IO. He was crossexamined and discharged.
PW21 is SI U Balashankaram who has deposed that on 19022013, he was posted as Incharge Mobile Crime Team, North East District. On that day on receiving information, he alongwith photographer Ct. Neeraj and other team members reached at D83, Gali no. 7, Ashok Mohalla, Mauzpur, Deljhi where SHO of PS Jafrabad, Inspector Dheeraj Singh alongwith staff were present there. A dead body of young boy aged 56 years was lying on the first floor and blood was present over stairs. The place of occurrence was photographed by Ct. Neeraj. He has stated that he had examined the place and prepared his report Ex. PW21/A which bears his signature at point A. He has also stated that the exhibits to be collected by the State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 25 of 55 IO form the spot were also mentioned on the backside of the report PW21/B which bears his signature at point A. He was cross examined and discharged.
PW22 SI Gaurav Chaudhary who has deposed that on 26022013 he was posted at PS Jafrabad. On that day, he had joined investigation with IO Inspector Dheeraj Singh. The accused Ravinder Solanki was summoned in the police station on the notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C. He was examined and thereafter he was arrested vide memo Ex. PW22/A bearing his signature at point A. He has also stated that personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW22/B bearing his signature at point A and has also stated that the disclosure statement of accused was also recorded and the same is Ex. PW22/C bears his signature at point A. PW22 has further stated that after medical examination accused was put up in the lockup. IO recorded his statement.
SI Gaurav Choudhary PW22 has further deposed that on the next day, i.e. on 27022013, he again joined investigation with the IO and at the instance of accused they reached at his house D83, Ashok Mohalla where he took out one kitchen knife from the naali on the right side after entering the main gate. The sketch memo of the knife was prepared which is already Ex. PW7/A and bears his signature at point B. The knife was also measured. The knife was thereafter sealed in a parcel sealed with the seal of DS and was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW7/B which bears State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 26 of 55 his signature at point B and on the same day accused was produced before the concerned court and IO had also recorded his statement. He has stated that he can identify the knife if shown to him and he has identified the knife Ex. P1 as the same which was recovered at the instance of the accused. He was crossexamined and discharged.
PW23 is Inspector Dheeraj IO of the case who has deposed that on 19.02.2013, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as Inspector Investigation. On that day, on the instructions of SHO of PS Jafrabad, he reached at the spot i.e. D83, Gali No.7, Ashok Mohalla, Mauzpur, where SHO, ASI Chajju Lal alongwith staff was present there. He had also noticed a dead body of a boy was lying in the room of first floor in pool of blood and he also noticed cut marks on the face and neck on the body of boy. After registration of FIR, he received a copy of FIR already Ex.PW13/H and rukka already Ex.PW11/A from Ct. Suraj. Crime Team was also called there. Crime Team Incharge SI U Bala Shankaran alongwith photographer and staff came there, they inspected the spot. He has further deposed that on his instructions photographer had taken several photographs of the spot. Crime team Incharge had prepared his report and same was handed over to him. The report of Crime Team is already Ex.PW20/A. He had lifted exhibits from the body of the boy. The exhibits i.e. one mala, one tabeez and blood, earth control, blood in gauge, etc. were lifted from the spot and put in transparent plastic container separately and State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 27 of 55 marked Ex.1 to 7 and sealed with the seal of DS separately and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/A bearing his signature at point A. He has also deposed that thereafter, the body was sent to Mortuary for postmortem through Ct. Suraj vide application Ex.PW23/B. The nearby area was also inspected and he found washed clothes were lying in bathroomcumroom on wire for drying and the said clothes, towel, ladies kurta, one maxi, one sweater of blue colour, one pair of hand gloves and one lady long coat of blue colour. The said clothes were converted into a pullanda with the help of plastic bag and sealed with the seal of DS , the said pullanda was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/C bearing his signature at point A. He has also stated that he had also seized one double bed blanket and one footmat from the balcony and both were converted into the pullanda separately and sealed with the seal of DS. The said pullandas were seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW23/D bearing his signature at point A. The site plan was prepared. The site plan is Ex.PW23/E bearing his signature at point A. He has also stated that he had recorded the statement of PWs.
PW23 has further deposed that he had discussed the said matter with the senior officers and called FSL Team from Rohini. They visited the spot and inspected the place of occurrence. They lifted exhibits i.e. soil mixed with blood from the drain of bathroom cumroom and also there was some blood like substance on the wall which was also lifted by the FSL team after scratching and both these State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 28 of 55 exhibits were separately kept in plastic container and converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of DS and seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW10/DA bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, they came back to the police station and deposited the said pullandas in malkhana.
He has further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 20.02.2013, he got conducted postmortem of the dead body by submitting the inquest papers i.e. the form 25.35 which is Ex.PW23/F bearing his signature at point A. He recorded the statement of maternal uncle Vishal regarding identity of the dead body vide memo already Ex.PW19/B and Ex.PW19/C. The postmortem was conducted on his request application Ex.PW23/G bearing his signature at point A. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to Pratap Singh vide memo already Ex.PW9/D bearing his signature at point B. He has also stated that on his request the doctor had also taken blood of the deceased for examining the alcohol content if any, and other exhibits in sealed parcel of the hospital alongwith sample seal which were seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW9/A bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, they returned to police station and also recorded the statement of PWs. The exhibits were deposited in the malkhana.
PW23 has further deposed that on 22.02.2013, he recorded the statement of Nirmala and Savita. Again said the statement of Savita and Gayatri. The statement of Gayatri was recorded as per her version. The statement of Gayatri u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is Ex.PW23/H State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 29 of 55 bearing his signature at point A. The statement of Savita u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is Ex.PW23/I bearing his signature at point A. On the next day, he had recorded the statement of Yogender, father of the deceased. He had also recorded the statement of one milk vendor namely Pramod.
He has also deposed that on 26.02.2013, a notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused Ravinder to join the investigation and he joined the investigation. He revealed the murder of Shaurya. He has further deposed that thereafter, accused Ravinder was arrested in this case vide arrest memo already Ex.PW22/A bearing his signature at point B and the personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo already Ex.PW22/B bearing his signature at point A. The disclosure of accused was recorded in which he revealed how and why he had committed murder of Shaurya. The disclosure statement is already Ex.PW22/C bearing his signature at point B. After medical examination he was put into the lockup. IO has further deposed that during the said investigation SI Gaurav also joined the investigation and he had recorded his statement.
On 27.02.2013, accused was taken up from the lockup and at the instance of accused they reached at the said house where the murder of Shaurya was committed. The accused had taken out one knife from drainage situated near main gate of the house. At that time the father of deceased was also present there and also joined the investigation. The sketch of the said knife was prepared and the State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 30 of 55 sketch of the said knife is already Ex.PW7/A bearing his signature at point C. The said knife was converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of DS. The said knife pullanda was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW7/B bearing signature of PW23 at point C. He has also deposed that the site plan regarding recovery of the knife was also prepared and the site plan is Ex.PW23/J bearing his signature at point A. The point A is shown where the knife was taken out and produce by the accused. He has also stated that he had recorded the statement of Yogender and SI Gaurav Chaudhary u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, they returned to police station and pullanda was deposited in the malkhana and accused was produced before the concerned court and sent to J/C. PW23 has further deposed that on 12.03.2013, the exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Unit Kumar vide RC already Ex.PW20/D and Ex.PW20/E. After depositing the pullandas the photocopy of the acknowledgment of the pullanda was handed over to him. The acknowledgment is already Ex.PW20/F and Ex/PW20/G. He had recorded the statement of Ct. Yunit in this regard.
On 19.03.2013, the PCR form was collected through Ct. Sheeshpal. The PCR form is now Ex.PW23/K. He has also deposed that on 25.04.2013, accused Suman was produced by her mother in police station from her parents house as she was in Advanced stage of Pregnancy. She was examined in the presence of Lady Constable Saroj and her mother. She revealed State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 31 of 55 regarding the murder of Shaurya whereafter she was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW13/A bearing his signature at point B. Her personal search was conducted by W/Ct. Saroj as per law and he prepared a memo in this regard which is already Ex.PW15/B bearing his signature at point B. He has further deposed that as per her version, disclosure statement explaining how and why she had committed the murder of Shaurya was recorded vide memo Ex.PW23/L bearing his signature at point A. The accused was produced before the concerned court and sent to J/C. PW23 has also deposed that on 29.04.2013, he called SI Mukesh Kumar Jain (Draftsman) for preparation of scaled site plan who had measured the spot at his instance and took rough notes and later SI Mukesh Kumar Jain prepared the scaled site plan and handed over to him which is already Ex.PW17/A. He has also stated that during investigation, he had recorded the statements of PWs and has deposed that the Photographs of the place of occurrence are already Ex.PW7/DA to Ex.PW7/DD and Ex.PW7/D1 to Ex.PW7/D2 and PW12/1 to Ex.PW12/30.
He has also deposed that after postmortem he had also received the postmortem report of deceased Shaurya. The postmortem report already Ex.PW6/A. He has also stated that during investigation, he had collected DD entries which were recorded in the DD Register. The DD entries are already Ex.PW13/B to Ex.PW13/E and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was prepared and filed in State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 32 of 55 court.
He has also stated that on his request, doctor gave the subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence and the subsequent opinion is already Ex.PW6/B. He had collected the FSL Report and filed before the Hon'ble Court vide his application Ex.PW23/M. The report (chemical) is Ex.PW23/M1. The crime scene report was also collected which is already Ex.PW10/A. He had also filed the FSL Report (biological) Ex.PW10/B and Ex.PW10/C. He has identified the accused persons present in court and has deposed that he can identify the seized articles if shown to him.
He has identified the Tabeej as Ex.PW23/Article 1. He has identified the footmat as Ex.PW23/Article 2 and has also identified the brownish sweater as Ex.PW23/Article 3 and has also identified the blanket as Ex.PW23/Article 4. PW23 has also identified one salwar, one ladies shirt, one gown, one Tshirt, one towel, one sweater, one pair of gloves and one overcoat Ex.PW23/Article 5 (collectively).
He has also identified one inner/warmer and jeans pant as Ex.PW23/Article 6 .
He has also correctly identified the knife as Ex.P1. He was crossexamined and discharged.
PW24 is ASI Chajju Lal who has deposed that on 18/19.02.13, he was posted at Police Station Jafrabad as ASI. He was on emergency duty from 8.00 pm (18.02.13) to 8.00 am (19.02.13). Ct.
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 33 of 55Suraj was also with him during emergency duty. On 19.02.13, he received DD No.7A at about 7.30 am wherein it was recorded that a drunkard had cut head of his son. The copy of DD No.7A is already Ex.PW11/A. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Suraj went to H. No. D83, Gali No.7, Ashok Mohalla, Mauzpur. There a PCR van was present and some other persons were also present there. He went inside the house and went to the first floor. In the stairs there was blood. On the first floor of the house the dead body of a child whose name was revealed as Shaurya @ Prince aged about 6 years lying smeared with blood. Blood was also lying near the dead body. He apprised SHO and senior police officials and facts and circumstances of the case. Thereafter, SHO, ATO and other police staff reached at spot. He prepared rukka on the basis of DD No.7A which is now Ex.PW24/A which bears his signature at point A and gave the same to Ct. Suraj at about 10.30 am for getting the FIR registered from Police Station Jafrabad. The crime team reached at the spot who inspected the spot and photographed the spot. Inspector Dheeraj inspected the spot and prepared site plan. Ct. Suraj came back to the spot after getting the FIR registered and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Inspector Dheeraj. Inspector Dheeraj sent the dead body to Mortuary GTB hospital through Ct. Suraj. Inspector Dheeraj lifted one thread which was having knots and there was a locket of Shri Krishan and also the Chand and Suraj icons were attached. One cloth tabeez from under the neck of the deceased was also found during investigation State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 34 of 55 and the same was also seized by the IO. Besides this IO had lifted the blood from the spot with control samples. The IO also lifted the blood stained floor after breaking it with the help of hammer and chiesal. One green colour mat stains with blood was also lying at the first floor and same was also seized by the IO.
PW24 has further deposed that on the ground floor room the father of deceased was lying sleeping. Inside the room at the distance of about 2 ft from the door, one kunda was lying and same was also seized by the IO. The IO kept the above articles in a separate plastic boxes and sealed with the seal of DS and seized through seizure memo already Ex.PW23/A which bears his signature at point B. On the first floor where the dead body was found, opposite to that there was a small room which was being used like bathroom and inside that room wet washed clothes i.e. Tshirt, one towel, one ladies kurta, one salwar, one ladies long coat of blue colour and other clothes were found. The said clothes were in total 8 in number. The IO placed all the clothes into a polythene which were sealed with the seal of DS and seized through seizure memo which is already Ex.PW23/C which bears his signature at point B again said the same were kept into plastic katta. He has also deposed there was one drain hole (mori) in the said room and in that drain hole there a sweater was found. On the grill one wet blanket was also found. The IO seized the same while preparing the pullandas of the sweater and blanket separately which were sealed with the seal of DS and seized through seizure memo State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 35 of 55 which is already Ex.PW23/D which bears his signature at point B. ACP and DCP concerned also visited the spot. During investigation after the use seal was given to his. IO recorded his statement. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and other police staff went to GTB hospital. IO made enquiries from the Ct. Suraj and recorded his statement. After leaving Ct. Suraj at the mortuary they came back to the spot. Team of FSL experts visited the spot and inspected the spot. The FSL team lifted some exhibits from the drain hole from first floor from where the sweater was recovered. The FSL team also lifted blood stains from the wall. The IO seized while preparing seizure memo which is already Ex.PW10/DA and bears his signature at point B and he has stated that IO recorded his statement.
He has also deposed that another statement of his was also recorded by the IO during the investigation but he do not remember the date, however, that statement was regarding the father of the deceased who was lying sleeping under influence of alcohol and he has stated that he can identify the case property if shown to him and the MHC(M) produced the case property and the PW24 correctly identified the Tabeej as Ex.PW23/Article1, Footmat Ex. PW23/Article 2, brownish sweater as Ex.PW23/Article 3, blanket as Ex.PW23/Article 4 and has also identified correctly one salwar, one ladies shirt, one gown, one Tshirt, one towel, one sweater, one pair of gloves and one overcoat as Ex.PW23/Article 5 (collectively).
PW24 has also correctly identified one inner/warmer and State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 36 of 55 jeans pant as Ex.PW23/Article 6 which were worn by the dead body.
PW24 has also identified correctly one Shri Krishan pendant, chand and suraj icon pendant in red and black colour thread which was having knots as Ex.PW24/P1 which was also seized by the IO.
PW24 has also identified the blood stained cotton and gauge cloth piece as the same which was used by the IO for lifting the blood around the dead body and the same is Ex.PW24/P2.
PW24 has also identified the blood stained earth pieces as Ex.PW24/P3 as the same which were lifted by the IO. He was cross examined and discharged.
Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which both the accused persons have stated that the case is a false case and they have been falsely implicated in the present matter and they are innocent and opted to lead evidence in defence and the matter was adjourned for defence evidence.
The accused persons examined six defence witnesses. DW1 is HC Firoz Islam, who has deposed that he has brought Roznamcha Register containing DD No. 63B, dt. 25012013. He was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and discharged.
DW2 is HC Sushil Kumar who has produced Roznamcha Register containing DD no. 24A, dated 27092010, copy of which is Ex. DW2/A. He has also produced Roznamcha Register A & B, dated 27022013 about the activity of SI Gaurav Choudhary and has State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 37 of 55 deposed that as per the record which has been brought by him, there is no departure and arrival entry and the photostat copy of complete DD entries recorded on 27022013 are Ex. DW2/B and Ex. DW2/CX and he has stated that he does not have personal knowledge about the case. He was crossexamined by the Ld Addl. P P for the State during which he has stated that he was not the DD writer who recorded DD No.24A dated 27092010 and the DD entries recorded on 27022013 in register no. A and B and he was discharged.
DW3 is Sh. Mukesh Kumar who has deposed that he has brought his AAdhar Card. Copy of same is Ex.DW3/X (OSR). He has further stated that he is residing in Gali No.1, Ashok Mohalla and his house is at the corner of the gali which then connects with gali No.7. He has further stated that his house is at a distance of 100 meters from the house of accused persons. On 19.02.2013, he woke up at about 7.00 - 7.15 am and at about 8.00 am he was standing at the chajja of his house and he saw a crowd gathered in the gali. He came down from his house and came to know that murder of child of younger brother of accused Ravinder Solanki has been committed. Thereafter, he along with his 2 - 3 friends namely Umesh Sharma, Dharmender Chauhan entered into the house of Yogender Solanki at the first floor of the house and they saw that body of child was lying in the gallery between room and staircase on a footmat. Thereafter, he went to the second floor of the house where 4 - 5 police officials State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 38 of 55 including one Mr. Lamba were present and they were talking with accused Ravinder Solanki. Thereafter, some team came who used to mark the body at the spot. Some blood was lying in the stairs which was also marked by them. Thereafter, police officials went to the ground floor and it was about 9.00 - 9.15 am and blood was also lying at the chowk of the house. Thereafter, they took search of the house and found one vegetable knife under the bedding in a room at ground floor. Thereafter, they came outside in the gali in front of the house. At about 11.00 am the police took the body of the child got wrapped in a bedsheet and took in a Champion Vehicle. Thereafter, police asked Ravinder Solanki to wash the house as body was already lifted from there.
He has also deposed that the behaviour of accused Ravinder was good with the neighbours. His brother Yogender was of different type of nature. He used to drink liquor excessively. He has also deposed that one day Yogender put his vehicle in the drain outside his house. He has also stated that prior to this incident Yogender drove his vehicle upon two puppies who were lying in the gali. He has also stated that when he visited there, he only saw accused Ravinder and his wife. He was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and discharged.
DW4 is Seema, she has deposed that on 09.02.2013, she came to the house of her bhabhi as she was admitted in hospital. Accused Suman is sister of her bhabhi. On that day, Suman invited her to her State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 39 of 55 house due to birthday of Prince @ Shaurya i.e. son of her devrani. Thereafter, she accompanied accused Suman to her house and attended the birthday party of Prince @ Shaurya. Mother of the accused Suman, she and other relatives prepared the food for the invities in the kitchen of devrani of accused Suman. She has also stated that she gave Rs.100/ as a gift to the child and accused Ravinder also gave Tshirt as a gift. She was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and discharged.
DW5 is Sh. Daharambir Singh, he has deposed that he was residing as a tenant in the house of accused Ravinder Solanki at Jawahar Nagar from the year 2011 till March 2013. On 19 th February 2013 (the day of my wedding anniversary), he was going to his village Tappal, Police Post Tappal, District Aligarh, Yogender met him near ganda naala Gokulapuri at about 8.30 am and he was slightly in drunken condition and he was having blood stains over his hands and he enquired from him as to what happened with him but he did not tell him anything while saying 'kuch nahin kuch nahin' and asked him to go away from there. He has further deposed that on 22nd February 2013, he came back from his village and went to his tenanted room where he found the shop of accused was lying closed. He made a call to accused Ravinder Solanki which was picked by his wife i.e. coaccused Suman and she told him about the death of his nephew and in that concern he had gone to police station. He has further deposed that he enquired from her about the date of incident State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 40 of 55 and he told her that on 19.02.2013, he had seen Yogender while his hands were blood stained. She asked him whether he could have come to their house but he refused. Accused Suman asked him to come at PS Jafrabad on 23.02.2013 to narrate the incident to the police. On 23.02.2013, he went to police station Jafrabad but police officials did not listen him and even asked that he had murdered the child and gave a slap to him. Thereafter, he was released and he came back to his room. He was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and discharged.
DW6 is Baby Khushi Sulanki, Daughter of the accused Ravinder Solanki. She has deposed that Shaurya was her brother. She does not know the date but it was winter season and when she got up to meet nature's call, she woke up her mother, who told her to go to bothroom. She has further stated that due to fear she went inside the room and told her mother about the manner in which his uncle dragged Shaurya. She has further deposed that her mother told this fact to her father as blood was oozing and her father made her to sit on Sofa thereafter police uncle came and enquired about the incident and she told that Shaurya was killed by Chacha. She has also stated that so many police officials came to there house and she told them that Shaurya was killed by her Chacha. She was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and discharged.
Thereafter defence evidence was closed in view of the State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 41 of 55 statement of both the accused person.
Final arguments heard. File perused. It has been submitted on behalf of the accused persons that accused persons are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present matter. The whole case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt by a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused persons. Even the motives assigned by the prosecution do not whole ground as the motive regarding property dispute or jealousy of not having male child was after thought and baseless and is an attempt by the police to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present matter in connivance with the complainant/father of the deceased,Yogender Solanki. It has been further argued that despite the fact that call at number 100 to the police was made by the accused Ravinder Solanki on 19022013 but still due to unknown reason local police deliberately gave a twist to the present case in order to falsely implicate the accused persons and to save the real culprit Yogender Solanki, father of the deceased. The first statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW7 Yogender i.e. father of the deceased was recorded on 23022013 and he was not involved even in any proceedings by the police including identification of the dead body and no reliable explanation of his absence or his inability to join the proceedings until State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 42 of 55 23022013 has come on record.
It has been further argued that police has not investigated the case deliberately with regard to quarrel between the mother of the deceased and the father of the deceased i.e. PW7 Yogender Solanki on account of which mother of the deceased had to leave the company of her husband leaving behind her only son at the mercy of his father just prior to the present case and even about the quarrel which took place on 25012013 between the father of the deceased and Sunil brother in law of PW7 Yogender Solanki at R.K. Putam as the father of the deceased suspected the character of the mother of the deceased.
Further it has been submitted that in spite of a crime team recording of a photography regarding recovery of knife with green handle from the bed of PW7 on 19022013 the police failed to seal the same and the alleged knife alleged to have recovered from the accused has been implanted upon the accused and even the recovery of the said knife from the alleged place is under doubt as the presence of SI Gaurav in whose presence the alleged recovery of knife was made was not present on duty on the said date and there is no any movement of SI Gaurav in Daily Diary Roznamcha Register no. 2 SI Gaurav was not on duty and there was no any DD with regard to the recovery of the weapon. Moreover, as per father of the deceased the weapon was recovered from the left side of the gate whereas SI Gaurav revealed that the weapon was recovered from State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 43 of 55 the right side. As such this is the major discrepancy which renders the recovery of knife at the instance of accused Ravinder Solanki doubtful.
It has been further submitted that the accused persons were interrogated by the police numerous time in the police station but nothing was found against the accused persons and the accused Ravinder Solanki was arrested on 26022013 i.e. 8 days later of the incident and the coaccused Suman was arrested on 25042013 and as such both the accused were have sufficient time to remove the weapon of offence. No document regarding ownership of property was produced.
The version of PW Smt. Nirmala Devi who has been examined as PW 4 is improbable and is not reliable. Similarly the testimony of PW7 Yogender Solanki is also full of contradictions. No photograph has been taken by the investigation agency to show that the father of the deceased PW7 Yogender Solanki was sleeping at the time of incident. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons also pointed out certain contradictions between the testimonies of the witnesses and has submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, DW Dharambir Singh while appearing as DW5 has specifically stated that on 19022013 (the day of his wedding anniversary) he was going to his village Police Post Tappal District Aligharh and Yogender father of the deceased met him near State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 44 of 55 ganda naala at about 8.00 a.m. and he was slightly in drunken condition and he was having blood stained over his hands and on enquiry Yogender Solanki father of the deceased failed to give any reasonable explanation regarding the said blood on his hands and when he went to the police station regarding this, police refused to listen him and even slapped him. The testimony of DW5 suggests the involvement of Yogender Solanki father of the deceased in the present matter. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have also pointed out the certain discrepancies in the statement of the IO of the case Inspector Dheeraj Singh who has been examined as PW23 in the present matter and has accordingly submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
On the other hand Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that all the material witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and PW7 Yogender Solanki has clearly given the motive behind the murder and PW4 Nirmala Devi had seen the blood stains on the nose of the accused Suman when she came at the spot and further the weapon of offence has been recovered at the instance of the accused Ravinder Solanki and the same has been linked with the commission of the present offence as PW Dr. Neha Gutpa Assistant Professor Department of Forensic Medicine Hindu Rao Hospital while appeared as PW6 who examined the weapon of offence i.e. knife and conducted the postmortem after going State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 45 of 55 through the postmortem report and knife has specifically gave her opinion that injury no. 1 to 6 were possible by the weapon produced before her or any similar type of weapon. The knife recovery of which has been proved at the instance of the accused is Ex.P1 and it has been further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the witnesses examined by the defence are not reliable witnesses and has accordingly submitted that prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Submission considered. File perused.
PW1 Smt. Gaytri while appearing as PW1 has deposed that on 19022013 in the morning she came to know that six year old son of Yogender had been murdered and on hearing this she went to the house of the accused and has stated that accused Ravinder used to reside on the First Floor while his younger brother used to live on the Ground Floor. She found the body of Shaurya lying at the First Floor Gate and she has also stated that in her presence Ravinder and his wife did not state anything with regard to Yogender and his son. Now if the deceased Shaurya was murdered by a drunkard man or father of the deceased, the accused Ravinder and his wife Suman would have raised hue and cry in the presence of witness PW1 Smt. Gayatri.
Further during the crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State PW1 Gayatri has stated that when she asked to State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 46 of 55 Suman as to how it happened, Suman told her that she was making prayer and Yogender ran away after killing the child but at the same time PW1 Gayatri has deposed that she found that Yogender was sleeping on the Ground Floor. So this falsify the version of the accused Suman that Yogender ran away after killing the child as PW1 Gayati has specifically stated that she found Yogender was sleeping on the Ground Floor. Moreover, even PW 24 ASI Chajju Lal who reached at receipt of DD No. 7A has specifically stated that on the Ground Floor Room the father of the deceased was lying sleeping and during his further examination he has also deposed that an other statement of him was also recorded by the IO during the investigation but he does not remember the date but the said statement was regarding the father of the deceased who was lying sleeping under the influence of alcohol. Even PW21 SI U.Balashankaran Incharge Mobile Crime Team has deposed that when he finally left the spot at around 9.30 a.m. Yogender was still drowsy as during his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Suman PW21 has specifically stated that when he left the spot at about 9.3045 a.m. finally, by the time he left the spot Yogender was still drowsy. This clearly suggests that at the time of the commission of the offence PW7 Yogender was lying sleeping on the Ground Floor under the influence of liquor and this falsify the testimony of DW5 Dharambir Singh that on 1902 2013 he was going to his village police post Tappal, District State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 47 of 55 Aligarh and Yogender met him near ganda nala, Gokulpuri at about 8.30 a.m. and he was slightly in drunken condition and was having blood stains over his hand. Even this version of DW5 cannot be believed that police did not listen him when he went to the police station as there is nothing on record to suggest that he made any complaint to any higher authority that police is not listening him despite the fact that he is a witness to the fact that he had seen Yogender having blood stains on his hand. The testimony of DW5 read as a whole clearly suggests that DW5 is a procured witness and from this it can be safely concluded that there is no involvement of PW7 Yogender Solanki in the commission of the present offence as there is sufficient evidence on record that he was sleeping under the influence of liquor at the time of the murder. No doubt the relationship between Yogender Solanki and his wife was strained but there is nothing on record to suggest that due to this reason he has committed the murder of his son.
PW Nirmala Devi who has been examined as PW4 has specifically deposed that accused Ravinder is her neighbour. He used to live on the First Floor while his brother Yogender used to reside on the Ground Floor. On 19022013 at about 7.00a.m. accused Ravinder called her husband by his name while standing near the Grill of the balcony of the First Floor of his house and she came out and asked him as to what was the matter and then State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 48 of 55 Ravinder said that Yogender has run away after killing his son Shaurya. She informed her husband and then they went to the house of accused but the door was bolted from inside. She asked her husband to inform the relatives of the accused Ravinder who used to reside in the neighbourhood. Accused Ravinder opened the door and she went inside and found Shauyra lying dead in front of the staircase and outside of the chokhat of the door of the room. She has specifically identified accused Suman who is the wife of the accused Ravinder and has stated that Suman was present at the spot and she was wearing gown and was having blood stains on the face near the nosepin. She was crossexamined at length by the Ld. Defence counsels but nothing favouring the accused persons came on record.
PW4 has specifically seen the blood stains on the face of the accused Suman near nosepin which clearly suggests that accused Suman has actively participated in the commission of the murder of Shaurya. PW4 has further deposed that when she questioned Suman about the blood she went inside the bathroom and later came out wearing a suit and after cleaning the blood from her face. There is nothing on record why PW4 has deposed against the accused persons and I find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW4. Even PW5 Parmod Kumar the Milk Vender has deposed that on 19022013 at about 7.00 a.m. 7.10 am. when he went to the house of accused, accused Ravinder Solanki has informed that he did not require the milk that day. This conduct of the accused persons State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 49 of 55 is strange when they are taking milk daily why they are refusing to take milk on the said day of occurrence. So far motive of the commission of offence is concerned PWYogender Solanki father of the deceased during his examination has specifically stated that one day exact date he does not remember at present accused Suman who was pregnant on that day came to him at around 12.00 noon and asked him whether she would delivered a male or female baby upon which PW7 Yogender Solanki replied that a female child would be delivered and after hearing the same she started weeping and went towards the First Floor of the house. He has further deposed that after around 45 minutes she called him and he went to the First Floor. He has further stated that Suman asked him why he used such a word for her. PW7 has further deposed that he felt sorry for the same and told her that he does not know what would be the child and he said the same only as a joke upon which Suman asked PW7 whether "tum apne ladke ka jayada ghamand karte ho kya" and PW7 returned back to room. This version of PW7 suggests that accused Suman became annoyed with the PW7 Yogender Solanki.
PW7 has also deposed about the loan taken by the accused Ravinder Solanki from him and failure of Ravinder Solanki to return the said loan and he has also deposed that accused persons started thinking that he was a drunkard and by killing his son they would get all the property and they also made a plan to State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 50 of 55 implicate him in killing of his son. The above discussion suggests that accused persons have tried to implicate Yogender Solanki father of the deceased in the present case but could not succeed as the evidence on record specifically indicates the involvement of the accused persons in the present case.
PW10 Manisha Upadhyaya Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) who on 19022013 alongwith her unit and one photographer reached at House no. D83, Gali No.7, Ashok Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi and conducted the spot inspection has found the presence of blood and blood laden case property at the First Floor of the house i.e. the house of the accused persons and during her crossexamination she has specifically stated that she did not find any blood stain on the Ground Floor of the house. Testimony of PW10 read as a whole and the investigation carried out by the IO and the case property recovered from the First Floor clearly suggests that the deceased Shaurya was murdered at the First Floor of the house where the accused persons used to reside. Even the photograph Ex.PW12/20 suggests that there is no mark of dragging of the dead body from the Ground Floor towards the First Floor rather the blood was lying on the First Floor and was pouring down towards the stairs. This also suggests that the deceased Shaurya was murdered at the First Floor of the house where the accused persons used to reside. So far question of not sealing the knife which was shown in the Ex. PW7/D3 which was lying on the State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 51 of 55 cot of the father of the deceased is concerned, the said photograph shows that there is no blood stain on the said knife and the crime team as per crime scene report Ex. PW21/ A and Ex. 21/B mentioned the knife with green plastic handle at Sl. No. 4 in Ex. PW21/B but the IO has specifically stated that the said knife was not seized and during further crossexamination IO PW23 Inspector Dheeraj Singh has specifically stated that knife as mentioned as Sl. No.4 of Ex. PW20/1B was not seized and was left at the spot and has specifically denied the suggestion of the Ld. Defence counsel that the knife having green plastic handle as mentioned in Sl. No.4 of Ex. PW21/B was smeared with blood. Since the knife was not having any blood stain as it is clear from the photograph Ex. PW7/D3 it was not necessary for the IO to seize the said knife. No incriminating evidence has come on record that the said knife could be the weapon of offence. Accordingly, I find no merit in this contention of the Ld. Defence counsels that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt on this ground. The knife used in the commission of offence Ex. P1 has been recovered at the instance of the accused Ravinder Solanki in the presence of the IO Inspector Dheeraj and SI Gaurav and PW7 Yogender Solanki and I find no merits in this contention of the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that as per SI Gaurav the knife was recovered from the drain from the right side of the gate and as per father of the deceased the weapon was recovered from the State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 52 of 55 left side of the gate and the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt on this account as, as per my opinion this discrepancy is a minor discrepancy and is bound to occur with the passage of time. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the accused persons that the presence of SI Gaurav at the time of recovery is doubtful as the DW2 HC Sushil Kumar has specifically stated that as per record which he had brought there was no departure and arrival entry and about the activity of SI Gaurav Choudhary on 27022013 and said entries were Ex. DW2/B and Ex. DW2/C. The said document Ex. DW2/B clearly shows that Inspector Dheeraj Singh had made departure entry at Sl. No. 12 and in the said DD entry he has mentioned that he is proceeding with SI Gaurav. So this suggest that SI Gaurav who has been examined as PW22 was very much present at the time of recovery of knife Ex. P1 at the instance of the accused Ravinder Solanki and as per the opinion given by PW6 Dr. Neha Gupta the injury no. 1 to 6 are possible by the weapon Ex. P1. Postmortem report of the deceased Shaurya Solanki has been duly proved by Dr. Neha Gupta PW6 and the same is Ex. PW6/A and she has specifically opined in her report that the cause of death is haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante mortem injury to neck and associated blood vessels produced by sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 1 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Moreover, as per FSL result Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW10/C human blood was found on the State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 53 of 55 weapon of the offence i.e. Knife Ex. P1 recovered at the instance of the accused Ravinder Solanki.
So from the evidence on record it is very much clear that only three major members were present in the house at the time of the murder of deceased Shaurya @ Prince i.e accused Ravinder Solanki, his wife Suman and the father of the deceased Shaurya @ Prince, Yogender Solanki. The possibility of involvement of Yogender Solanki father of the deceased in the commission of the offence has already been ruled out and there is sufficient material on record, as discussed above, to suggest that the murder of the deceased Shaurya @ Prince was committed by the accused Ravinder Solanki and his wife Suman. In view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, it is held that deceased Shaurya @ Prince was murdered by accused Ravinder Solanki and his wife Suman in furtherance of their common intention. As such, both the accused persons Ravinder Solanki and his wife Suman are held guilty of the offence U/s 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and are convicted accordingly for the offence U/s 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 54 of 55To come up for arguments on the point of sentence on Digitally signed by Sudesh 01102018. Sudesh Kumar Location: delhi Kumar Date: 2018.09.29 11:52:33 +0530 (SUDESH KUMARI) ASJ05 Shahdara Karkardooma Courts/Delhi 29092018 Announced in the open court Dated 29092018 State vs. Ravinder Solanki & Anr. FIR no. 41/13 PS Jafrabad Page 55 of 55