Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Jameel S/O. Sh. Babu Khan on 20 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; FTC : E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No.52/2017
Unique Case ID No.87/2016
FIR No.483/2013
U/S: 302 IPC & 27 A.Act
P.S: Seema Puri
State Versus 1. Jameel S/o. Sh. Babu Khan
R/o. F44A/365, Jhuggi New
Seemapuri, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 08.01.2014
Date of Arguments : 22.11.2017
Date of Judgment : 20.01.2018
J U D G M E N T
Case of Prosecution
1.Brief facts of the case are that on 12.09.2013, DD No. 30A regarding stabbing of one lady near Toilet, Jain Mandir Jhuggies was recorded at PS Seema Puri, pursuant to which SI Monu Chauhan alongwith FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 1 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel Ct. Ravinder Tomar reached at the spot and found that blood was lying in the park situated near the jhuggies E44, Jain Mandir. They came to know that injured has already been removed to GTB Hospital by his son & daughter in Rehri/cyclerickshaw, thereupon leaving Ct. Ravinder Tomar at the spot to guard the same, SI Monu Chauhan went to GTB Hospital, where he obtained the MLC of injured Salma Begum, in which doctor had declared her brought dead and also noted that there were stab injuries on the right side of neck, breast, stomach and left hand of deceased and her intestine were protruding out. Eye witness Aasma, who is daughter of injured also met him at the hospital, who was enquired and brought to the spot. Inspector Lekh Singh alongwith other staff also reached the spot. SI Monu Chauhan recorded the statement of eye witness Aasma, prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. Further investigation was marked to Inspector Lekh Singh. Crime team was called, who inspected and photographed the spot. Two sons of deceased also came at the spot with a rehri. IO lifted the blood with the help of gauge, earth control with blood and without blood and sealed the same. Blood stained slippers, blood stained dupatta, two blood stained plastic glasses and rehri which was used by the children of deceased for taking her to the hospital were also taken into possession and seized. Site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant. Search for accused Jameel, who is father of complainant was made but he could not be traced. Postmortem on the dead body was got FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 2 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel conducted and after postmortem body was handed over to the family members. On 19.09.2013 on the basis of secret information, accused Jameel was arrested, who confessed his guilt. His personal search was conducted and disclosure statement was recorded. Accused led the police party to the place of incident, where at his pointing out site plan was prepared. Accused also got recovered one churri/knife, used in the commission of offence from a drain near the shop of Ajju Kabari. Sketch of the knife was prepared and same was seized. Site plan of the place of recovery of knife was also prepared. Thereafter, accused led the police team to plot No.11, 80 Foota Road, Vikram Enclave, Ghaziabad, from where he got recovered one blood stained white colour kurta, which he was wearing at the time of incident. Site plan of the place of recovery of blood stained kurta was also prepared. Accused was got medically examined and was lodged in Lockup. Statements of witnesses were recorded and case property was deposited in the malkhana. IO also seized the sealed exhibits received from mortuary of GTB Hospital. Exhibits were sent to FSL. Further investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation chargesheet U/s. 302 IPC & 27 Arms Act was filed before the Court.
2. On appearance, in compliance of section 207 IPC, copies were supplied to accused and as offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions, present case was committed to Sessions Court.
FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 3 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel Charge framed against the accused
3. Charge against accused was framed u/s. 302 IPC & 27 Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses examined
4. Prosecution examined 25 witnesses to prove its case. The brief summary of the deposition of Prosecution Witnesses is as under:
5. PW1 HC Harbir Singh is the duty officer. He proved the registration of FIR as Ex.PW1/A and deposed that copy of FIR was also sent to senior police officers and Ld. MM concerned through special messenger Ct. Mukesh.
6. PW2 Aasma is the complainant and daughter of deceased Salma Begum. She deposed that she alongwith her mother and other children used to deal in the business of Kabad (junk). She deposed that on 12.09.2013 at about 4.15 pm, she alongwith her mother was separating Kabad (junk) near Jain Mandir and her mother asked her to bring water, FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 4 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel which she brought. Thereafter, her mother asked her to bring tea. She brought the tea, which was consumed by her mother. She deposed that at about 4.15 pm, her father i.e accused Jameel came there and threatened her brother Monu by saying that why he was not going for job. Her mother told accused Jameel that Monu will not accompany him for job. She deposed that accused came from behind and cut the throat of her mother with a knife. She tried to save her mother from accused but he pushed her and ran away from there. She deposed that accused remained there till the moment her mother had died. She alongwith her brother Monu took her mother to GTB hospital in a rehri, where doctor after examining declared her mother as brought dead. She deposed that police officials in the hospital asked her to reach the spot, whereafter, she alongwith her brother Monu reached the place of occurrence, where police officials met them and recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, on the asking of police officials, they again went to hospital. She deposed that on the next day after postmortem the dead body of her mother was handed over to her elder brother Mohd. Rafiq.
In response to leading questions put by Ld. Addl. PP, she admitted that her father firstly gave knife blow on the breast of her mother and when her mother raised alarm, her father further gave various knife blows on her neck, stomach, hand and caused serious injury. She further admitted that after causing injury her father fled away from the spot and at FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 5 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel that time her father was also having blood stains on his clothes. She further admitted that her father had given various knife blows on the body of her mother.
In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, she deposed that there was a quarrel between her father and mother since the marriage of her sister Nazma and that Nazma got married prior to marriage of her brother Rafiq. She further deposed that at about 3.45 pm, her father fled away from the spot after giving knife blows to her mother. To a specific question, she deposed that she heard the conversation taken place between her mother and father just prior to the incident and same pertained to her brother Rafiq and his employment. She also identified the knife as Ex.P6, which was used by his father i.e accused as same was their kitchen knife.
7. PW3 Mohd. Rafiq is the son of deceased. He deposed that they are three brothers and five sisters. He deposed that his mother married twice and Mr. Jameel is the second husband of her mother. He deposed that about six months prior to the incident accused Jameel divorced her mother and started living separately. He further deposed that on 12.09.2013 at about 2/2.30 pm, he was present at Preet Vihar at the house of his elder sister inlaw (sali), where his father accused Jameel saw him & lost his temper and asked him as to why was he there. Accused directed him to leave the place/house otherwise he would kill him. He deposed that FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 6 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel he replied "Main tumse darta nahi huin mujhe apne bacche ka pet palna hai". He deposed that accused further threatened him that if he does not abide his direction, he would kill his mother. Thereafter, he left the place. He deposed that after about one hour, he received call of his sister Nazma, who informed that his father killed his mother by causing knife injury. He rushed to the house of his mother and on the way was informed by police officials that his mother was taken to hospital by his younger brother. He reached GTB Hospital where his brother and sister met him and informed about the death of his mother. He deposed that police officials also met him in the hospital, who made enquiries from him and his brother Monu and took them to the spot. He deposed that police officials conducted proceedings at the spot. They collected earth control from the spot and kept in box after putting it in a polythene. They also collected blood stained/sample, two plastic glasses, one pair of footwear/chappal and duppta of his mother. He identified the body of his mother in the mortuary.
8. PW4 Mohd. Rahish deposed about identification and handing over of dead body to Monu and Rafiq vide memo Ex.PW4/I.
9. PW5 is Ct. Anita who at the relevant time was working as Channel Operator in CPCR, PHQ. She deposed that on 12.09.2013 at about 3.42 pm she received a call in which caller informed that "
FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 7 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel Sauchalaya ke pass, Jain Mandir, New Seemapuri ek lady ko chaku mar diya hai jiski condition serious hai". She filled the PCR form and flashed the information through concerned communication network vide Ex.PW5/A.
10. PW6 is Ct. Mukesh Kumar, who had delivered copy of FIR at the residence of concerned MM, office of Joint CP, Addl.CP/NE and Addl. DCP/NE on government vehicle.
11. PW7 Ct. Bijju Varghese & PW10 Md. Ateek deposed about identification of dead body by Monu and Rafiq in the mortuary and thereafter handing over the body to them vide memo Ex.PW3/I.
12. PW8 Ct. Satya Pal Singh had taken the sealed pullanda handed over to him by MHC(M) to FSL Rohini and deposited the same there.
13. PW9 is HC Ved Pal, who on 25.11.2013 on the direction of IO collected subsequent opinion and one sealed pullanda from Department of Forensic Medicine, GTB Hospital and deposited the same in malkhana.
14. PW10 Sh. Md. Ateek is the witness of dead body identification by Monu & Rafique both sons of deceased in mortuary GTB hospital and FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 8 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel deposed that after identification dead body was handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW3/I.
15. PW11 is Smt. Hasin Banu, who deposed that on 12.09.2013, she was present in her jhuggi in the afternoon when she heard a loud noise from outside. She rushed outside and found that one lady namely Salma was lying on the ground in a pool of blood. She deposed that one son and one daughter of Salma were present there alongwith many public persons. She further deposed that son of Salma brought a thaila on which he took her mother to hospital. She made call at 100 number at about 4 pm. She deposed that daughter of Salma also went to hospital with her brother and mother alongwith other persons.
16. PW12 is Ms. Neha Gupta, who had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased. She deposed that time since death was about 18 hours and cause of death in this case was haemorrhagic shock as a result of antemortem injury to chest and abdomen produced by sharp edged weapon. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. Injury no. 3, 4, 5 & 6 are individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. She further deposed that one sealed pullanda containing clothes of deceased and one sealed envelop containing blood on gauze of the deceased were sealed with the seal of NG and were handed over to the IO FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 9 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel alongwith sample seal, which is Ex.PW12/A. On 22.10.2013, she had given subsequent opinion with regard to weapon of offence i.e knife which is Ex.PW12/D and as per her opinion injury no. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 mentioned in postmortem report were possible by weapon given for examination. She had also prepared the sketch of knife Ex.PW12/C. She identified the knife Ex.P6 as the same which was produced by the IO and was examined by her for giving subsequent opinion.
17. PW13 is Dr. Manish Chhabra from GTB hospital. He deposed that on 12.09.2013, patient Salma Begum was brought with alleged history of physical assault at around 3.45 pm near E44/365, New Seema Puri. He proved the MLC of deceased prepared by him as Ex.PW13/A. He deposed that patient was declared brought dead to main casualty on 12.09.2013 at 4.14 pm.
18. PW14 is SI Suman, who on 12.09.2013 was working as Incharge mobile crime team. On that day on receiving the information from control room, he had visited the spot alongwith other staff, inspected the same and found one printed blood stained chunni and one pair of ladies black slipper lying at the spot. He proved his report as Ex.PW14/A. FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 10 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel
19. PW15 is Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain, Draftsman, who had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW15/A.
20. PW16 is Ex.Ct. Neeraj Kumar, who on 12.09.2013 was working as photographer in Crime Team, NorthEast. He had taken 11 photographs of the spot as well as of deceased in the mortuary and proved the same as Ex.PW16/P1 (colly) and negatives thereof as Ex.PW16/P2 (colly).
21. PW17 Sh. Monu is the son of deceased. He deposed that he does not remember the date, month, year and the exact time but one day in the evening hours, he was present near the tea stall situated in front of Mosque. His younger sister Aasma had come there to take tea and after taking tea for his mother, she returned to the home. He deposed that he also started going towards his house but on the way his father Jameel i.e accused met him near Kabadi shop, made enquiries about his mother and left the place. He further deposed that after about 15 minutes, his neighbour met him and informed him that his mother was killed by accused Jameel. He rushed to the spot i.e in the park near Jain Mandir, where he found that his mother was lying in a pool of blood and she was not speaking. Aasma was also present there, who informed him that his mother was killed by accused Jameel. They lifted the body of their mother, put it into a rehri and took her to GTB hospital, where after examination, doctor FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 11 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel declared her brought dead. He deposed that his elder brother Rafiq also reached at the hospital. Police also reached there and took his sister at the spot.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP, wherein he deposed that police had recorded his statement verbatim as he stated to them. He confirmed that he had stated to the police that his mother Salma and sister Aasma were separating out the waste material in the park situated near Jhuggi.
22. PW18 is Ct. Ravinder Tomar, who on receiving of DD No.30A by SI Monu Chauhan had accompanied him to the spot. He deposed that on coming to know that injured lady was taken to GTB hospital, IO/SI Monu Chauhan went to GTB hospital leaving him there to guard the spot. He deposed that IO returned at the spot with one girl namely Aasma. Crime team also came there and inspected the spot. He got the FIR registered on the basis of tehrir handed over to him by IO. He also deposed about the seizure proceedings done by the IO at the spot.
23. PW19 is IO/SI Monu Chauhan, who on receiving of DD No.30 A regarding stabbing to one lady near Sauchalya had reached the spot and found that blood was lying in the park situated near the jhuggies E44, Jain Mandir. He deposed that one paid of lady's slipper and one dupatta, both FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 12 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel having blood stains were also lying there. He went to GTB hospital and collected the MLC of of injured, wherein doctor had declared her brought dead. He deposed that on examination of dead body, he found that there were several stab injuries on the body of deceased Salma. Eye witness Aasma met him in the hospital, from whom enquiries were made and thereafter, she was brought to the spot, where Inspector Lekh Singh and other staff including crime team was present. Statement of Aasma Ex.PW2/A was recorded, on the basis of which he prepared the rukka and he got the FIR registered. Further investigation was marked to Inspector Lekh Singh. He deposed that crime team inspected the spot and took the photographs. He further deposed about sealing and seizing of exhibits by the IO.
24. PW20 HC Satyabir Singh is MHC(M). He deposed that on 12.09.2013, 19.09.2013 & 28.09.2013 Inspector Lekh Singh had deposited sealed pullandas in the malkhana regarding which entries Ex.PW20/A to EX.PW20/C were made in register no.19. He further deposed that on 06.12.2013, he had handed over 10 sealed pullandas and one sample seal to Ct. Satpal for depositing the same with FSL, Rohini vide RC Ex.PW20/D. He deposed that so far pullandas remained in his custody in malkhana, same were intact.
FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 13 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel
25. PW21 is SI Manoj Kumar, who joined the investigation of this case alongwith Inspector Lekh Singh & HC Murslin on 19.09.2013. He deposed that on that day on the basis of secret information accused Jameel was apprehended, who was sitting near Dargah towards Ring Road, who made disclosure statement Ex.PW21/C. He deposed that accused led them to the shop of Ajju Kabari, from where he got recovered one knife after taking it from the 'Nali' situated near the shop of Ajju Kabadi. He deposed that accused also led them to 80 foota road at plot no. 11 and from a room/jhuggi situated at plot no.11, he got recovered blood stained kurta. IO checked the kurta and found blood stains on it.
26. PW22 is Inspector Lekh Singh, who on 12.09.2013 was posted as SHO PS. Seema Puri. He deposed on the lines of PW19 SI Monu Chauhan with regard to investigation conducted by him and in addition deposed that at the identification of complainant, he prepared site plan Ex.PW22/A. He lifted the blood sample on gauge piece, blood stained earth, plain earth control from the spot, kept the same into three plastic containers, and seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/C. He also seized blood stained ladies chappal, blood stained dupatta, blood stained disposable plastic glass and the rickshaw rehri which was used for taking the deceased to the hospital. He got the postmortem on the body of deceased conducted and deposed that after postmortem dead body was FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 14 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel handed over to the family members of deceased vide memo Ex.PW3/l. He deposed that on 19.09.2013, on the basis of secret information, he arrested accused, who made disclosure statement and got recovered weapon of offence i.e chhuri from a drain near the shop of Ajju Kabari and one blood stained white colour kurta, which he was wearing at the time of incident from a Godown, plot no.11, 80 foota road, Vikram Enclave. He obtained the subsequent opinion of doctor with regard to weapon of offence i.e knife. He also deposed about various memos prepared by him and the further investigation carried out by him.
27. PW23 is Ct. Puran Mal, who had deposited the sealed pullandas handed over to him by MHC(M) in DFMT GTB Hospital. He proved the copy of RC as Ex.PW23/A. He deposed that so long as the exhibits remained in his possession, same remained intact and not tempered with in any manner.
28. PW24 is Ms. L.Babyto Devi, Assistant Director (Biology) FSL, Rohini, who had examined the sealed parcels received at FSL. She deposed that blood was detected on exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9a, 9b, 9c and 10 and exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9a ,9b, 9c and 10 were subjected to DNA isolation. She proved her detailed report as Ex.PW24/A. FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 15 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel
29. PW25 is Dr.Bharti Bhardwaj, Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini, who deposed that on 27.05.2014 two sealed envelopes which were parcel no.8 and parcel no.9 alongwith the sample seals and forwarding note (FSL Form) were received in Physics Division through Biology Division, which were marked to him for examination. He examined the exhibits and as per his opinion, the cut mark 'Q1' to 'Q7' on exhibit 9 (a) and exhibit 9 (b) can be caused by exhibit 8. He proved his report as Ex.PW25/A. Statement and Defence of accused
30. Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the case of prosecution and claimed himself innocent. He took the defence that he has been falsely implicated by step children to grab his property. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.
Arguments and conclusion
31. Arguments have been addressed by Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as also by Sh. A.K.Tiwari, Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused. I have also perused the written submissions as filed on behalf of accused.
FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 16 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel
32. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed murder of his wife. It has been further argued that PW2 Aasma, who is the real daughter of accused and deceased deposed the entire incident in a cogent manner. It has been further argued that accused was arrested one week after the incident and his conduct in running away from the spot after the incident indicates towards his guilt. Ld. Addl. PP further argued that accused got recovered a Kurta after seven days of the incident claiming that he was wearing the same at the time of incident in order to mislead the investigation as the DNA profile generated from the source of Kurta of accused was not found matching with blood in gauge of deceased.
33. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that prosecution witnesses have given different time and different place of incident. It has been further argued that in the MLC of deceased, the alleged eye witness of the incident has not disclosed the name of accused. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that no public witness was joined in the investigation at the time of preparing seizure memos or recovery of weapon of offence. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that as per prosecution case, accused was apprehended from a Dargah situated at Firozshah Kotla but in the arrest memo place of arrest is shown as PS Seema Puri. Thus, it was argued by FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 17 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt.
34. PW2 Aasma & PW17 Monu both are material witnesses of the prosecution. PW2 Aasma is eye witness of the incident and PW17 Monu came at the spot just after the incident. Both these witnesses are real children of deceased and accused. They also took the deceased Salma Begum to GTB Hospital in a rehri (cycle rickshaw). PW2 Aasma deposed that on 12.09.2013 at about 4.15 pm, she was present with her mother near Jain Mandir when her father i.e accused Jameel came from behind and cut the throat of her mother with knife. She tried to save her mother from the accused but he pushed her and ran away from there. PW2 Aasma specified that her father firstly gave knife blow on the breast of her mother and when her mother raised alarm, her father gave various knife blows on the neck, stomach and hand of her mother and caused serious injuries and thereafter, fled away from the spot. In her crossexamination, she deposed that at the time of incident, her mother was having wrist watch and at about 3.45 pm her father fled away from the spot after giving knife blows to her mother and that she heard the conversation taken place between her mother and father just prior to the incident and same pertained to her brother Rafiq and his employment.
FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 18 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel PW17 Monu, who is also real son of the accused and deceased deposed that one of her sisters namely Aasma returned home after taking tea and he also started going towards his home. He deposed that his father i.e accused Jameel met him near Kabari shop; made enquiries about her mother and left the place and that after about 15 minutes, his neighbour met him and informed that his mother was killed by accused, thereupon, he rushed to the spot, where his sister informed that his mother was killed by accused Jameel. He deposed that thereafter, they lifted the body of their mother and put it into a rehri and took to GTB hospital. This testimony of PW17 is also corroborated by MLC of deceased Salma Begum Ex.PW22/B3, wherein it is mentioned that Monu @ Mohd. Saleem son of deceased brought her to the casualty of GTB Hospital. The fact that deceased was taken into a cyclerickshaw by PW2 Aasma and PW17 Monu is also corroborated by testimony of PW11 Smt. Hasim Banu, who is also resident of the same area i.e jhuggi no. E44, A325, New Seemapuri Jhuggi, and deposed that after hearing noise, she rushed outside and found that Salma Begum was lying on the ground in a pool of blood and her son brought a thela; put injured Salma Begum on it and took her to the hospital and that daughter of Salma also went to the hospital with her brother and mother alongwith other persons.
FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 19 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel
35. PW19 SI Monu Chauhan, who reached at the hospital pursuant to DD No.30A also confirmed that when he reached at the hospital, eye witness Aasma met him there, from whom he made enquiries and recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A. Testimony of PW2 Aasma is further corroborated by postmortem report Ex.PW12/A, wherein PW12 Ms. Neha Gupta, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Forensic Medicine, Hindu Rao Hospital observed 11 stab wounds on the body of deceased Salma Begum including stab wound over left side neck, right upper chest and left side of chest.
Ld. Defence Counsel crossexamined these witnesses at length but nothing came on record, which may diminish the evidentiary value of their testimonies. They have remained consistent throughout their testimonies and there is no reason why PW2 Aasma and PW17 Monu deposed against their real father.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2012 SC 3157, Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State of NCT of Delhi with Hari Singh v State of NCT of Delhi, while laying down the quality of a witness held as under:
' "Sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be more relevant would FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 20 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel be the consistency of the statement right from the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court.....The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of occurrence, the person involved, as well as, the sequence of it...It should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of the circumstances, to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. ...To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant material namely, oral documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve." Applying the abovesaid guidelines, both PW2 & PW17, seem to be sterling witnesses and their testimonies can safely be relied upon.
36. Accused Jameel was arrested on 19.02.2013 from a Dargarh at Firozshah Kotla at the instance of one secret informer. PW2 Aasma has categorically deposed that after causing injuries to her mother, accused ran away from the spot. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that as per statement of PW22 Inspector Lekh Singh, accused was arrested from a Dargah at Firozshah Kotla but in his arrest memo Ex.PW21/A the place of arrest is FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 21 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel mentioned as PS Seema Puri, which creates a doubt on the story of prosecution regarding arrest of accused. In this regard, PW22 deposed that accused was apprehended on the pointing out of secret informer from a Dargah and thereafter, he was taken to PS. Seema Puri, where he interrogated the accused and accused confessed to have committed the murder of his wife, thereupon, he arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW21/A, therefore, the place of arrest in arrest memo Ex.PW21/A is mentioned as PS. Seema Puri. In his crossexamination also PW22 Inspector Lekh Singh confirmed that no document was prepared when accused was apprehended from Dargah and that they remained there for about 1015 minutes. In view of the explanation having come on record, I find no force in the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel with regard to place of arrest of accused as mentioned in arrest memo Ex.PW21/A as PS Seema Puri instead of his actual place of arrest i.e Dargah at Firozshah Kotla.
37. As per case of prosecution, accused pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.PW21/C led the police party near the shop of Ajju Kabari, and from a drain near the shop of Ajju Kabari, he got recovered the weapon of offence i.e knife. In this regard, PW22 in his crossexamination confirmed that there was waste material/kabad lying in the drain, from where accused took out weapon of offence i.e knife and there were blood stains on the handle and adjacent blade of the knife. The fact that there FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 22 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel were blood stains on the weapon of offence, which was got recovered by the accused, is also corroborated by FSL result Ex.PW24/A, wherein it is mentioned that on biological analysis blood was detected on Ex.8 i.e one knife described as blood stained weapon of offence, however, DNA profile could not be generated from knife, which as per PW24 Ms. L.Babyto Devi may be due to degradation of sample. The recovered knife was also identified by PW2 Aasma as their kitchen knife, which was used by accused in the present incident as Ex.P6. No suggestion was given to the witness that Ex.P6 was not the kitchen knife of the house of deceased. Further, the fact that knife was used in causing injury to deceased Salma Begum was also proved by subsequent opinion of PW12 Ms. Neha Gupta, who conducted the postmortem, vide her report Ex.PW12/D to the effect that injuries as mentioned in the postmortem report Ex.PW12/A were possible by the knife Ex.P6.
38. It was argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that no independent witness was joined in the investigation at the time of recovery of knife. Nowadays it is very difficult to get public witnesses to join the proceedings as also deposed by PW2 Aasma that when accused ran away after causing injuries to her mother, no one came forward to help them to take her mother to the hospital. She further deposed that no one came forward to apprehend the accused. As such, nonjoining of independent witness in the recovery proceedings, does not affect the case of prosecution adversely FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 23 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel since the recovery of knife has been proved on record by the police witnesses, who are equally reliable and trustworthy as the public witnesses. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 2003 SC 1311, wherein it was held:
" the testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as from of other persons and it is not proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds."
39. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar and another vs State Of Punjab, 2001 (7) SCC 690, has laid down following in paragraph 18: "18........It is generally an impossible task for the prosecution to prove what precisely would have impelled the murderers to kill a particular person. All that prosecution in many cases could point to is the possible mental element which could have been the cause for the murder. In this connection we deem it useful to refer to the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jeet Singh {1999 (4) SCC 370}:
FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 24 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel "No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended."
Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2010 (10) SCC 439, held that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No.261 of 2008 titled Praful Sudhakar Parab Vs. State of Maharashtra held that "Motive is a mental state, which is always locked in the inner compartment of the brain of the accused and inability of the prosecution to establish the motive need not necessarily cause entire failure of prosecution."
FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 25 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel
40. As far as motive in the instant case is concerned, PW3 Mohd. Rafiq deposed that accused Jameel had given divorce to his mother and that accused was the second husband of his mother. He deposed that on 12.09.2013 at about 2.30 pm when he was present at Preet Vihar at the house of his elder sister inlaw, accused after seeing him lost his temper and asked him as to why he was there and directed him to leave the place otherwise he would kill him to which he replied that "Main tumse darta nahi huin mujhe apne bacche ka pet palna hai". He further deposed that accused threatened him that if he does not abide his direction, he would kill his mother. PW2 in her original complaint Ex.PW2/A, which was recorded by SI Monu Chauhan in the hospital itself has also mentioned that her father i.e accused asked her mother that when he feels jealous with Rafiq why she had sent him to his workplace at Preet Vihar. This fact is also confirmed by PW2 in her crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel that she heard the conversation taken place between her mother and father just prior to the incident and it pertained to his brother Rafiq and his employment. The fact that PW3 Rafiq was not the real son of accused and accused had given divorce to deceased but yet Rafiq was going to his work place at Preet Vihar appears to be one of the motives of the incident. The conduct of accused in running from the spot and his arrest after seven days of the incident also indicates towards his guilt.
FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 26 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel
41. It was argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there are contradictions in respect of time of incident and place of incident as brought on record by the prosecution. As per the information given to PS, which was recorded vide DD No. 30A I.e Ex.PW22/B5, the place of incident was Sauchalya near Jain Mandir. In the MLC of deceased Ex.PW13/A, the place of incident is mentioned as near residential address of deceased i.e E44A/365, Jhuggi, New Seema Puri Delhi. The site plan Ex.PW22/A as proved on record shows that spot where the incident occurred i.e MCD Park, is surrendered by Jhuggies. On one side of the park, there is public toilet and on another side there is Jain Mandir and the house of deceased was also in those Jhuggies, thus, if any person gives information that the incident occurred near Shauchalya Jain Mandir or by giving the address of the Jhuggies, it cannot be said that two addresses are of two different places. The place of incident can be addressed as Jhuggies Near Jain Mandir as also near Shauchalya Jain Mandir. Regarding the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that there is contradiction in the time as in DD No.30A, the time is recorded as 3.56 pm; in DD No.31A, time is mentioned as 4.20 pm; PW2 Aasma deposed that incident occurred at 3.45 pm and in the scene of crime report Ex.PW14/A, the time of incident is mentioned as 3 pm. PW2 Aasma confirmed in her crossexamination that at the time of incident her mother was having wrist watch and at about 3.45 pm, her father fled away from the spot after giving knife blows to her FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 27 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel mother. DD no.30A is the first information, which was given at 3.56 pm while DD No.31A was got recorded by duty constable at GTB Hospital that Salma Begum, who was brought to hospital has been declared dead by the doctor, at 4.20 pm. Even in the MLC Ex.PW13/A, the date and time of examination is mentioned as 4.14 pm. These documents show the sequence of time as when the incident occurred, information given and deceased examined by the doctor. Time of incident mentioned as 3 pm in Ex.PW14/A appears to be a mistake as PW14 SI Suman prepared the report between 5.45 pm to 6.45 pm. No question was put to the witness when he appeared in the witness box as to how he mentioned the time as 3 pm in the report Ex.PW14/A. As such, there appears to be no major contradiction with regard to the place of incident and time of incident and it has been held in various pronouncements of Hon'ble Superior Court that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "State of U.P Vs. M.K. Anthony" Air 1985 SC 48, wherein it was observed that "while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once the impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinies the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 28 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evolution of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the code before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellant Court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Crossexamination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer." Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2000 I AD (Cr) SC 49, State of HP Vs. Lekh Raj and another wherein Hon'ble Court while distinguishing the "Discrepancies in evidence" from "contradiction", held as under:
FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 29 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel 'though latter could be fatal for prosecution case former rather can be a proof of truthfulness of a witness'.
42. The next contention of Ld. Defence Counsel was that one Rahul also made call to the police at 100 number regarding the incident, which is also mentioned in PCR form Ex.PW5/A but he was not examined by IO and that PW17 Monu deposed that one of his neighbour met him and informed that his mother was killed by accused Jameel but the said neighbour was also not examined by the IO. It is important to note here that the real children of deceased and accused took their mother to the hospital and narrated the entire incident to the police in hospital. It is a timehonoured principle that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidene Act.
43. The next contention of Ld. Defence Counsel was that although kurta of the accused, which he wore at the time of incident was seized by the police but as per FSL report Ex.PW24/A, the male DNA profile generated from the kurta of accused was not matching with the blood in FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 30 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel gauge of deceased, which creates a doubt in the prosecution story. It is not the case of prosecution that accused was apprehended from the spot just after the incident or within a reasonable time to show that he was not having any opportunity to mislead the investigation. The accused was arrested after seven days from the day of incident and thus, there was ample opportunity with him to consult with a lawyer and have legal advice to mislead the investigation. Therefore, if the blood stained kurta which was got recovered by the accused claiming that he was wearing the same at the time of incident, was not matching with blood in gauge of deceased, it does not cast any doubt on the case of prosecution.
44. Accused has taken defence in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C that his step children have falsely implicated him in order to grab his property. The material eye witness in the present case is PW2 Aasma, the real daughter of the accused. PW17 Monu is also real son of the accused and he has also deposed the incident in cogent manner. PW3 Mohd. Rafiq is the step son of accused, who after the incident reached at the GTB hospital. Although, accused has taken the defence that his step children have falsely implicated him in order to grab his property but he has not brought any evidence on record to substantiate his plea. No suggestion in this regard was given to PW3 Mohd. Rafiq, when he appeared in the witness box. The defence as put to PW3 in his crossexamination was that he was having enmity with accused because accused used to interfere in his free life and FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 31 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel also because of his love affair. It is settled law that absence of any suggestion during cross examination cannot be made up by the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. At this stage, the prosecution does not get an opportunity to question the accused about his stand in the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. [Devender Kumar Singla vs. Baldev Krishan Singla (2004) 9SCC15].
45. The testimony of eye witness Aasma supported by medical evidence is reliable and trustworthy. The evidence of PW17 Monu, who alongwith PW2 Aasma took the deceased to hospital, testimony of PW11 Smt. Hasin Banu, who saw deceased while being taken to hospital in a thaila by PW2 & PW17 and identification of weapon of offence by PW2 as used by accused while causing eleven stab injuries to the deceased prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed murder of Salma Begum. He is accordingly held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC. Accused be heard on point of sentence. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR Announced in the open court MALHOTRA Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2018.01.20 16:30:13 +0530 on 20.01.2018 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) ASJ/FTC/ECOURT Shahdara/KKD/Delhi FIR No.483/2013, PS.Seema Puri Page 32 of 32 St. Vs. Jameel