Delhi District Court
State vs Renu @Rajeshwari on 15 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIPIN KHARB
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 : SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC No. 39/2019
CNR No. DLSW01-000928-2019
State Vs. Renu @ Rajeshwari
W/o late Rajender
R/o A-2, Mangol Puri, New Delhi.
Presently at :
H. No. 211, C-2, Jamuna Vihar,
East Delhi.
FIR No. : 1024/15
Police Station : Uttam Nagar
Under Sections : 304 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 17.01.19
Date on which judgment was reserved : 15.09.23
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 15.09.23
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. On 29.10.2014 at 11:40 p.m. vide DD No. 68B, PS Uttam Nagar, information was received that Rajender S/o Billu Singh was admitted in DDU Hospital after consuming unknown poison vide MLC No. 10717/14.
DD entry was marked to SI N. L. Yadav, who found injured admitted in hospital and unfit for statement and later on expired on 05.11.2014. Inquest FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 1 of 25 proceedings were conducted and during inquiry, statements of father and his wife were recorded and none of them expressed any doubt as victim (deceased) Rajender was alcoholic and during influence of liquor had quarreled with his wife. Later on postmortem report was prepared in which doctor opined the cause of death as due to subdural and sub arachnoid hemorrhage secondary to the head injury and the manner of death injuries inflicted over the body are suggestive assaults and are not consistent with with the history provided.
2. After that on 14.08.2015, statement of Smt. Devi i.e. mother of deceased was recorded in which she stated that in the night of 28.10.2014, there was quarrel between her son and her daughter-in-law in which her daughter-in-law hit her son on the head with a stick which was seen by her grandson. Next day, her son was taken to the hospital where doctors told that he will not survive. She stated that her daughter-in-law threatened to kill her grandson because of which he did not tell them about the incident. Her daughter-in-law also tried to implicate her other sons. On the basis of statement given by complainant and inquest report of deceased, FIR was registered for the offence u/s 304 IPC. During investigation, statement of witnesses i.e. Rajiv and Deepanshu were recorded and the case file was then transferred to IO/Inspector Baljeet Singh. During investigation, IO got recorded statement of eye witness Deepanshu u/s 164 Cr.PC. and arrested the accused Renu @ Rajeshwari. IO recorded her disclosure statement and prepared pointing out memo of the spot at her instance. After recording statement of witnesses and completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court for the offence u/s. 304 IPC.
FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 2 of 253. After hearing arguments, charge was framed against the accused on 05.02.2019 for the offence punishable u/s. 304 IPC to which accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial and accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined 9 witnesses to substantiate the accusations leveled against the accused.
5. PW-1 Smt. Barfi Devi is the mother of deceased Rajender who deposed that her son Rajender was hit by accused Renu @ Rajeshwari on his head repeatedly with danda and due to which he become unconscious and then accused pushed her son towards the sofa. She deposed that when Deepanshu, son of accused Renu @ Rajeshwari, asked the accused about the condition of his father, accused Renu @ Rajeshawari threatened him to do the same with him. Her son Rajender used to come to her daily after waking up in the morning but in the morning of Wednesday, he did not come and she did not see him for the whole day. When in the evening accused went to toilet, she entered her son's room and saw that her son Rajender was lying on the floor under the sofa and blood was oozing out of his nose and mouth and he did not open his eyes. She took him to DDU Hospital where her son remain admitted for 2-3 days and expired due the injuries. After about 8 months, her grandson Deepanshu disclosed to her that accused Renu @ Rajeshwari gave beatings to his father on that day. She proved her complaint given to the police as Ex.PW1/1.
FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 3 of 256. She was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as she was silent on some points. She admitted that accused Renu @ Rajeshwari had also given beatings to her elder grandson Himanshu on his head with danda. She also admitted that accused Renu @ Rajeshwari leveled false allegations against her other sons and gave threat to deceased Rajender that she would kill him within one and half months of restoring the marital life with him and thereafter she killed him within one month. She admitted all the suggestions put to her by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
7. In cross-examination by ld counsel for accused, she stated that altercation between the couple started after they blessed with first child. They used to fight on the issue of drinking habit of his son as well as on other petty issues. Accused had filed a maintenance case u/s. 125 Cr.PC at the time when the first child was about 12 years old. Thereafter, through court settlement, she came back to matrimonial home. Her son was not a habitual drinker. Voluntarily she stated that her son used to drink occasionally. Deepanshu had told her after about 8 months of the incident that the accused had beaten the deceased. She was the first person whom Deepanshu told the said fact. She does not know whether Deepanshu went to school on the next day of assault or not. She admitted that accused remarried and left her sons. She denied the suggestion that they have falsely implicated the accused and also tutored Deepanshu.
8. PW-2 Master Deepanshu is the son of accused Renu @ Rajeshwari who deposed that accused Renu @ Rajeshwari had murdered his father on 28.10.2014. He deposed that there were hot talks exchanged FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 4 of 25 between his parents when he was sleeping and after hearing talks, he woke up and saw that his mother, accused Renu @ Rajeshwari, pour "chuhe marne ki dawai" in the drink of his father Rajender and thereafter he become "adhmara". His mother, accused Renu @ Rajeshwari, brought a danda from outside and hit the same on the head of his father thrice and blood started oozing out from his nose and thereafter his mother pushed his father towards the sofa. He deposed that his mother i.e. accused Renu @ Rajeshwari threatened him not to disclose the incident to anyone otherwise she would kill him in the same manner. His grandmother was searching for his father in the vicinity but since he was kept in the room by his mother, he could not disclose this fact to his grandmother. When his grandmother entered in the room at about 5:00 p.m., she saw his father lying in one corner. When his grandmother asked accused Renu @ Rajeshwari about what happened to his father, accused told her that nothing had happened to him and he was simply lying after consuming liquor. His grandmother took his father to hospital. He also deposed that his mother i.e. accused Renu @ Rajeshwari gave beatings to him brutally with chimta and fist blows as he disclosed the fact of murder of his father to his grandmother. He proved his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC as Ex.PW2/1.
9. In cross-examination by ld counsel for accused, he stated that her mother got married to someone else and she left him and from that marriage she had one child. His father used to take drink daily and only after taking the drink he could sleep. He was not locked in the room but only kept in the room. He stated that at the time of incident, his elder brother Himanshu was with his grandmother in her room. He told about the incident to his FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 5 of 25 brother Himanshu later on. On the day of incident, he was studying in 5 th class. He was not locked but was only kept in the room by his mother. He visited the hospital to see his father once. He told the fact of mixing of "machchar marne wali dawai" in the drink of his father to the police as well as to the Magistrate while recording his statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC and 161 Cr.PC. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW-2/1 wherein it is not so recorded. He also stated that his mother burnt the danda with which she hit his father.
10. PW-3 Dr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Medical Officer, deposed that Dr. Khushwant Singh treated the patient and referred him to Neuro surgery. He proved the MLC Ex.PW3/A.
11. PW-4 Rajeev is the brother of deceased Rajender who deposed that his brother Rajender (deceased) was living with his wife i.e. accused Renu @ Rajeshwari and two children at their house. On 28.10.2014 at about 1:00 pm, there was quarrel between deceased Rajender and accused Renu @ Rajeshwari on the issue of excessive drinking. After hearing of shouts, his mother Barfi Devi and he came out and went to the room of his brother Rajender at about 2:30 a.m. and they noticed that his brother was fallen on the floor. Accused stated that his brother had fallen from the cot. They went to their room after his mother had stated to the accused that let Rajender sleep on the floor itself. On the next day, at about 11-12 Noon his mother asked accused that whether Rajender had woke up or had gone outside. Accused replied that he went for consuming liquor. They searched for Rajender till 4:00 p.m. They went inside the room of Rajender and FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 6 of 25 found that he was lying on the floor. They noticed that the face of Rajender got swelled and body had become bluish. Accused called the doctor and doctor said that Rajender will become conscious within an hour. His father returned home at about 8:00 p.m. He had thrown water on Rajender and accused had rubbed oil on the body of Rajender. They got admitted Rajender in DDU Hospital and after one week he expired.
12. In cross-examination by ld counsel for the accused, he admitted that his brother used to drink liquor daily. He noticed that his mother was lying down the cot. About 2:30 a.m. he along-with his mother went inside the room of Rajender and noticed that he was lying underneath of the cot and accused told them that he is sleeping. He was confronted with Ex.PW- 4/PX. Accused has remarried two years after death of his brother and left her two children with them.
13. PW-5 Iccha is the sister of deceased Rajender who deposed that they were 7 brothers and one sister. Her elder brother Rajender (deceased) was married with accused Renu @ Rajeshwari. They reside in the same house as a joint family. At about 7:00 a.m. when she woke, her mother informed that there was a quarrel between accused and his brother and she heard sound of fall from the room of her brother and when her mother further inquired from the accused, accused stated that accused had fallen from the bed. At about 5:00 p.m., her nephew Himanshu informed her over the phone that her brother Rajender was not found at the home. She came home at about 7:00 p.m. She went inside the room of her brother and found behind the bed and there were no movement. Her mother informed that FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 7 of 25 Rajender was not found in the house and she noticed after 5:00 p.m. her brother was found on the floor and some ants were also present. They brought Rajender to the hall and tried to move him but there was no response. Accused called the doctor and doctor gave injection to her brother and stated that he was under influence of liquor and he will woke up in a short time. At about 9:30 p.m., they took Rajender to DDU hospital. Doctor informed the police that Rajender might be poisoned. On 04.11.2014, her brother Rajender expired and they came to know after postmortem that there was a head injury with blunt object. The incident of beating by accused to her brother was witnessed by Dipanshu and Dipanshu stated that after beating, accused also poured cold water on his hand and he had not stated this fact upto 8 months as he was threatened by the accused.
14. In cross-examination by ld counsel for the accused, she stated that her brother used to drink on which her bhabhi used to abuse him and this was the reason for quarrel between them. Her bhabhi has filed a case against her brother in Rohini Court under D.V. Act and 125 Cr.PC. There was settlement between her brother and bhabhi in Rohini court and after that her bhabhi again started living with her brother. Two months prior to giving of written complaint Ex.PW-1/1, she was told about the incident by her nephew Dipanshu. They made complaint in PS Uttam Nagar but no complaint was taken by the police. She stated that her bhabhi got remarried after 5 months of death of her brother and she did not take her sons Himanshu and Dipanshu with her.
15. PW-6 Inspector Umesh Yadav was the second IO of the case who FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 8 of 25 recorded statement of witnesses Rajeev and Deepanshu. He deposed that on 19.11.2016, he went to the house of accused Renu @ Rajeshwari and interrogated her. He correctly identified accused Renu @ Rajehwari in the court.
16. PW-7 ASI Manoj Kumar was the police official who accompanied IO / PW-9 Insp. Baljeet Singh on 25.09.2018 and deposed about proceedings conducted by IO in his presence. He proved arrest memo as Ex.PW-7/1 and personal search memo as Ex.PW-7/2 of the accused.
17. PW-8 W/HC Reena Kumari was the police officer who accompanied PW-7 ASI Manoj Kumar and PW-9 IO/Insp. Baljeet Singh to the house of accused Renu @ Rajeshwari and deposed about the investigation conducted by IO in her presence. She proved pointing out memo Ex.PW-8/1.
18. PW-9 Insp. Baljeet Singh was the last IO of the case who deposed about the investigation conducted by him. He deposed that on 10.06.2018 investigation of the case was marked to him. He recorded statement of eyewitness Deepanshu u/s. 164 Cr.PC and arrested the accused. He proved rukka made on initial complaint by Insp. Ravi Shanker Singh (since expired) Ex.PW9/1, site-plan of the spot Ex.PW9/2, scaled site-plan Ex.PW9/3, complaint given by PW-5 Iccha to DCP Rajouri Garden Ex.PW9/4. He recorded the statement of relevant witnesses and filed the charge-sheet against accused Renu @ Rajeshwari in the court. He correctly identified accused in the court.
FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 9 of 2519. Accused admitted the copy of FIR, Scaled site-plan, DD no. 68B dated 29.10.2014, Statement of master Deepanshu recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC, Death summary dated 05.11.2014, Postmortem report prepared by Dr. Narayan Dabas, DD No. 6A dated 06.11.2014, DD No. 68B dated 29.10.2014 and DD No. 68B dated 29.10.2014 regarding memo of dead body as Ex.A-1 to Ex. A-9 respectively.
20. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 27.04.2023 and the matter was fixed for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
21. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded with the assistance of counsel for accused and she does not want to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
22. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the record.
23. During arguments Ld. Addl. PP submits that PW-2 Deepanshu is the son of the accused and deceased and he is the eye-witness of the incident and he has deposed about the incident and proved that accused hit danda on the head of the deceased. Further, weapon of offence i.e. danda could not be recovered as same was burnt by the accused and there is delay in registering the FIR but same is duly explained as PW-2 was threatened by his accused mother. Therefore, accused is liable to be convicted for the FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 10 of 25 offence u/s. 304 IPC.
24. On the other hand, counsel for the accused submitted that deceased was a habitual drunker and he fell down from the cot and received head injury because of which he died and accused has no role in it. All family members were aware about the condition of the accused and first they called a local doctor and after that they shifted him to DDU hospital where they told the doctors that he had taken some unknown poison. Even after the receiving of postmortem report, where it is mentioned that death of the deceased is due to assault, no complaint was made by them. It is only after accused got remarried to someone else and left her two sons including PW-2 with the complainant's family they filed the false complaint against her. Further, nothing is proved on the record as there are many contradictions in the deposition of witnesses, therefore, accused is entitled to be acquitted from the case.
25. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses out of which PW-3 is the doctor who proved the MLC and PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 are the police officers who conducted the investigation. PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 were the family members of the deceased. Remaining all the documents on which prosecution was relying were admitted by the accused. PW-2 is the alleged eye-witness of the incident.
FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 11 of 25APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE Place of Incident.
26. As per the prosecution case, the alleged incident which caused the death of the deceased Rajender took place inside deceased's room and his deadbody was also found there. PW-5 Iccha, who is the sister of deceased and who gave the complaint Ex.PW-9/4 to the DCP, have deposed that they were 7 brothers and 1 sister and except one brother, all were staying in the same house. So, at the time of the incident all family members of the deceased which include PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 were present in the home along-with other members, who are not cited as prosecution witnesses i.e. Himanshu, younger son of deceased; Rati Ram, father of the deceased and other brothers of the deceased. So there must be minimum of 10 persons in the house on the night of the incident.
27. Ex.A-2 is the scaled site plan of the house of deceased and perusal of the same shows that there are four rooms, one bathroom and a open compound. All 4 rooms and bathroom open in the common compound. Room of deceased, in which incident took place, is in front of the bathroom, so, any family member, who is going to bathroom can easily overheard what is happening in the deceased's room and can also easily peep in the deceased's room. The size of the rooms is also not very big and they are located closeby, so, in late night any voice coming out of one room can be easily heard in another room and if something is happening in common compound can be seen and noticed from all the rooms.
FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 12 of 2528. PW-2 has deposed that his mother i.e. accused burnt the danda with which she hit his father. The only place where the danda can be burnt is the common compound in front of the room and in case it was burnt then it must have been seen or atleast the ashes must have been seen or noticed by the other family members and they must have inquired about it but none of the family members noticed burning of danda and all the witnesses PW- 1, PW-4 and PW-5 did not utter any word about danda.
29. With the help of site plan Ex.A-2, it can be deduced that if family members of deceased were searching for him then, it is impossible, that they did not notice him, in case, he was lying on the floor of his room. So, it is impossible that deceased kept lying throughout the day on the floor of his house but he was not noticed by other family members and that danda was burnt in the house by accused but was not noticed by any of the family members.
Weapon of offence
30. The first information given by the family members which was recorded in DD No.68B i.e.Ex.A-3 was that deceased has taken some unknown poison. If poison was taken by the deceased then viscera of the deceased should have been saved but no viscera in the present case is saved by the doctors. Further, the postmortem report Ex.A-6 and death summary Ex.A-5 is also totally silent about the poison.
31. In the postmortem report Ex.A-6 it was mentioned that the cause FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 13 of 25 of death is due to subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage secondary to the head injury and injuries inflicted over the body are suggestive of assault. So, postmortem report totally ruled out any poison and points to the head injury. Only after the postmortem report, the complaint regarding the use of danda by the accused was made. But danda was not recovered by the police during the investigation and the reason given was that it was burnt by the accused. As discussed above, in case the danda was burnt it must have been seen by the other family members or atleast its ashes must have been noticed by the family members and they would have definitely inquired about ashes or burning of something but neither PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 deposed about finding anything burnt in their house.
32. PW-2 in his deposition stated that accused went out of the room and brought the danda from outside. When in his cross-examination he was asked about the danda he told that same was burnt by his mother in the same night. Regarding the above fact he is contradicted by his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC and statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW-2/1 as nothing about brining of danda from outside and burning of danda is mentioned in them. Additionally, he is also contradicted by PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 as they also deposed nothing about any danda or burning of any danda in the compound of their house. Hence, the deposition of PW-2 regarding bringing of danda from outside and burning it appears to be concocted and made- up story.
Information about incident
33. As per the prosecution case, the alleged incident is of intervening FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 14 of 25 night of 28/29.10.2014 and injured Rajender was admitted in DDU hospital next day i.e. 29.10.2014 in evening and he got expired on 06.11.2014 in hospital. The deceased Rajender was the husband of accused Renu @ Rajeshwari and the alleged incident took place inside their room, where accused Renu @ Rajeshwari hit deceased Rajender on head with danda and only eye-witness of the incident was their son PW-2 Deepanshu. The deceased was admitted to the hospital vide DD No. 68B dated 29.10.2014 i.e. Ex.A3 and in it, it was mentioned that deceased has taken some unknown poison. So, on 29.10.2014, no complaint regarding any foul play or act done by any other person including accused was made when deceased was admitted in the hospital.
34. As per the charge-sheet, the first complaint regarding any foul play was made by PW-5 i.e. sister of deceased to the DCP West District on 06.07.2015. So, the first complaint regarding any act of accused in the death of deceased was made on 06.07.2015 i.e. after 8 months of the death. On 11.08.2015 complaint was given by complainant Barfi i.e. mother of deceased on which the present FIR was registered, which shows that there is huge delay of around 9½ months in registering the FIR. Only explanation for delay in registration in FIR given is that accused threatened her son PW-2 / Deepanshu that she will do the same thing as she did with his father because of which PW-2 did not tell anyone about the incident for about 8 months. This does not appear to be a plausible reason and appears to be a madeup or an afterthought for the following reasons which are discussed hereinafter.
FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 15 of 2535. Firstly, as per the prosecution case, deceased was hit on head in the night and on the next day evening at around 5:00 p.m., he was found lying in his room by the family members and during the whole day i.e. from night till 5:00 p.m. in the evening, PW-2 stayed in his room with his mother. The incident occurred in night of 28.10.2014 i.e. Tuesday, and it was admitted by PW-2 that at that time he was studying in 5 th class. Next day of incident was a Wednesday, which is a working day and PW-2 has to go to his school. It is admitted case of prosecution that PW-2 has a younger brother Himanshu, who on that night was sleeping with his grandmother i.e. PW-1. In normal course, as next day was Wednesday, which is a working day, both Himanshu and Deepanshu must have gone to the school and in case both Himanshu and Deepanshu did not go to the school then definitely the family members which include PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 must have asked them about the reason for not going to the school and therefore, they must have met PW-2 in the morning of 29.10.2014. But all witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 are silent regarding meeting PW-2 in the morning.
36. Secondly, during his cross-examination, PW-2 specifically stated that his room was not locked but his mother did not allow him to go out of the room and kept him inside the room. Even if, PW-2 was not allowed to go out of room by his accused mother, even then, other family members including his younger brother can come as the room was not locked or bolted. Further, it is not possible and practical that a 9 years old boy (PW- 2's age at the time of incident) can be kept silent for such a long period inside the room and was not allowed to meet any of his family members, which includes his younger brother Himanshu and grandparents.
FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 16 of 2537. Thirdly, PW-4 / brother of deceased, has deposed that at about 2:30 a.m. he and his mother Barfi i.e. PW-1, heard loud noise and they went to the room and saw that his brother was on the floor and accused told them that his brother has fallen from the cot and they asked accused to let his brother Rajender sleep on the floor. When PW-1 and PW-4 knew that Rajender has fallen from the cot in the night then they must have checked about his health next morning and in case he was lying in the room then they must have noticed him.
38. Fourthly, PW-5 / Iccha, sister of deceased, deposed that she was telephonically informed by her nephew Himanshu, who is younger brother of PW-2 Deepanshu that his father i.e. deceased Rajender could not be found in the house. This shows that atleast Himanshu must have searched for his father in the house but he did not find him. As discussed above, the room in which the alleged incident took place is not a big room and in room of such a small size, it is not possible that if a person is lying on the floor then he is not noticed by any other person, who had entered into the room. Discussing further, in case Himanshu is looking for his father definitely he must have asked his elder brother PW-2 Deepanshu about his father and therefore must have entered into the room and met Deepanshu, who was in the room throughout the day and therefore must have seen his father lying on the floor.
39. From the above discussion, court has come to the conclusion that it is not possible that deceased kept lying on the floor of his room FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 17 of 25 throughout the day and nobody noticed him. Also, it is not possible that a mother (accused) can keep her 9 years old son (PW-2 Deepanshu) inside the room throughout the day without bolting the door and did not allow 9 years old to meet his younger brother and grandparents. The reason for delay of about 8 months in giving complaint against accused to the police appears to be a sham, an afterthought and appears to be motivated out of revenge as accused, after death of her husband Rajender, she married someone else and left both her sons, Himanshu and Deepanshu, with the family of the complainant.
Eye-witness evidence
40. As discussed above, PW-2 / Deepanshu is the sole eyewitness of the incident and who, after 8 months of incident, informed other family members about the incident and is the sole witness on whose testimony prosecution case is dependent. It is a settled law that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided, he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. It is a sound and well- established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
i) Wholly reliable.
ii) Wholly unreliable.FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 18 of 25
iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
41. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.
42. In Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided, he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act'). But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honored principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.
43. Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove a relevant fact. In the case of Joseph Vs. State of FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 19 of 25 Kerala [AIR 2003 SC 507(510)], Hon'ble Apex Court held: -
"...................Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses in any case be required for the proof of any fact and, therefore, it is permissible for a court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness. But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. By this standard, when prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eye-witness, it should be wholly reliable."
44. Now court will examine the testimony of PW-2 Deepanshu, who is the sole eye-witness of the incident but there are number of contradictions in his testimony. Neither in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC nor in the statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC i.e. Ex.PW-2/1, he stated anything about mixing of "chuhe marne wali dawai" in the drink of his father by accused mother. In his cross-examination, he specifically stated that he told the above fact to the police and to the Magistrate while recording his statements but they did not mention it. He has raised finger on both police and the Ld. MM who recorded his statement and it clearly shows that he tries to make improvement in his testimony so as to cover the first information regrading the incident which was recorded in DD No.68B i.e. Ex.A-3 where it is mentioned that deceased took some unknown poison while he was admitted in the hospital. Regarding the administration of poison he was contradicted by PW-1 i.e. his grandmother, to whom he first told about the incident but PW-1 nowhere deposed about the administration of any poison to the deceased.
45. Not only PW-2 is contradicted by his previous statements and FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 20 of 25 have also tried to make improvement in his deposition but he is also contradicted by other witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5, who were his family members. PW-1 is the first person to whom PW-2 told about the incident but PW-1 has specifically stated that PW-2 was sleeping when accused Renu hit on the head of deceased and pushed the deceased besides the sofa. But as per PW-2 the whole incident occurred in his presence.
46. As per PW-2, his accused mother hit on the head of his deceased father with danda because of which his father fell down and his mother pushed his father besides the sofa. So, in the above incident bleeding must have occurred and there must have been some blood on the floor but surprisingly none of the family members noticed any blood stain on the floor. To cover this aspect, PW-5 deposed that PW-2 told her that the accused poured water on the head of the deceased because of which there was no blood. Nothing as such was deposed by the PW-2. If water was poured by the accused over the head of the deceased then water must have swept out of the room and must have been noticed by other family members but none of the family members have deposed about noticing any water or blood on the floor of the room of the deceased.
47. PW-2 is totally silent regarding any blood stain on the head / face of the deceased and on the floor of the room. If accused has hit deceased on head blood must have fallen down on floor but none of the witnesses noticed any blood on the floor or noticed accused mopping the floor.
48. So, there are serious contractions in the testimony of PW-2 and it FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 21 of 25 is not consistent on the material aspects regarding adding of poison (chuhe marne ki dawai) by accused in drink of his father and series of events and his testimony got shaken in cross-examination. So testimony of PW-2 falls in the 3rd category i.e. it is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and therefore, corroboration in material particulars is required.
49. As discussed above, testimony of PW-2 is contradicted by testimony of his grandmother i.e. PW-1 / complainant, by testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5, who are his uncle and aunt and also not corroborated by any evidence. So, considering that testimony of PW-2 is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and is also contradicted in material particulars by the other evidences brought on record, therefore, same cannot be relied upon being inconsistent and uncorroborated.
50. Serious questions are also raised upon the police investigation. Both PW-4 and PW-5 deposed that when in the evening they found their brother i.e. deceased Rajender, was lying on the floor and was not moving they called a doctor, who examined his brother and gave him injection and told them that he is under the influence of alcohol. But neither the name of the doctor was disclosed nor doctor was examined by the police during the investigation. The doctor would have been a important witness who could have deposed about the condition of the deceased at that time when he examined him. Also, PW-5 deposed that her father poured water on the deceased to wake him up but father of the deceased was also not examined and father of the deceased could have deposed about the condition of his son and whether there was any blood on the floor or not.
FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 22 of 2551. So, court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that there are many contradictions in the testimony of PW-2 / eye-witness and other witnesses and same are not consistent and therefore, same cannot be relied upon and there is serious lacunas in the investigation conducted by the police and serious doubts have been raised regarding the explanation given for delay in giving complaint to the police regarding the incident.
Expert Witness Evidence
52. The root cause from which the complaint against the accused arises is the opinion regarding death given by the doctor in the PM report Ex.A6, as before the PM report no one has raised even an iota of suspicion on the accused and all the family members of the deceased were of the opinion that death has been caused due to excessive drinking habit of the deceased, therefore, they have given the history of alcohol consumption by deceased since early morning followed by unconsciousness, while getting the deceased admitted in the DDU hospital vide MLC Ex.PW-3/A.
53. The value of the testimony of an expert witness which includes doctor depends on the rightful inferences he himself makes out of the matter assigned, by using his special skill, knowledge, and experience. The opinion of an expert is nevertheless an evidence and one needs to be cautious about its veracity as it may sometimes not be conclusive one. In order to take expert evidence as a substantial one, one needs to corroborate it with other facts. The opinion of the expert is not binding upon the court and its FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 23 of 25 veracity and gravity has to be tested and done by the judge who has to be cautious in doing so. The opinion of the expert shall not be a valid piece of evidence unless like other witnesses the expert is also subjected to cross examination, in order to establish his statements as truthful. In the landmark case of State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde it has been held by the Supreme Court that no reliance may be made upon the expert's opinion unless the expert is examined in the court. The evidence of the expert like any other witness has to be seen so as to extract the grain from the chaff, i.e. to take the relevant part and discard the opinion which is without any basis. The expert has to be cross examined, and his opinion is merely of a suggestive nature which is not binding on the court in any way. Thus in some cases, the opinion of the expert, where it appears on the face of it to be non corroborative, must not be given too much of weight.
54. The opinion in the PM report Ex.A6 was given by Dr. Narayan Dabas but he could not be examined in the court as accused admitted the PM report, therefore, court has to take the opinion mentioned in the PM report at its face value. The opinion regarding the manner of death is reproduced hereinbelow :
"Manner of death : Injuries inflicted over the body are suggestive of assault and not consistent with the history provided."
It was a suggestive opinion that injuries can be caused by assault and it was not a conclusive opinion that injuries can only be caused by the assault and that too with a danda. The opinion given by the doctor was not a conclusive one and as discussed above, no evidence has been brought by FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 24 of 25 the prosecution which corroborates the opinion given by the doctor. PW-2 Deepanshu made an attempt to corroborates the expert opinion but as discussed above PW-2 is found to be a unworthy, unreliable and tutored witness, whose credibility and veracity was shaken during the cross- examination. Therefore, the expert witness evidence could not be corroborated and cannot be solely relied upon to fasten the culpability upon the accused in absence of any other evidence.
55. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and if any doubt has been created then benefit of it should be given to the accused person. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
56. Accordingly, accused Renu Rajeshwari is acquitted of the charge under section 304 IPC.
57. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful owner after due acknowledgement and endorsement, if any, made on it be canceled accordingly.
58. File be consigned to Record Room after completing necessary formalities.
Announced in open Court today (Vipin Kharb)
on 15.09.23 Additional Sessions Judge-04
South-West, Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi
FIR No. 1024/15 State Vs Renu @ Rajeshwari Page 25 of 25