Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . (1) Kaushal Singh on 18 August, 2011

      IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSION 
       JUDGE­II(NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI


Session Case No. 1110/08
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0441532006

State                             Vs.      (1)      Kaushal Singh
                                                    S/o Lt. Chandrika Singh
                                                    R/o Village Dhanwa,
                                                    Distt. Nawada, Bihar
                                                    (Convicted)

                                           (2)      Jitender Singh
                                                    S/o Sh. Kapil Dev Singh
                                                    R/o Pachrukhi, Distt. Gaya,
                                                    Bihar
                                                    (Acquitted)


                                           (3)      Naveen @ Chote
                                                    S/o Kishan Singh
                                                    Village Dhanwa, PS Rupo,
                                                    Distt. Nawada, Bihar
                                                    (Proclaimed Offender)

                                           (4)      Pappu 
                                                    S/o Naresh Singh
                                                    R/o Village Paki, PS Silav,
                                                    Distt. Nalanda, Bihar
                                                    (Proclaimed Offender)




St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi                        Page No. 1 
 FIR No.:                                   968/05
Police Station:                            Nangloi
Under Section:                             302/201/34 Indian Penal Code

Date of committal to session court:                 1.6.2006

Date on which orders were reserved: 6.7.2011

Date of which judgment pronounced: 19.7.2011


JUDGMENT:

As per allegations on the intervening night of 26/27.9.2005 in the area of Baba Haridass Colony, Tikri Boarder the accused Kaushal Singh did commit murder by causing death of his wife Baby Devi. It is further alleged that the accused Kaushal Singh and Jitender along with their co­accused Naveen and Pappu (Proclaimed Offenders) in furtherance of their common intention, knowing that murder of Baby Devi had been committed by Kaushal Singh, caused certain evidence connected with the said offence to disappear i.e. by concealing the dead body of Baby Devi near railway crossing Nizampur with an intent to screen Kaushal Singh from legal punishment.

BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

The case of the prosecution is that on 27.9.2005 DD No.14 was received at Police Post Tikri Boarder to the effect that a dead body without head was lying near Nizampur Railway Crossing. Pursuant to St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 2 the said DD, SI Sita Ram along with Ct. Kamal reached near Nizampur Railway Crossing, Tikri Boarder Hari Ram Colony where they found torso in the bushes and the chest was on the ground and one dari and a bed sheet were lying near the dead body. Due to darkness no other body part was found. Thereafter the present case was got registered and on the next day morning SI Sita Ram found the legs of the dead body, one leg was found lying 10 to 15 yards away on the right side and another leg was found lying on the left side from the place where the torso was found and in the middle of both the legs, the face was lying towards the ground. The investigating officer got prepared the public notice for identification of the dead body which were placed in the area of Police Station Nangloi. The dead body was sent to SGM Hospital Mortuary and the postmortem on the dead body was conducted after which it was cremated. One Kamlesh Yadav identified the photograph of the deceased as that of Baby Devi wife of Kaushal Singh. Thereafter, the Kaushal Singh was searched out but he could not be traced. Later on 20.12.2005 the accused Kaushal Singh surrendered before the court of Ld. MM after which he was arrested. During interrogation the accused made a disclosure statement wherein he had admitted having committed the murder of his wife since he had suspicion on her character. The accused had also named Jitender Singh, Pappu and Chote who had helped him in concealing the dead St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 3 body of Baby Devi. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, the accused Kaushal Singh got recovered the clothes of deceased Baby Devi from the room which he had taken on rent and a Dao near Nizampur Railway Crossing with which he had cut the dead body of Baby Devi into pieces. On 26.12.2005 the accused Jitender Singh was arrested at the instance of accused Kaushal Singh. However, the accused Naveen and Pappu could not be arrested and they were declared Proclaimed Offenders. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against the accused Kaushal Singh and Jitender Singh. CHARGE:

Ld. Predecessor of this court has settled the charges under Section 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

EVIDENCE:

In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Twenty Four witnesses as under:

Public witness/ eye witnesses:

PW1 Krishan Kumar has deposed that he is a photographer by profession and he was running a photo studio in the name of M/s Krishna Photo Palace at the Village Tikri Kalan about two St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 4 years ago (from the date of his deposition) but he does not remember the exact date or month. According to him, he was called by police on which he had gone to a place near Railway Crossing on Nizampur Tikri road where the severed head and foot were lying and he took five photographs of the same. The witness has testified that he developed the photographs and handed over the positives along with negatives to the Investigating Officer. He has proved the negatives which are Ex.PW1/A1 to Ex.PW1/A5 and the photographs are Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B5.

In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he does not remember the police official who had called him. According to him, he had charged Rs.10/­ per print but he had not received any receipt nor he had issued a receipt to the police nor police official demanded the receipt of the same. He has deposed that he had not put any mark of his shop on the photographs and states that he could identify the photographs developed by him. The witness has further deposed that as of routine he develops around five to ten photographs per day and he did not put any stamp of his shop on any photographs. PW1 has further deposed that he did not have any diploma or degree in photography and his shop was not registered nor he had any sales tax number. According to him, his shop was in his house itself and there were houses adjoining his house. He has denied that he had not taken St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 5 the photographs.

PW2 Ramudit Kumar is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that he was a teacher in Bihar and had one brother and two sisters including deceased Baby Devi. According to him, he married his sister Baby with one Mantu Kumar earlier but the said Mantu Kumar met with an accident while proceeding on training and had expired and hence, he solemnized the marriage of his sister Baby Devi with accused Kaushal Singh whom the witness has correctly identified in the court. The witness has testified that he performed the marriage as per Hindu rites and rituals and he also gave gold jewellery to his sister at the time of her second marriage. According to PW2, his sister started living in matrimonial house at village Dhanama (Bihar) and remained at her matrimonial house for about one year and did not complain but after one year she started complaining of against the accused Kaushal Singh and alleged that he misbehaved and ill­treated her on account of demand of Rs.50,000/­ and motorcycle. He has deposed that she left for matrimonial home and started living at his house while the accused shifted to Delhi but after certain reconciliation and compromise between the accused and his sister, the accused took his sister to Delhi. The witness has also testified that his sister was blessed with a son at her matrimonial home at Dhanama but the said son expired later on and the accused and his sister was living at St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 6 Paharpur and the accused used to visit there. He has further deposed that on 25.09.2005 accused came to his village along with his Jija Subodh Kumar and both of them took his sister to Delhi. According to him, on 29.09.2005 he came to know from information given by SI Sita Ram that his sister had been murdered and he came to know later on that accused after committing murder left Delhi to his Village and had misinformed the villagers that his sister had died after consuming poison. The witness has deposed that he went to the native village of the accused on 29.09.2005 and came back after two hours and thereafter he filed a case against the accused at Nawada court on 30.09.2005. According to the witness, he was informed that the said case would be sent to Delhi. The witness had seen photographs Ex.PW1/B1 and Ex.PW1/B2 and identified the face that of his sister and has also identified the photocopy of the complaint made to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada which is Mark A. In his cross examination the witness has deposed that Delhi Police had enquired from him in that case and also recorded his statement. According to him, he had stated to the police that his sister was married firstly to Mantu Kumar and who expired in the accident and that accused Kaushal later on had brought his sister to Delhi after reconciliation. He has also deposed that he stated to the police that his sister was blessed with a son who later on expired and that his Jija St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 7 came to his native village Subodh Kumar and took his sister to Delhi.

The witness has also deposed that he had stated to the police that SI Sita Ram had informed him about the murder of his sister on 29.09.2005 or that after visiting the native village of accused on 29.09.2005, he came to his village after remaining there for two hours. He was confronted with the statement marked PW2/DA where it was not so written. The Ld. counsel for the accused Kaushal had asked ask certain questions from the document/ complaint which had been marked A during examination in chief admitting the existence of the said documents to be correct and hence the said document was exhibited as Ex.PW2/DB.

The witness is unable to tell any date or specific incident of demand of dowry in respect of motorcycle and Rs.50,000/­ and states that he had not made any complaint to the police or competent authority or Panchayat in that regard prior to the death of his sister. He has admitted that accused Kaushal used to visit his house frequently and states that they used to pay usual respect to him while on visit to their house. He has denied that he and Kaushal were having extreme love and affection and has stated that it was a general/ normal relationship. He does not remember if the fact of the accused Kaushal going to his village after committing murder of his sister and further the fact that accused misinformed the cause of death to the villagers St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 8 finds mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW2/DB. He has denied the suggestion that the accused had not misinformed the cause of death to the villagers. He is not aware if the deceased was got admitted by the accused Kaushal in hospital and she was in dire need of blood transfusion. He is also not aware as to whether the accused Kaushal Singh and his brother donated the blood for the treatment of his sister. The witness has denied that the accused Kaushal never treated the deceased with cruelty on account of demand of dowry or that the accused Kaushal never brought his sister to Delhi. PW2 has further denied that the photographs Ex.PW1/B1 and Ex.PW1/B2 do not pertain to his sister. He has admitted that he never visited Delhi prior to his visit on that day and states that he had not seen the dead body of his sister in mortuary or at any other place.

PW3 Sh. Madan Singh is the father of the deceased who has deposed that he was an agriculturist in Bihar and he had two sons and two daughters. According to him, the deceased Baby Devi was his daughter and he married his daughter Baby with one person but does not remember his name but the said person expired due to some illness. He has deposed that all the details were known to his son and thereafter his son solemnized the marriage of his daughter Baby Devi with accused Kaushal Singh as per Hindu rites and rituals whom the witness has correctly identified in the court. The witness has testified that his St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 9 son also gave gold jwellery to his daughter at the time of 2nd marriage and thereafter she started living in matrimonial house at village Dhanama (Bihar) but she was ill­treated and harassed on account of demand of dowry. He has also deposed that the accused brought his daughter to Delhi and killed her. He has identified the photographs Ex.PW1/B1 and Ex.PW1/B2 as that pertaining to his deceased daughter.

In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he is 60 years old and does not remember the date of 2nd marriage of his daughter with the accused Kaushal. He has deposed that he was not having any photographs or wedding card of his deceased daughter. He does not remember the date on which the accused made a demand of motorcycle. According to him, he had not made any complaint to the Police Station, competent authority or Panchayat regarding the demand of dowry prior of death of his daughter against the accused. He does not remember the date on which the accused proceeded to Delhi along with deceased daughter. He has denied that his deceased daughter had never been harassed for account of demand of dowry or that she was not killed by the accused.

PW4 Sh. Mahipal has deposed that on 21.12.2005, he was present at his field and was watering the field when one police officer along with two other officials and one persons came near a pulia. St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 10 According to him, he went there to inquire as to what was the matter and he joined the investigation along with police party and came to know that the person who was with the police had murdered his wife with a Dao which Dao had to be recovered. The witness has further deposed that the said person took them near the bushes and got recovered the Dao from the bushes after which the Investigating Officer measured the same and total length of Dao was 31.5 c.m. He has proved that the investigating officer prepared the sketch of the Dao which is Ex.PW4/A and Dao was kept in a pullanda which was sealed but he does not remember the initials of seal, and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. PW4 has also deposed that he cannot not identify that person who came with the police and at whose instance the Dao was recovered since there were many persons but as far as he remember accused Kaushal was also there. The witness has correctly identified the accused Kaushal Singh as well as the Dao which is Ex.P1.

In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he is a property dealer and his statement was recorded by the police. According to him, he was watering the fields for the last two three days which fact he had stated to the police. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW4/DA where it was not so recorded. The witness has further deposed that police met him around 1:00 PM on 21.12.2005 and St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 11 he remained with the police for about 20 minutes. He has deposed that the writing work was done by police in his presence but he is unable to tell the number of papers prepared by the police and he had signed on two papers. PW4 has further deposed that the contents of said documents were read over and explained to him and the writing work was done by police by sitting near the cabin of Railway crossing. He is unable to tell whether the police had recorded the statement of persons present there and watching the proceedings. He has denied the suggestion that many public persons were passing through the place where the Dao was hidden and states that very rarely either one or two persons passed from the said place in five six days. He has admitted that similar Dao were available in the market and states that he had gone to the police station once to sign on sketch of Dao which was prepared in his presence at the spot. He has denied that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused or that he had not joined the investigation or that accused was not present in the public on that date. He has also denied the suggestion that he did not cultivate the fields as he had no fields in his name and states that he can produce the documents to show that he had fields.

PW5 Sh. Amit Kumar has deposed that he was running a STD Booth situated at the Plot No. 421, Baba Hari Dass Colony under the name of Amit STD. The said witness has been declared hostile and St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 12 during cross­examination by Ld. Addl PP he has denied that his statement was recorded on 01.10.2005 and that he had stated to the police that accused Kaushal and his wife Baby Devi who were known to him used to reside at Baba Gari Dass Colony and accused Kaushal and his wife Baby Devi vacated the rented house. According to him, he did not know any Kamlesh. He has also denied that accused Kaushal was a tenant of Kamlesh and that on 25.09.2005 he received a telephone on his STD shop caller told him that she was Baby Devi and she asked him which bus go to Tikri Border on which he told her that Bus route No. 925 go to Tikri Border. PW5 has also denied that he had stated to the police that wife of Kaushal came to his shop and she was having a bag and she went to her room alongwith her husband Kaushal and that when he saw the posters of Baby Devi pasted at many places of Baba Hari Dass Colony he went to house of accused Kaushal but accused Kaushal along with her brother Suchit were not there. The witness has also denied that he had stated to the police on enquiry he told the police officials that posters pasted in Hari Dass Colony were that of wife of accused Kaushal namely Baby Devi. He was confronted with his statement made to the police wherein all the above facts were recorded. He has denied that he has been won over by the accused.

PW6 Sh. Vijender Singh has deposed that he was running a milk shop at Baba Hari Dass Colony, Delhi and he knew St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 13 Amit who was running a STD booth which was situated at a distance of 10­12 shops away from his shop. He has also been declared hostile and during cross­examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State he has stated that his statement was not recorded by police on 01.10.2005 and has denied that he had stated to the police that Kaushal and his brother Suchit and his nephew Pappu used to reside in the house of Kamlesh and Navin also resided near STD shop of Amit. He has also denied that he had stated to the police that Navin, Kaushal, Suchit and Pappu used to come to his shop to take milk or that he had stated to the police that he could recognize them from their faces but he did not know them by their names. The witness has further denied that he had stated to the police that on 26­27.03.2005 at about 2:30 am when he got up he noticed that Kaushal, Jitender, Navin and Pappu were passing from in front of his shop and Kaushal was having a gathri on his head or that when he inquired from them as to where they were going they told him that they were removing their house hold items and would go to their native village by the morning train. He has deposed that he never used to sleep at his residence at Nizam Pur, Delhi. PW6 has also denied that he had stated to the police that after 27.09.2005 accused Kaushal, Jitender, Pappu and Navin had never come to his shop for purchasing milk or that on 27.09.2005 he saw accused Kaushal, Jitender, Pappu and Navin while they were going or that Jitender and Rajinder both St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 14 brothers used to resided there prior to this incident. He has also denied that accused used to reside in the house of Kamlesh and they used to purchase milk and other products from his shop or that he was intentionally not identifying the accused persons due to fear. The witness was confronted with his earlier statement made to the police wherein the above facts were recorded.

PW10 Sh. Kamlesh Yadav has deposed that he was the owner of house No. 406 in Baba Hari Dass Colony, Nangloi but he had sold the said house the moment its construction was complete. According to him, there was no tenant in the said house and he is not aware anything about this case. He was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and during cross­examination, he has denied that his statement was recorded by the police on 01.10.2005. He has also denied that he had stated to the police that he was owner of house No. B386 Baba Hari Dass Colony, Tikri Border, Nangloi or that he was running a shop of General Merchant or that he got constructed eight rooms in said house or that accused Kaushal and his brother Suchit and wife of Suchit and nephew (Bhanja) of Suchit namely Pappu used to reside in the said house as a tenant or that Kaushal was real brother of Suchit and Kaushal or that wife of Kaushal had gone after staying 15­20 days in the said house. The witness has also denied that he had stated before police that on 25.09.05 wife of Kaushal came to said St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 15 house when he was sitting in the shop or that he saw wife of Kaushal namely Baby Devi. PW10 has further denied that he had stated to the police that accused Kaushal, Suchit, Pappu used to work in the factory in MI factory, Bahadurgarh or that he received Rs.400/­ from accused as rent or that later on he increased the rent to Rs.500/­. He has further denied that wife of Kaushal came to said house and Kaushal had demanded another room or that he got one room let out in the house of Santosh. The witness has also denied that he had seen the picture of one lady and he recognized her as the wife of Kaushal on which he came to the house of Kaushal and found that room of Kaushal was locked or that the room where he along with his wife and Pappu was residing was also locked or that thereafter, he went to Police Post of police station Nangloi and he narrated the fact to police officials or that thereafter after seeing the photograph of wife of Kaushal namely Baby Devi he recognized the photo as wife of Kaushal or that he told the police officials that he pointed out the room where Kaushal used to reside. He has further denied that his statement was recorded by the police on 21.12.2005 wherein he had stated to the police that he was present at his shop on 21.12.2005 and after seeing the police officials along with accused Kaushal, he came outside his shop. The witness has further denied that he had stated to the police that thereafter accused Kaushal pointed out the room in which he was residing with St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 16 his wife to the police officials in his presence or that accused disclosed that the clothes belonging to his wife were kept in a bag inside the room. PW10 has also denied that thereafter he broke open the lock or that on search of the room one bag was found containing saree and peticot and the accused disclosed that the clothes belong to his wife which were brought by her on 25.09.2005 and the said clothes were taken into possession by the police. He has further denied that he had stated to the police that later he along with the police officials went to the room of Suchit which was locked at that time and the lock was opened or that room was searched but nothing was recovered. He was confronted with his statements where the above facts were recorded. He has denied the suggestion that has deposed falsely in order to save the accused persons as they were his tenants.

Pursuant to an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the Addl. Public Prosecutor, the said witness Kamlesh Yadav was recalled for purposes of confronting with his signatures on the seizure memo and pointing out memo in respect of the clothes of the deceased by the accused Kaushal Singh.

In his additional examination the witness PW10 Kamlesh Yadav has deposed that he is 10th class pass and can write and read Hindi and he also sign in Hindi. He has admitted his signatures on the documents Ex.PW11/H and Ex.PW11/K. According to him, police St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 17 had come to his house bearing no. 406, Baba Hari Dass Colony and interrogated him in respect of murder which had taken place in his neighbourhood in the house of Santosh Kumar which was opposite his House No. 406, Baba Hari Dass Colony, Nangloi. He has deposed that his entire house bearing no. 406 has been given on rent by him whereas he is residing at Bahadurgarh for the last about 25 years. With the permission of the court, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor put leading question the witness was not giving the complete details. The witness has admitted that he was interrogated by the police at his residence. He is not known to Kaushal and hence, he is unable to tell whether Kaushal was present at that time or not. He has denied that the accused Kaushal was his tenant and states that the brother of accused namely Suchit and his wife were his tenants and Kaushal was the tenant of Santosh. The witness has also denied Santosh had given his house on rent to Kaushal on his asking. He is unable to tell if police had opened the locks of the door of the room in which Kaushal was a tenant and checked the belongings kept in the room. He is also unable to tell if Kaushal was accompanying the police when they went to the rented room of Kaushal and he got recovered the clothes of the deceased. PW10 has further denied the suggestion that the accused Kaushal got the clothes of the deceased recovered from the said room in his presence and it was only thereafter, that he signed the seizure St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 18 memo Ex.PW11/H and pointing out memo Ex.PW11/K. On a specific court question the witness has deposed that he did not read the document Ex.PW11/H & Ex.PW11/K (Seizure Memo and Pointing Out memo) of his own but before he signed the police had read and explained the same to him only after which he signed. According to him, investigations were going on for past many days and the police was frequently coming to the area and he signed the documents when the police had gone to the house of Santosh for investigation.

He has denied the suggestion that the police had also shown him the clothes of the deceased recovered at the instance of the accused and states that the lock was broken by the police and he was called at the police chowki where he was asked to sign certain documents. The witness has also denied that he had broken the lock of the door and and the accused identified the clothes as belonging to his deceased wife or that in order to save the accused he has deliberately suppressed the truth. According to the witness, he was having eight rooms in his house including the shop which he used to give on rent. He has admitted that there was a "purchun shop" in the said premises in which he had eight rooms and states that he used to sit on the "purchun shop" occasionally but states that he had closed the said purchun shop about four to five years back. The witness has also St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 19 admitted that the brother of accused Kaushal namely Suchit was residing in his premises as tenant along with family members but his nephew Pappu was not residing with them. He has denied that accused Kaushal and nephew Pappu were also residing along with Suchit in their premises along with his brother Suchit. He is not aware if Kaushal was married. He has denied the suggestion that he had stated in his statement made to the Investigating Officer Mark KA that accused Kaushal is married whose wife Baby Devi used to come and reside with him in his house sometime for about five days and some time for about 15­20 days. He could not identify the wife of the accused Kaushal Singh and states that he came to know after the incident that she had also started residing with him. He is also unable to identify the wife of the deceased from her photograph which is Ex.PW22/F. The witness has denied the suggestion that on 25.09.05 wife of accused Kaushal namely Baby Devi had come to his shop or that he had been won over by the accused.

In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that whatever, he had stated in the court was told to him by the police and that he never met Kaushal in his locality at any point of time. PW10 has also admitted that his signatures on Ex.PW11/H & Ex.PW11/K were taken in the police station but has denied that contents of the aforesaid exhibits were not read over and St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 20 explained to him by the police official and he signed the same on the asking of the police official. He has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the case.

PW18 Smt. Ahilya is the mother of the deceased who has deposed that she was having two boys and two girls and deceased Baby Devi was her younger daughter. According to the witness, her daughter Baby was firstly married to Mantu Singh of Bhumra who expired in an accident and thereafter her daughter Baby was married to Kaushal Singh R/o Village Dhanwa according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. She has deposed that in marriage they had given all the articles including the jewellery and after the marriage her daughter told her that accused Kaushal was having illicit relationship with his bhabhi and due to this illicit relationship accused Kaushal had brought her daughter to Delhi and killed her and thrown her dead body in the jungle. She has testified that the incident of killing of her daughter took place around two years back and they received this information through telephone from Navada. According to her, thereafter about 10­12 police officials from Delhi reached at village Paharpur and raided at the houses of the relatives of accused and after about four months accused was arrested. She has also deposed that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with accused about two years prior to this incident. She has correctly identified the accused Kaushal Singh St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 21 in the court.

With the permission of the court, the said witness was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State since she was not telling the complete details and during cross­examination by Ld. Addl. PP she has admitted that after the marriage when her daughter came to their house, she told her that accused was demanding Rs.50,000/­ and one motor cycle and used to harass her and give beatings to her. The witness has also admitted that they went to the house of Kaushal and made him to understand but he continued to harass her daughter. She has further admitted that her daughter also told her that Kaushal was having illicit relations with his bhabhi Seema Devi and Kaushal had asked her not to disclose this fact, otherwise he threatened to kill her. PW18 has also admitted that she had told this fact to her husband and they came to know about the incident of killing of her daughter about four years go. She is unable to tell whether it was 29.09.05 as she was illiterate but has admitted that they came to know that Kaushal had come back to Bihar after killing her daughter. The witness has also admitted that when her husband and son Pappu went to police station to register the FIR, police refused to register the FIR and after inquiry, accused told that Baby Devi had consumed poison and she was cremated in Delhi and police had left him. PW10 Smt. Ahilya has also admitted that Delhi Police had shown him a photograph of her St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 22 daughter and she identified her in the photograph. She has admitted that one photograph of her daughter was handed over by her husband to the police.

In her cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, she has admitted that police had not made any inquiry from her in this case and states that police had also not recorded her statement. According to her, police had also not met her in connection with this case. She is not aware about the date, month or year of the first marriage of her daughter nor is she able to tell the date when the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the accused. According to her, photographs were taken when the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the accused which photographs he had given to the police. She has denied that she had not given any photograph to the police. The witness has further testified that police had not made inquiries from any neighbour or from any Pandit, or Pradhan of the village in her presence. According to PW18, she is illiterate and hence he is unable to tell the date on which the demand of Rs.50,000/­ and motorcycle was made by the accused. She has denied the suggestion that accused did not make any demand of Rs.50,000/­ and motorcycle. She has deposed that she did not make any complaint regarding the said demand to the police or in any court. She has denied that accused was not having any illicit relations with his bhabhi Seema. She is St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 23 unable to tell about the date, month and year when her daughter told her about the illicit relations of accused with his bhabhi and threatening to kill her. According to the witness, the accused had not demanded anything from her personally but he used to demand from her daughter. She has testified that when Kaushal came back to Bihar from Delhi he met her but she is unable to tell the date. She has denied that they did not visit the police station for registration of FIR and states that she had not visited Delhi for identification of her daughter.

PW23 Sh. Santosh Kumar has deposed that he was doing a private job and was having a plot No.196 in Baba Haridas Colony, Tikri Border and had constructed six rooms on that plot which he used to give on rent. According to him, he occasionally visit on his plot and there was one Kamlesh Yadav opposite his house and his house was under his (Kamlesh Yadav) supervision who used to give room on rent. The witness has testified that Kamlesh Yadav told him that he had given one of his room on rent on 25.09.05 to one Kaushal Singh and that Kaushal Singh along with his wife remained in that room for about one or two days and thereafter they went away after locking the doors. He has also deposed that thereafter on 25­26 December, 2005 he had visited his room and there he came to know that Kaushal had committed murder of his wife. According to him, he had told all these facts to the police and the St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 24 police had seized the articles from the room.

In his cross­examination, the witness has deposed that now he had sold the above said plot but he was not having any sale deed he was only having power of attorney. According to him, he did not hand over the copy of the power attorney to the police and purchased the constructed plot. He does not remember from whom he had purchased the plot and he is unable to tell the name and address of that person. According to the witness, he had not visited any Registrar office to register the said plot. He has denied that he was not the owner of the plot in question nor he had constructed the same nor he had ever visited the plot in question as stated by him and he had nothing to do with the said plot. He has admitted that he did not see Kaushal Singh at any point of time and since had never seen Kaushal Singh the question of executing any rent deed or rent receipt did not arise. The witness has denied the suggestion that Kamlesh Yadav never told him that he had let out one room on rent to accused Kaushal Singh on 25.09.05. He has also admitted that he did not have any documentary proof to show that he had instructed Kamlesh Yadav to let out his rooms on rent. The witness has denied that he had never instructed Kamlesh Yadav to let our his premises on rent. According to PW23, he came to Delhi on 26.12.2006 and thereafter immediately he went to police station and remained there for about an hour and his statement St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 25 was recorded there in the police station. He has also deposed that he never visited any place with the police and has denied that no articles were seized by the police in his presence.

Medical Evidence:

PW16 Dr. Manoj Dhingra has deposed that he had been deputed by the MS SGM Hospital to identify the handwriting of Dr. Ashish Jain who conducted the postmortem on 01.10.2005 on the body of unknown 17­18 years old female which body was sent by Harpal Singh, SHO Nangloi. According to the witness, as per the brief facts there was alleged history of found dead on 27.09.2005 a headless body in mutilated condition and head and both feet were recovered on 28.9.2005 from nearby area. He has proved that as per general conditions: Scalp hair was black, body was discoloured and decomposed with maggots present over body, head and feet were filled with maggots, body was separated into head, trunks and both lower limb cut belong knee lower 2/3 with foot. The witness has also deposed that on external examination:

1. Fracture right arm was present

2. Incised wound present over left side of face extending up to forehead going into brain tissue and cutting with maxilla and mandible.

3. A green colour ligature present around neck.

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 26

4. Head separate from trunk, upper 2 cervical vertebra present and brain cavity filled maggots, trunk head C­5 and C­7 vertebra

5. Cut injury present over face, cutting both angle of mouth about 15 cm in length.

He has deposed that on examination of Head scalp tissue was decomposed, brain matter decomposed and lost. He has proved that no definite opinion regarding cause of death could be given as body was decomposed. He has also proved that the cut throat injury and other injury are postmortem in nature except injury on left side of face i.e. (injury No. 2) and time since death was approximately 5 days. According to him, blood gauze piece, clothes, bone piece, teeth and hair were sealed and handed over to the investigating officer. He has proved the postmortem report which is Ex.PW16/A and has identified the signatures of Dr. Ashish Jain on the postmortem report at point A as he had seen him singing and writing in his official capacity. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity in this regard.

Police/ official witnesses:

PW7 Constable Rajbir has deposed that on 27.09.2005 he was posted at Police Station Nangloi and on that day Duty Officer HC Vijender handed over four envelopes containing the carbon copy of FIR to him for delivering the same to Joint Commissioner of Police, St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 27 Southern Region; Deputy Commissioner of Police West; Assistant Commissioner of Police and concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. According to him, he took the envelopes and went to the house of Ld. MM and same was handed over to him after which he went to residence of Joint Commissioner of Police Shri Bhim Sen and handed over the envelope to him, then he went to residence of Deputy Commissioner of Police and handed over the envelope to him. He has deposed that thereafter, he went to the house of Assistant Commissioner of Police and handed over the envelope to him.

In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he was called in the police station at 11:30 PM and envelopes were handed over to him after ten minutes. According to him, he came back to police station after 3 ­ 3½ hours and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 28.09.2005.

PW8 Constable Ajit has deposed that on 28.09.2005 he along with SHO Police Station Nangloi SI Sita Ram and other staff went to bushes near Nizam Pur Phatak near Railway line where a head and legs of a dead body were found. According to him, SHO showed the head and legs of the dead body to public persons of the locality but the same could not be identified. He has deposed that the Investigating Officer got the photographs taken from different angles of head and legs and thereafter, he took the head and legs to mortuary of Sanjay St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 28 Gandhi Memorial Hospital where parts of dead body were got preserved. The witness has also deposed that the Investigating Officer and SHO got conducted the postmortem of dead body as the remaining parts of dead body were already recovered after which the dead body was cremated in electric crematorium. The witness has testified that on 26.12.2005 accused Kaushal was taken out from lock up and accused was interrogated, thereafter, accused took SI Sita Ram, Ct. Rajni and himself to Patel Nagar Bahadurgarh i.e. house of accused Jitender where wife of Jitender met them and she told them that accused Jitender had gone to Baba Hari Dass Colony, Tikri Border. He has deposed that when they were coming back and reached near Toll Tax barrier, accused Kaushal pointed out towards accused Jitender who was arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/A, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW8/B. According to him, on the instructions of SI Sita Ram he took the accused to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and got him medically examined after which he came back to Police Station Nangloi and MLC was handed over to SI Sita Ram.

In his cross examination the witness has admitted that he had not stated the name of SI Sita Ram and other staff with whom he had gone to Phatak Nizam Pur in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. He has admitted that he had not stated in his statement that he had accompanied the Investigating Officer and staff St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 29 to the bushes of Railway Phatak from where the head and legs were recovered. The witness has admitted that he had not specifically stated in his statement that Investigating Officer had shown the head and legs to the public persons but states that he had stated that the same were not identified. According to him, he had not stated in his statement that the photographs of head and legs were taken from different angles. He has deposed that on 26.12.2005 he joined the investigation at about 11 AM and they left the Police Station at about 11:30 AM. The witness has also testified that they had gone in a private vehicle to Bahadurgarh but he does not remember the number but it was a maruti van. He does not remember the name of the driver and states that no house number was given by accused but house was pointed out by him. He has denied the suggestion that accused had not taken them to Bahadurgarh.

PW8 has also deposed that they had not visited any police station in Bahadurgarh and reached Tikri Border at about 2 PM. According to him, the bushes were in a isolated place and the Investigating Officer had asked many public persons to join as a witness but none agreed and no action was taken against them and no notice was given to them. He has testified that many public persons were present at the spot and has denied that he had not joined the investigation at any stage or that his signatures were obtained by Investigating Officer in the police station.

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 30

PW9 HC Varinder Singh has deposed that on 27.09.05 he was posted at police station Nangloi and was performing the duty as Duty Officer from 5 PM to 1 AM. According to him, he received a ruqqa which was sent by SI Sita Ram through Const. Kamal on the basis of which he registered case FIR No. 961/05 u/s 302/201 IPC which was in his handwriting, carbon copy of which FIR is Ex.PW9/A. He has deposed that after registration of the case he made his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW9/B and he handed over the original rukka and carbon copy of FIR to Const. Kamal. His testimony has remained uncontroverted as he was not cross­examined by counsel for the accused.

PW11 SI Sita Ram has deposed that on 27.09.05 he was posted at police station Nangloi as Incharge Police Post Tikri Border and on receipt of DD No. 4 at about 6:55 PM he along with Const. Kamal reached at Nizampur near Railway Phatak where torso was found in the bushes, the chest was on the ground. According to him, one dari and bed sheet were lying near the dead body and due to darkness no other body part were found. He has proved having made his endorsement on DD No.14 which is Ex.PW11/A and the same was handed over to Const. Kamal for registration of the case. The witness has also deposed that Crime Team and Dog Squad reached at the spot and the SHO Police Station Nangloi Inspector Harpal Singh also St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 31 reached at the spot. The witness has testified that after registration of the case Const. Kamal came to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to inspector Harpal Singh. PW11 has also deposed that the SHO/IO concerned got inspected the spot from crime team and from dog squad after which the Investigating Officer filled up form No. 25.35 (1) (B) and prepared the brief facts of the case. According to him, the torso was sent to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and the investigating officer instructed him to search to the remaining parts of the dead body and after that he left the spot. He has testified that next day morning he found the legs of the dead body, one leg was lying 10­15 yards away on right side from the place where the torso was found and another leg was lying on the left side from the place where the torso was found in the middle of both legs, the face was lying towards the ground. He accordingly informed the SHO who came at the spot after some time and crime team was again called at the spot and the Investigating Officer got inspected the spot from crime team and took the photographs after which the legs and face of the dead body were taken into possession. He has proved that the blood stained mud and sample mud were lifted from the spot which were kept in separate plastic containers and sealed with the seal of HSY and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/B. The bed sheet and blood stained dari were also kept in a pullanda which was sealed with St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 32 the seal of HSY and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/C. According to him, a thread was tied on the right shoulder which was opened and kept in a glass bottle which was sealed with the seal of HSY and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/D. He has further deposed that the Investigating Officer got prepared the public notice for identification of the dead body and instructed him to paste the same in the area of police station Nangloi after which he along with SHO reached the Mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and got conducted the postmortem of the dead body. He has proved that after postmortem dead body was cremated in cremation ground and the landlord of accused identified the photograph of the dead body as that of Baby Devi wife of accused Kaushal Singh. According to the witness, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer he along with the staff reached the native village of accused Kaushal Singh in Bihar but accused could not be traced and thereafter he along with staff reached the house of parents of deceased in District Nawad, Bihar. The witness has testified that he had shown the photograph of deceased to the father and brother of deceased who identified the same as that of Baby Devi who also handed over one photograph of the deceased Baby Devi and on inquiry he came to know that parents of the deceased had lodged a case against the accused in the concerned police station. He has further deposed that he along St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 33 with staff reached the concerned police station and obtained the photocopy of the same and thereafter he again went to the house of accused Kaushal Singh but none met him in the house and on inquiry the accused Kaushal Singh disclosed that deceased Baby Devi had committed suicide by taking poison and dead body was cremated by him in Delhi after which they came back to police station Nangloi. Here I may observe that this witness has clarified in his cross­ examination that in fact it was not Kaushal Singh who had met him and disclosed that the deceased Baby Devi had committed suicide and states that he did not meet anybody in the house of Kaushal Singh and when he made inquiries from the villagers, he came to know that Kaushal Singh had come to the village and disclosed that Baby Devi had committed suicide. The witness has also deposed that he briefed the SHO and file was handed over to him. According to PW11, on 20.12.05 he along with Inspector Harpal Singh, SHO Police Station Nangloi reached in the court of Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Ld. MM Tis Hazari Courts where accused Kaushal Singh had surrendered and the Investigating Officer after taking permission from the Hon'ble Court interrogated him and arrested vide memo Ex.PW11/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/F after which the accused made disclosure statement which is Ex.PW11/G. The witness has also deposed that seven days Police Custody remand of accused was taken St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 34 and thereafter accused was got medically examined and was sent to police lock up and the case file was handed over to him for further investigation. PW11 has testified that on 21.12.2005 he along with Const. Ramnik had taken out the accused Kaushal Singh from police lock up who took them at plot No. 196, Baba Hari Dass Colony at the house of Santosh where he pointed out the place where he had kept his wife in the room and after killing they had thrown the dead body near the railway lines. According to the witness, the room was found locked which lock was broken and inside the room, one bag was found which contained ladies clothes and accused Kaushal disclosed that these clothes belonged to his wife Baby Devi which clothes and bag were seized vide memo Ex.PW/11/H and the pointing out of the room/ plot was prepared. He has further testified that at the time of recovery HC Devender and Const. Ramnik were with him and one Kamlesh Yadav had also joined them at the time of recovery who also identified accused Kaushal. The witness has further deposed that thereafter accused Kaushal took them to a room in Hari Dass Colony, B­386 where his bhanja Pappu was residing which room was also found locked and Kamlesh broke the lock but nothing was found in the room and the pointing out memo of room of Pappu was prepared which is Ex.PW11/K. Thereafter, accused Kaushal took them at the room where Navin @ Chhote was residing which house belonged one Pt. St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 35 Phool Singh and the pointing out memo in that regard was prepared which is Ex.PW/11/L but the landlord of the house was not found. He has further deposed that accused Kaushal Singh took them near railway line where they had cut down Baby Devi with Dao and a pointing out memo in this regard was prepared which is Ex.PW11/M and when they were coming from the pagdandi one public witness Mahipal voluntarily joined the investigations after which they searched for the weapon of offence and accused Kaushal produced one Dao from the bushes near the railway line pulia. He has proved having prepared the sketch of the same which is Ex.PW4/A and on measuring the total length of the Dao was 31.5 cm, length of blade was 19 cm and the width of blade was 8 cm. The said Dao was put into pullanda and sealed with the seal of SRT and seized vide memo Ex.PW/4/B. The witness has proved having prepared the site plan of the place of recovery which is Ex.PW/11/N and has deposed that the seal after use was handed over to Const. Ramnik after which they came back to police station and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. PW11 has further testified that he along with Const. Rambir, HC Devender and accused Kaushal went in search of co­accused Jitender and accused Kaushal took them at Bahadurgarh and pointed out the house of one Sumar Hooda where Jitender was residing but Jitender was not found there after which the witness prepared pointing out St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 36 memo which is Ex.PW/11/O. The witness has deposed that after completion of investigations accused was put into police lock up and he informed to the SHO. He has proved having recorded the statement of witnesses and having searched for the accused Navin and Pappu who could not be found. According to him, on 26.12.05 accused Kaushal was taken out from police lock up and Const. Ramnik and Const. Ajit was with them and they again went at Bahadurgarh in search of accused Jitender but he was not found there and they came to know that he had gone to Delhi and when they were coming back to Delhi and reached at Tikri Border, the accused Jitender was found at the tea stall who was identified by accused Kaushal. He has proved having apprehended the accused Jitender who was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/B after which the accused Jitender made disclosure statement which is Ex.PW11/P. He has also deposed that the accused Jitender took them plot No. 196, Baba Hari Dass Colony and pointed out the place vide memo Ex.PW/11/Q after which the accused Jitender pointed out the place where they cut down Baby Devi near railway line vide memo Ex.PW11/R. According to him, the accused was medically examined and was sent to police lock up. The witness has proved having recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter the case file was handed over to the SHO police station Nangloi. He has testified St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 37 that on 29.12.2005, draftsman SI Mahesh was called in the police station by SHO Inspector Harpal Singh and thereafter he along with the Investigating Officer and draftsman went on the spot where the draftsman took rough notes and measurements at the instance of the Investigating Officer. He has correctly identified the accused Kaushal and Jitender and also the case property i.e. a dari and bed sheet Ex.P2 and P3 respectively; one thread of red colour which is Ex.P­3; one dao (a cutting weapon of iron with sharp edge on one end) which is Ex.P­4 (wrongly mentioned as Ex.P­4 whereas it has already been exhibited in the testimony of PW4 Mahipal as Ex.P­1) and clothes of the deceased which is Ex.P5.

In his cross­examination, the witness has admitted that when police party of one State goes to another State to apprehend any accused, then it has to first report at the local police station of the said other state but in the present case they had not reported at Bahadurgarh local police station when they had gone there. According to him, he had taken out accused Kaushal from lock up of police station Nangloi on 26.12.05 at around 9.00 ­ 10.00 AM and he was again put in the lock up at around 7.00 ­ 8.00 AM but he does not remember the name of the neighbourers of accused Jitender from whom he made inquires at Bahadurgarh and the landlord Mr. Hooda was also not joined in the proceedings. He also does not remember as to how many other St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 38 persons were sitting at the tea shop from where accused Jitender was apprehended and states that the tea shop owner was not joined in the proceedings. He has admitted that the house of accused Kaushal i.e. house of Santosh Singh was in a residential colony and states that the distance between railway line and house of Santosh Singh was about one kilometer. According to him, there were number of houses and shops on the said way of one kilometer and he had asked certain persons to join the proceedings but none agreed but he did not initiate any action against them nor he record their names and address. He has denied that Mahipal was a stock witness of police. According to the witness, he was in possession of his own seal on that day. He has admitted that he did not hand over the seal to public independent witness and states that when accused was taken near Nizampur railway crossing then also no public witness joined the proceedings despite his request nor he initiate any action against them nor record their names and address. He has deposed that the accused Kaushal and Jitender were not known to him from before. The witness has denied the suggestion that he did not carry proper and fair investigation or that he prepared all the documents while sitting in the police station. PW11 has further denied that accused Jitender had been falsely implicated in this case or that he did not point out any place or that he did not make any disclosure statement.

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 39

In his further cross­examination the witness SI Sita Ram has deposed that Nangloi police station was about from 8­9 KM from Nizam Railway crossing and he went along with SHO in official vehicle. According to him, the driver and the operator of SHO were also with them. He has deposed that he had stated in his initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that when they reached the spot they found the chest lying on the ground and that one dari and bed sheet were also found lying near the dead body. The witness has further deposed that he had stated in his statement Ex.PW11/DA that due to darkness at the spot no other body party could be found. He was confronted with statement Ex.PW11/DA where it was not so recorded. According to him, he sent the ruqqa at around 10:10 PM and Const. Kamal returned with the copy of FIR to the spot after about one and a half - two hours during which period the Investigating Officer Inspector Harpal Singh prepared the inquest papers.

On being asked to explain the two contradictory statements made by him in his examination in chief recorded on 17.10.08 and cross­examination being wherein he had stated that he had gone along with SHO to the spot as contrary to his examination in chief where he stated that SHO had reached after some time at the spot, he has explained that he had gone along with the SHO from the police station to the spot but SHO had stayed at the main road and he himself St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 40 had gone ahead and thus SHO reached at the spot after some time.

He does not remember the exact time when Inspector Harpal Singh reached at the spot and he stayed there till about 12 midnight and also remained there till about 12 midnight. According to him, except rukka he did not prepare any other document. He does not remember the time when the crime team reached the spot but it remained there for about 30­45 minutes. He has deposed that the Crime Team had come prior to the receipt of FIR by him but he does not remember the time difference between the two. He also does not remember the exact time when Kamal came back with the copy of FIR or as to whether till that time the crime team was present or not. According to PW11, he remained at the spot for about four to five hours and it was dark and being a jungle no public persons had gathered there. He has testified that postmortem was conducted after many days and prior to the Postmortem the dead body was identified by certain persons of the locality namely Santosh, Vipin, a STD booth owner etc. but he did not record the statement of anyone of them. He has denied that no one identified the dead body prior to postmortem and even thereafter. He is not aware as to when the dead body was cremated and has denied that the landlord of accused Kaushal Singh had identified the deceased form the photographs of the dead body or that Kaushal Singh never resided at the said house or that no such St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 41 landlord ever existed. According to him, he had personally informed the family members of deceased about the recovery of her body but he does not remember the date when he conveyed the information. The witness has testified that he conveyed the information after about ten days of the recovery of the dead body and Const. Ramnik and HC Deena Nath had accompanied him at that time. The witness has testified that at that time he had stayed at Bihar for about 15 days and during that period he had also visited the house of Kaushal Singh but he could not be traced over there.

The witness had been asked by Ld. defence counsel that in his examination in chief dated 17.10.08 he had stated that Kaushal Singh met him in Bihar and he informed him that Baby Devi had committed suicide by taking poison and that dead body had been cremated by him in Delhi confronted as to how he now stated that Kaushal Singh did not meet him on which he has clarified that the aforesaid fact of suicide having been committed by Baby Devi after consuming poison or cremation of her dead body was told to him by the family members of Baby Devi and the villagers of Kaushal Singh and that Kaushal Singh had not met him. The witness has further deposed that on inquiry he came to know that Kaushal Singh had come over there in the village and had informed the villagers about the suicide by Baby Devi and her cremation by him in Delhi. He does St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 42 not remember the names of the villagers of the village of Kaushal Singh who gave him the said information and states that he did not record statement of anyone in that regard. PW11 SI Sita Ram has deposed that he did not record statement of any one of the village of accused Kaushal Singh, be it pardhan or any neighbourer and no marriage photograph of the accused Kaushal Singh and Baby Devi could be found but parents of Baby Devi had given him a photograph of Baby Devi otherwise. He does not remember the date of marriage of accused and Baby Devi though he had inquired about it from the parents of Baby Devi which fact was mentioned in the statements of the parents of Baby Devi which were recorded by him over there. He had been shown statement of Smt. Aahilya Devi and Ram Udit, the parents of Baby where the date of marriage of Baby Devi was not mentioned. According to him, he did not record statement of any other villager in that regard as to when and where the marriage was solemnised. He has denied that accused Kaushal Singh never married with Baby Devi and states that the parents of Baby Devi were not called to identify the clothes etc. recovered from the room of accused. The witness has testified that after registration of the case the investigations was marked to SHO, Police Station Nangloi, however, he remained associated in the subsequent investigation and his statement in that regard were also recorded. According to him, as regards his St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 43 visit to Bihar he himself was briefly entrusted with the investigation of that part by Inspector Harpal Singh and thus he himself had recorded the case diary and no statement of him regarding it was recorded. He had also deposed that on 21.12.05 he started his investigation at around 7 AM on which date he himself recorded the case diary as he had carried out the investigation and thus no statement under Section Cr.P.C of him was recorded in that regard. The witness has further deposed that no statement of Santosh was recorded by him prior to 21.12.05 and prior to 21.12.2005 he had come to know of the address of accused Kaushal and that he had gone to his house prior to 21.12.05 and had carried out search of the house. According to PW11, he had gone on two or three occasions to his house prior to 21.12.2005 but he does not remember the exact date of his visits and no writing work was done on those visits as no neighbourer or public persons had joined the proceedings with him at that time. He has further deposed that though, family of accused Kaushal was residing over there but on none of his visits they met him as they were not present at that time. According to him, he did not carry out any extensive search inside the house at that time as even no public person was present with them and on 21.12.05 they reached the house of Santosh at about 2­2:30 PM and remained there for about two and a half hours or so. He has further deposed that the clothes of deceased Baby Devi were not shown to anyone else at the St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 44 time of its recovery and they reached the room of Naveen at around 3 PM or so as it was adjacent to that room of Kaushal himself. He does not remember the exact address of house of Naveen @ Chottey and states that the statement of landlord Pandit Phool Singh was recorded by him but after seeing the police file the witness was unable to find out any such statement of Pandit Phool Singh recorded by him. He has denied that accused Kaushal Singh was not at all residing in the house where he had been now shown by him in his proceedings or that he had concocted a false and fabricated story in that regard. The witness has testified that he stayed at the house of Phool Singh till about 4 PM and they had gone to the house of Phool Singh on foot. According to PW11, Mahipal met them at around 5 PM about 1 KM away from the house of Phool Singh and over there also they had gone on foot. He has deposed that the weapon of offence was recovered within an area of two to four paces from the places where Mahipal met them and very few persons passed through the said pagdandi though the area was otherwise accessible to public. The witness has further testified that they stayed at the place of recovery of weapon of offence for about one hour and all writing work was done over there itself while sitting on a stone near the railway line. He has deposed that Mahipal remained with them for about half an hour and first of all he prepared the seizure memo of the weapon of offence followed by its sketch and thereafter St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 45 recorded statement of Mahipal. According to the witness, the pointing out memo was also prepared there but at that time Mahipal had left the spot. PW11 has testified that they returned back to the police station at around 8­8:30 PM but later on Mahipal was never called to the police station and he had left from the place of recovery itself. The witness has also deposed that the weapon of offence was never shown to Autopsy Surgeon to obtain any opinion. He has denied that weapon of offence was not shown to the Autopsy Surgeon as it was planted by them to falsely implicate the accused. He has denied the suggestion that accused Kaushal did not make any disclosure statement or that he did not get recovered any clothes of his deceased wife. PW11 has also denied that accused did not get recovered any weapon of offence or that all the proceedings were carried out while sitting in the police station and the clothes and weapon of offence were planted upon the accused to false implicate him in this case. He has further denied that signatures of accused were obtained on blank papers under force or that he had forged and fabricated the witnesses on his own. The witness has denied the suggestion that he did not carry out proper and fair investigation.

PW12 HC Ram Niwas has deposed that on 27.09.05 he was posted in Crime Team, West District, Janak Puri and on that day he alongwith Crime Team Incharge SI Anil reached near Nizam Pur St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 46 Railway Phatak in front of Hari Dass Colony where he noticed that a dead body without head and legs was lying there. According to him, he took ten photographs, negatives of which are Ex.PW12/1 to Ex.PW12/10 and photographs are Ex.PW12/11 to Ex.PW12/20. He has also deposed that a bed sheet and a dari were lying near the bushes and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. In his cross­examination the witness has deposed that he reached the spot at about 11 PM and remained there for about half an hour.

PW13 SI Anil Kumar has deposed that on 27.09.05 he was posted as Incharge of Mobile Crime Team and on that day he received a wireless message to reach the spot i.e. Near Nizampur Phatak, Railway Line pursuant to which he along with Photographer Constable Ram Niwas and finger print Expert HC Ranbir reached at the spot where he inspected the spot and found a female dead body without head and legs. According to him, a bed sheet and dari were lying near the dead body and Constable Ram Niwas had taken the photographs of the dead body from different angles. He has deposed that blood sample and earth control were lifted but chance prints were found. He has proved having prepared the Crime Team report which is Ex.PW13/A and his statement was recorded.

In his cross­examination the witness has deposed that he reached the spot at 11 PM and remained there for about 45 minutes. St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 47 He has denied that he had not gone to the spot PW14 Inspector Devender Singh has deposed that on 28.09.2005 he was posted as SI Incharge Mobile Crime Team, West District and on that day on request of the Investigating Officer Inspector Harpal Singh the then SHO Police Station Nangloi, he along with his crime team members reached at the place of occurrence i.e. near Nizampur Railway Phatak towards Baba Haridas Colony, Tikri Boarder, Nangloi, Delhi where he found one head of a lady with long hair, two feet lying at the spot and blood was also scattered there. According to him, he inspected the place of occurrence and the photographer Const. Jaivir Singh took photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles. He has proved having prepared his Crime Team report and gave appropriate advise to the Investigating Officer which was mentioned by him in his report Ex.PW14/A and handed over his report to the Investigating Officer at the spot who recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C at the spot.

In his cross­examination, the witness has deposed that the request of the Investigating Officer made to him was oral and he had not made any departure entry which he left his house for the spot but states that they remain present in the area in the mobile vehicle of their team. According to him, they reached at the spot at about 11 AM and remained there up to 11:40 AM. He has deposed that he himself, St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 48 Const. Jaivir, HC Surender and driver of this bus was with him when they reached there. He has testified that several public persons were present there besides the police officers of police station Nangloi when they reached there. He does not remember as to how many snaps were taken by the photographer at the spot. The witness has denied that he had not visited the spot or that no inspection was conducted by him at the spot or that no report was prepared by him at the spot. He has also denied that Ex.PW14/A was prepared by him at his office at the instance of the Investigating Officer.

PW15 HC Jaivir Singh has deposed that on 28.09.2005 he was posted as Constable in Mobile Crime Team, West District as Photographer and on that day he along with Sh. D.S. Guaraya the then SI, Incharge, Mobile Crime Team along with other staff reached at the place of occurrence i.e. near Nizam Pur Railway Phatak towards Baba Haridas Colony, Tikri Boarder, Nangloi where he took eight photographs of a head of a female with long hair and two feet lying at the spot from different angles and Incharge and other team inspected the place of occurrence. He has further deposed that after developing the photographs he handed over eight positives to the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. He has proved the eight negatives of those photographs which are Ex.PW15/A1 to Ex.PW15/A­8 and photographs are Ex.PW15/B1 to Ex.PW15/B­8. St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 49

In his cross­examination, the witness has deposed that he does not remember if any departure entry was made by them regarding their visit to spot. According to him, they reached the spot in their mobile van at about 11 AM and inspected the place of occurrence upto 11:40 AM and apart from police officials several public persons were also present at the spot. He does not remember if Investigating Officer of the case had made any inquiry from those public persons or not. He has denied that he had not visited at the spot along with his team or that no photographs were taken by him at the spot. The witness has further deposed that SI D.S. Guraya prepared his crime team report at the spot which was handed over to Investigating Officer him in his presence. He does not remember if he recorded his statement in this case or not.

PW17 HC Bhagwati has deposed that on 27.09.05 he was posted at Police Post Tikri Border of Police Station Nangloi and on that day he received an information on wireless set that one dead body severed head of a lady was lying near the Nizam Pur Phatak after which made DD entry No. 14 in daily diary register copy of which is Ex.PW17/A. He was not cross­examined by Ld. counsel for the accused.

PW19 SI Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 29.12.05 he was posted as Draftsman at Crime Branch and on that day after St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 50 receiving the information he reached Police Station Nangloi where he met Inspector Harpal Singh. According to him, thereafter he along with Inspector Harpal Singh and SI Sita Ram reached at the spot i.e. Pagdandi, Baba Hari Dass Colony near Nizampur Railway crossing where at the instance of Investigating Officer he took rough notes and measurements of the spot on the basis of which on 05.01.06 he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW19/A. He has deposed that after preparing the site plan he destroyed the rough notes and measurements. He was not cross­examined by the counsel for the accused, hence, his testimony remained uncontroverted.

PW20 HC Tarif Singh has deposed that on 27.09.05 he was posted as MHC(M) at police station Nangloi and on that day Investigating Officer inspector Harpal Singh deposited one pullanda sealed with the seal of HSY alleged to be containing one dari and bed sheet, blood stained and two plastic dibbis sealed with the seal of HSY alleged to be containing blood stained earth and sample earth, pursuant to which he made an entry in that regard at Sl. No. 6050 in register No. 19 copy which is Ex.PW­20/A. He has further deposed that on the same day Investigating Officer also deposited one glass bottle sealed with the seal of HSY alleged to be containing one thread and entry in that regard was made at Sl. No. 6051(a) of register No. 19, copy of which is Ex.PW20/B. According to him, on 01.10.2005 the St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 51 Investigating Officer Inspector Harpal Singh had deposited two sealed envelopes sealed with the seal of HSY alleged to be containing blood gauze pieces, one sealed pullanda containing clothes, one sealed pullanda containing teeth and hairs, two sealed pullandas bottles containing bone pieces and sample seal, which pullandas were sealed with the seal of AJ and entry in that regard was made at Sl. No. 6064 copy of which is Ex.PW20/C. He has also testified that on 21.12.05 SI Sita Ram had deposited one pullanda sealed with the seal of SRT alleged to be containing one Dao and one bag of cloth containing two underwear, one bra, two blouses, two petticots, three sarees, one small pack of fair and lovely cream, one sindoor dibbi and one plastic katta and entry in that regard was made at Sl. No. 6293, copy of which is Ex.PW20/D. He has further testified that on 23.01.06, eight pullandas sealed with the seal of HSY and AS were sent to FSL through Const. Brij Kishore vide RC No. 12/21/06 and after depositing the same Const. Brij Kishore deposited the receipt with him, the entry on register No. 19 is Ex.PW­20/E and copy of RC register is Ex.PW­20/F. The witness has further deposed that on 09.01.06 the pullanda containing Dao was taken by SHO for taking the opinion and after taking the opinion he had deposited the pullanda sealed with the seal of AJ and entry in that regard in register No. 19 is Ex.PW20/G. He has proved that the sealed pullandas remained intact during his St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 52 custody and he did not interfere with them nor he allowed anyone to interfere with them. His testimony remained uncontroverted as he was not cross­examined by Ld. counsel for the accused.

PW21 HC Brij Kishore has deposed that on 23.01.06 he was posted as constable in police station Nangloi. On that day on the instructions of IO he took nine sealed pullandas alongwith sample seal and FSL form from MHC(M) for depositing in the FSL Rohini vide RC No. 12/21/06. After depositing the same he had deposited the receipt with the MHC(M). The sealed pullandas remained intact during his custody. He did not interfere with them nor he allowed anyone to interfere with them. His testimony remained uncontroverted as he was not cross­examined by counsel for the accused.

PW22 ACP Sh. Harpal Singh is the Investigating Officer who has deposed that on 27.9.05 he was posted as SHO, Police Station Nangloi and on that day an information was received in Police Staiton Nangloi that one headless dead body of a lady was lying near Nizampur Railway Crossing pursuant to which he along with his staff reached at the spot i.e near Nizampur Railway Crossing where he met SI Sitaram along with Ct. Kamal and found one headless dead body of a female wearing kathai colour petticot and a green blouse and on the left hand of the dead body there was red thread above the elbow. According to him, one dari and bed sheet blood stained were also lying St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 53 beside the dead body but no eye witness were found there and thereafter SI Sitaram prepared rukka & got the FIR registered and he had taken over the further investigation. The witness has further deposed that crime team and dog squad were called at the spot who inspected the spot. He has proved that the thread was put up into a glass bottle and converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of HSY and seized vide memo Ex.PW11/D and the blood stained bed sheet and dari were also put up into pullanda and sealed with the seal of HSY and seized vide memo Ex.PW11/C. He has also proved that from the spot he also lifted the blood stained earth and control earth by putting the same in different pullandas which were sealed with the seal of HSY and seized vide memo Ex.PW11/B and conducted the inquest proceedings of torso. The witness has further proved having prepared the Brief Facts in this regard which are Ex.PW22/A and having filled Form 25.35 which is Ex.PW22/B. According to him, the torso was sent to mortuary through Ct. Kamal for preserving the same for 72 hours and after completing the investigation the case property was deposited in the malkhana. He has testified that they searched for the other parts of the body but the same could not be searched due to darkness. According to PW22, on 28.9.05 SI Sitaram informed him that legs (feet) and head of the torso recovered were found near the bushes at the place where the torso was recovered after which he St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 54 reached the spot where he met SI Sitaram along with Ct. Ajit and found two legs (feet) and head. He has deposed that crime team was also called who again inspected the spot and he again conducted the inquest proceedings in that regard, the brief facts are Ex.PW22/C, form 25.35 is Ex.PW22/D and the same were sent to mortuary through Ct. Ajit and were got preserved for 72 hours. He has proved having prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW22/E. He has further deposed that efforts were made for getting identified the dead bodies and advertisements were published in that regard which are Ex.PW22/F. The witness has testified that on 1.10.2005 the postmortem examination of the dead body was got conducted, the request for conducting the autopsy is Ex.PW22/G and after the postmortem examination dead body was sent to Punjabi Bagh Cremation Center for Cremation and the receipt in this regard is Ex.PW22/H. He has testified that after the Postmortem doctor handed over two sealed envelope containing blood gauze pieces, one pullanda containing clothes and one pullanda containing teeth and hairs of the deceased, two pullandas containing bone pieces of the deceased and sample seal, which pullandas were sealed with the seal of "AJ" and were seized vide memo Ex.PW22/J. According to the witness, on 1.10.05 SI Sitaram informed him that one Kamlesh and one Amit had identified the dead body as of Baby W/o Kaushal Singh, who was residing in Baba Haridass Colony, Tikri, Delhi on which he St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 55 directed SI Sitaram to search for Kaushal. He has deposed that SI Sitaram traced out the address of Kaushal of Bihar and he had directed SI Sitaram to trace out accused Kaushal Singh from Bihar on which Si Sita Ram went there but, Kaushal Singh was not found after which he obtained the Non Bailable Warrants of accused Kaushal Singh and again one Ct. was sent to Bihar to arrest the accused and in the meantime on 20.12.05 accused Kaushal Singh had surrendered in the court of Sh. Paramjit Singh, the then Ld. MM. The witness has also deposed that after taking the permission from the Hon'ble Court, the accused was interrogated & arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/E, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/F after which the accused made a disclosure statement which is Ex.PW11/G and thereafter they took seven days Police Custody remand of the accused and after medical examination accused was sent to police lockup. According to PW22, during the police custody remand SI Sitaram conducted the further investigation on his directions and had also arrested accused Jitender. The witness has further deposed that on 29.12.05 SI Mahesh Kumar took the rough notes and measurements for preparing the scaled site plan and later on this scaled site plan was handed over to him and he also made margin notes on the scaled site plan. According to him, on 9.1.06 the pullandas containing the weapon of offence was taken to the hospital before the Autopsy Surgeon of St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 56 SGM hospital for taking the opinion and also made a request to the doctor for giving the opinion whether the injury on the body can be caused by the weapon or not. He has proved his request for opinion which is Ex.PW22/K and thereafter Dr. Ashish Jain had given his opinion which is Ex.PW22/L that injury mentioned in the postmortem report could be possible by this or similar such weapons and opinion regarding cause of death was consistent with the opinion given before. According to him, the doctor had also prepared the sketch of the weapon of offence which is Ex.PW22/M and after taking the opinion the pullandas were sealed with the seal of AJ and deposited in the malkhana. The witness has further deposed that on 23.1.06 the exhibits of this case were sent to FSL through Ct. Brij Kishore and thereafter he deposited the receipt with the MHC(M). According to PW22 on 1.3.2006 he again moved an application before the Autopsy Surgeon­Dr. Ashish Jain whether the parts of the dead body recovered were of the same dead body, which application in this regard is Ex.PW22/N and doctor Ashish Jain had opined that the body parts are fitted with each others automatically so appeared to be of same body, however, samples were preserved from each parts to cross match with each other which opinion of the doctor is Ex.PW22/L. The witness has further deposed that the other accused St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 57 Naveen and Pappu could not be arrested and separate proceedings were conducted regarding their arrest and after completing the investigation against accused Kaushal and Jitender the challan was prepared and filed in the court. He has also deposed that later on FSL result was collected and filed in the court which result is Ex.PX. According to him, as the accused Naveen and Pappu could not be arrested, they were got declared Proclaimed Offenders and thereafter separate Supplementary charge sheet has been filed. He has correctly identified the accused Kaushal Singh and Jitender Singh in the court and the case property i.e. 'dari', bed sheet and thread of red colour.

In his cross­examination the witness has deposed that he was not present at the time of arrest of accused Jitender but had made inquiries from accused Jitender. He has deposed that he was not known to the accused Jitender prior to this case. According to him, he received information regarding headless body about 7 PM on 27.2.05 and the distance between the place of founding the body and the Police Station was about seven to eight kilometer and reached there 7:15 to 7:30 pm. He has further deposed that his driver and operator accompanied him from the Police Station to the aforesaid place but he does not remember the DD number by which they left the Police Station. The witness has also testified that he remained there till midnight i.e about 12 PM and the rukka was sent at 10:10 PM through St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 58 Ct. Kanwar and prior to that no other paper work was done either by him or by SI Sitaram and the FIR was brought at about midnight. He has also deposed that the crime team reached the spot at about 11:00 PM and remained there for about 40 minutes. According to the Investigating Officer, he had mentioned the age of the deceased in his inquest report and other papers which were later submitted for Autopsy Opinion and in all those papers he had mentioned the age of the deceased as of 17/18 years of age and he had not determined the age of the deceased by conducting ossification test etc. or any other mode and states that the body was identified by some witnesses i.e Ahilya Devi, mother of the deceased. He has testified that Ahilya Devi had not come to Delhi to identify the dead body since the dead body had already been cremated. The witness has further testified that he had not got identified the dead body of the deceased by any of the blood relation of the deceased and states that because SI Sitaram has already got the dead body identified from the blood relations of the deceased. When asked to show any paper wherein SI Sitaram had got identified the dead body of the deceased through the blood relations of the deceased, the witness deposed that since the dead body was already cremated so the identification could not be conducted by showing the dead body. He has also deposed that no DNA test or any other test was conducted by him for the purpose of determining the identity of the St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 59 deceased. According to PW22, he had not conducted any investigation to the effect of getting the clothes of the deceased identified from the relatives of deceased and states that the relatives of the deceased never met him in connection of this case nor he interrogated them, nor he recorded their statement. He has denied the suggestion that neither the said Kamlesh or Amit never identified the dead body of deceased. He has, however, admitted that he had not recorded statement of Kamlesh and Amit but states that he had made inquiries from the said persons. The witness has denied the suggestion that he had never made any inquiries from either Kamlesh or Amit or that the statement of Kamlesh and Amit and other public witnesses were recorded by SI Sitaram of his own and said witnesses or the public witnesses never gave any statement to SI Sitaram. He has further denied that the wife of the accused Kaushal Singh had not died or was not the person whose body was found in this case. The witness has further denied that for this reason the body was not got identified by them from anybody during the course of their investigation. PW22 has admitted that he had not made any investigation to confirm the date as well as the year of the marriage of accused­Kaushal Singh. He has admitted that no marriage card was collected during the investigation regarding the marriage of accused Kaushal Singh with deceased. According to him, since all the inquiries were made by SI Sitaram so he is unable to tell St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 60 whether the statement of any independent witness was recorded by him to confirm the date of the marriage of accused Kaushal Singh with deceased Baby. He has denied that SI Sitaram had not gone to Bihar for conducting any investigation of this case but, he recorded the statement of witnesses of his own to implicate the accused falsely in this case. He has also denied that Ex.PW11/G had been recorded by them of their own and obtained the signatures of the accused forcibly as he was in their custody. According to the witness, whenever a doctor leaves the hospital he normally provides his permanent residential address to the hospital and he had not made any effort to produce Dr. Ashish Jain, who conducted the report of the postmortem . He denied that the signatures of Dr. Ashish Jain on Ex.PW22/L and Ex.PW22/M were forged and fabricated or that no such opinion had ever been given by Dr. Ashish Jain due to which reason Dr. Ashish Jain had not been produced in the court. The witness has denied the suggestion that the statement of public witnesses had been recorded by him of his own and no public witness had given any statement to him or that he had falsely implicated the accused Kaushal Singh in this case or that Kaushal Singh had nothing to do with commission of the aforesaid crime and had been falsely implicated in this case.

PW24 HC Devender has deposed that on 21.12.05 he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Nangloi Police Post Border St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 61 and on that day accused Kaushal was on Police Custody remand in the custody of Const. Ravneek. According to him, thereafter he along with Investigating Officer SI Sita Ram and Const. Ravneek and accused Kaushal Singh reached at plot No. 196, Baba Haridas Colony where the accused pointed out the room and told that he had taken this room on rent and the lock of the room was broken after which the room was searched and from there one bag with two strips was found hanging which bag was checked and it was found containing ladies wears i.e. bra, underwear, peticot and blouse etc. The witness has deposed that accused told that the said clothes belonged to his wife Baby Devi. He has proved that the clothes and bag were seized vide memo Ex.PW/11/H and in the meantime Kamlesh Yadav also came there and had identified the accused Kaushal Singh. He has testified that thereafter accused Kaushal Singh took them to the room of Pappu which room was opened and nothing was recovered from the room and at pointing out the room was prepared which is Ex.PW11/K. Thereafter, the accused Kaushal took them to the room of Chhote and the pointing out memo in that regard was prepared which is Ex.PW11/I after which the accused took them to the railway line and pointed the place where they had cut down Baby Devi vide pointing out memo which is Ex.PW11/M. According to him, they searched for the weapon of offence and in the meantime one public witness Mahipal St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 62 had also joined the investigation and thereafter accused Kaushal had produced one Dao from the bushes. The witness has further testified that the Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of the Dao, the total length of Dao was 31.5 cm, length of the blade was 19 cm, length of the handle was 12.5 cm which sketch is Ex.PW4/A. He has also deposed that the Dao was put into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of SRT and seized vide memo Ex.PW4/B. According to him, the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW11/N and the seal after use was handed over to Const. Ravneek. He has deposed that thereafter in a private van they reached Sector 6, Bahadurgarh, Haryana where accused Kaushal shown the room of Jitender in a Kacchi Colony and the house of one Sumer Hooda and the room was found locked. He has proved the pointing out memo in his regard which is Ex.PW11/O and thereafter they came back to the police station and case property was deposited in the Malkhana. He has correctly identified both the accused in the court as well as the case property i.e. the Dao which is Ex.P4 (wrongly written as Ex.P­4 whereas it should be read as Ex.P­1) which was got recovered by accused Kaushal and the clothes of Baby Devi which are collectively Ex.P­5.

In his cross­examination, the witness has deposed that on that day he was on 24 hours duty and Kaushal Singh was taken out in St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 63 the morning from police lock up by Const. Ravneek at around 10­11 AM. According to him, Baba Hari Das Colony was about four to five km from the police station and they went to Hari Das Colony by bus and reached there within 30 to 45 minutes but he is unable to tell the exact time. He has testified that the Investigating Officer had made the exit entry of the accused. He has further deposed that the accused was not interrogated in his presence in the police station nor the Investigating Officer had recorded any statement of accused in his presence. PW24 has also deposed that the Investigating Officer did not record any statement of accused in his presence regarding the pointing out and from from inquiries he came to know that the room was let out to the accused by Santosh Singh. He has denied that Santosh Singh had not let out any room to the accused Kaushal Singh. According to PW24, they remained at the plot till 12:30 PM and the Investigating Officer had prepared one fard Jamatalasi and the recovery memo in respect of the clothes but no public witness had witnessed the seizure of the clothes nor any public person was present at the time of recovery of the clothes. He is unable to tell if the Investigating Officer had asked any public person to join the proceedings. The witness has denied the suggestion that accused never made any disclosure with regard to the clothes and states that except the aforesaid two papers no other paper work was done in the room. PW24 has deposed that his St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 64 statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer outside the Chowki in the evening and it must be around 6 to 7 PM. He has denied that Kamlesh Yadav never came to the spot or identified the accused Kaushal Singh. He does not remember the number of the room of Pappu but he knew that his room was in the same gali in front of room No.196. According to him, Kamlesh Yadav was the owner of the said room. He has denied the suggestion that Kamlesh Yadav was not the owner of any such room as stated by him and states that they remained at the room of Pappu for about 15­20 minutes. PW24 has also deposed that the pointing out memo of Pappu was prepared at the spot but he is unable to tell the address of the room of Chotte but the same was about two to three lanes away from the room of Pappu. The witness is unable to tell who was the owner of room of Chotte and states that they met the landlord of the room of Chotte but he is unable to tell the name of the landlord. According to the witness, statement of his landlord was not recorded by the Investigating Officer in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that he never went to the house of Pappu or of Chotte. The witness has testified that the weapon of offence was recovered from bushes along with the railway line at 12:30 PM and they went to the railway line on foot. He does not remember the time but states that Mahipal met them as soon as they reached there and they remained there for about two hours and Mahipal also remained there. According St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 65 to him, the entire documentation was done at the spot and first of all the site plan was prepared after which the sketch of the Dao was prepared and thereafter seizure memo was prepared and lastly the the statement of Mahipal was recorded but he is unable to tell at what time his statement was recorded. The witness has further deposed that they remained at the site till about 2:30 PM and states that after 2:30 PM they had gone to Bahadurgarh Haryana and after returning from Bahadurgarh they went to the police station and thereafter back to the Chowki where his statement was recorded. PW24 has deposed that the place where the weapon of offence was recovered is a public place but states that there was a pagdandi near the railway line where persons come and go and at the time when the recovery was effected there was no public person. According to the witness, while on the way to the spot they did not request any public person to join them and the writing work was done while sitting on a Pulia near the Railway line. He has stated that Mahipal did not accompany them to the police station. He has denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered in his presence at the instance of accused Kaushal Singh or that the Dao had been planted by the police in order to create an evidence against the accused Kaushal Singh. He has also denied that Mahipal was a stock witness and he never joined any proceedings or that he never joined the investigation of this case at any point of time and all the written work had been done St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 66 by the Investigating Officer at the police station and nothing was recovered in his presence.

Statement of the accused/ defence evidence:

After completion of prosecution evident the statements of both the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Kaushal Singh has stated that he never lived in Delhi as a tenant. According to him, he is a labourer by profession and used to work as a labourer in Punjab on daily wages. He has further stated that since July 2005 he was in Punjab for his job and was not present in his native village. The accused has stated that the parents of Baby Devi were inimical towards him and have deposed falsely against him. According to him the photographs of the deceased have not correctly identified by the father and brother of the deceased nor they came to Delhi to identity the dead bod. He has further stated that even the police officials have not conducted any DNA test for correctly identifying the dead body, moreover the clothes of the deceased have not been got identified by the police officials from the relatives of Baby Devi. According to the accused, the parents of Baby Devi had lodged a false complaint against him at Bihar and when the Delhi Police could not solve the murder mystery in respect of the dead body found at Delhi, the police officials in connivance with the relatives of St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 67 Baby Devi falsely implicated him in this case. The accused has denied having given any confessional statement and has stated that he was never interrogated by the police at any point of time and the police officials obtained his signatures on certain blank papers and convert them into the disclosure statement. He has further stated that nothing was recovered in his presence or at his instance nor he kept his wife in any room nor killed her, nor he had thrown her dead body near the railway track. According to him, the alleged recovery of Dao had been plated upon him and Mahipal is a stock witness of police who never joined the investigations. The accused Kaushal Singh has further stated that Baby Devi had married with one Mantoo Kumar but the relation with the said Mantoo Kumar and Baby Devi were not cordial hence, Baby Devi walked out of her own free will and with consent started living with him since 23.4.1995, however, no marriage was solemnized between him and Baby Devi. He has deposed also stated that Baby Devi was never blessed with a son at any point of time and even as per his knowledge Baby Devi is alive and her whereabouts have been concealed by her parents to implicate him in this case as the parents of Baby Devi had a grudge against him since Baby Devi had started living with him since 23.4.1995 without marrying him and were feeling that this act of Baby Devi of marrying him, had defamed them and lowered their prestige in the society. He has denied having gone to St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 68 the village along with his Jija on 25.9.2009 and stated that he is innocent and has nothing to do with the commission of crime.

In so far as the accused Jitender Singh is concerned, he has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated him in the present case. According to him, the police had not arrested him from a Tea Stall at Tikri Boarder and had not conducted any search. He has stated that he has nothing to do with the commission of offence. FINDINGS:

I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also considered the written synopsis filed on behalf of both the parties and the evidence on record. I propose to first deal with all the allegations/ averments individually in a tabulated form and later on comprehensively.

 Sr.        Name of the                             Details of deposition
 No.          witness
PUBLIC WITNESSES:
1.      Krishan Kumar           He is a photographer by profession and was running a  
        (PW1)                   photo studio in the name of M/s Krishna Photo Palace  
                                at   the  Village  Tikri  Kalan.     He   has   proved     having  

taken five photographs of severed head and foot, the negative which are Ex.PW1/A1 to Ex.PW1/A5 and the photographs are Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B5.

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 69

2. Ramudit Kumar He is the brother of the deceased who has deposed on (PW2) the following lines:

1. That he had one brother and two sisters including deceased Baby Devi.

2. That he married his sister Baby with one Mantu Kumar earlier but the said Mantu Kumar met with an accident while proceeding on training and expired and hence, he solemnized the marriage of his sister Baby Devi with accused Kaushal Singh whom the witness has correctly identified in the court.

3. That he performed the marriage as per Hindu rites and rituals and he also gave gold jewellery to his sister at the time of 2nd marriage.

4. That his sister started living in matrimonial house at village Dhanama (Bihar) and remained at her matrimonial house for about one year and did not complain but after one year she started complaining of against the accused in the present court and misbehaved and ill­treated her on account of demand of Rs. 50,000/­ and motorcycle.

5. That his sister was blessed with a son at her matrimonial home at Dhanama but the said son expired later on and the accused and his sister was living at Paharpur and the accused used to visit there.

6. That she left for matrimonial home and started living at his house and the accused shifted to Delhi but after certain reconciliation between the accused and his sister, the accused took his sister to Delhi.

7. That on 25.09.2005 accused came to his village along with his Jija Subodh Kumar and both of them took his sister to Delhi.

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 70

8. That on 29.09.2005 he came to know from information given by SI Sita Ram that his sister had been murdered and he came to know later on that accused after committing murder left Delhi to his Village and had misinformed villagers that his sister had died after consuming poison.

9. that he went to the native village of the accused on 29.09.2005 and came back after two hours and thereafter he filed a case against the accused at Nawada court on 30.09.2005.

10. That he was informed that the said case would be sent to Delhi.

The witness had seen photographs Ex.PW1/B1 and Ex.PW1/B2 and identified the face that of his sister and has also identified the complaint made to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada which is Ex.PW2/DA.

3. Sh. Madan Singh He is the father of the deceased who has deposed on (PW3) the following aspects:

1. That deceased Baby Devi was his daughter and he married his daughter Baby with one person but does not remember his name but the said person expired due to some illness.

2. That all the details were known to his son and thereafter his son solemnized the marriage of his daughter Baby Devi with accused Kaushal Singh whom the witness has correctly identified in the court, as per Hindu rites and rituals.

3. That his son also gave gold jwellery to his daughter at the time of 2nd marriage and thereafter she started living in matrimonial house at village Dhanama (Bihar) but she was ill­treated and harassed on account of demand of dowry.

4. That the accused brought his daughter to Delhi and killed her.

5. He has identified the photographs Ex.PW1/B1 and Ex.PW1/B2 pertained to his deceased daughter. St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 71

4. Mahipal (PW4) This witness has deposed on the following aspects:

1. That on 21.12.2005, he was present at his field and was watering the field when one police officer along with two other officials and one persons came near a pulia.

2. That he went there to inquire as to what was the matter and he joined the investigation along with police party and came to know that the person who was with the police had murdered his wife with a Dao which Dao had to be recovered.

3. That the said person took them near the bushes and got recovered the Daa from the bushes after which the Investigating Officer measured the same and total length of Dao was 31.5 c.m.

4. He has proved that the investigating officer prepared the sketch of the Dao which is Ex.PW4/A and Dao was kept in a pullanda which was sealed and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B.

5. That he remembers that accused Kaushal was also there where Dao was recovered.

The witness has correctly identified the accused Kaushal Singh as well as the Dao which is Ex.P1.

5. Sh. Amit Kumar This witness is running an STD Booth in the area (PW5) where the accused Kaushal Singh was residing with the deceased Baby Singh. He has turned hostile on the aspect that accused Kaushal and his wife Baby Devi who were known to him used to reside at Baba Gari Dass Colony and accused Kaushal and his wife Baby Devi vacated the rented house of Kamlesh. He has denied that on 25.09.2005 he received a telephone on his STD shop caller told him that she was Baby Devi and she asked him which bus go to Tikri Border on which he told her that Bus route No. 925 go to Tikri Border and that he had stated to the police that wife of St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 72 Kaushal came to his shop who was having a bag and she went to her room alongwith her husband Kaushal and that when he saw the posters of Baby Devi pasted at many places of Baba Hari Dass Colony he went to house of accused Kaushal but accused Kaushal along with her brother Suchit were not there.

6. Vijender Singh He is also a resident of the area and was running a (PW6) Milk Shop. He has also turned hostile on the aspect that he knew Navin, Kaushal, Suchit and Pappu as they used to come to his shop to take milk or that on 26/27.03.2005 at about 2:30 AM when he got up he noticed that Kaushal, Jitender, Navin and Pappu were passing from in front of his shop and Kaushal was having a gathri on his head or that when he inquired from them as to where they were going they told him that they were removing their house hold items and would go to their native village by the morning train.

7. Kamlesh Yadav He was the person who had given a room of Santosh (PW10) on rent to the accused Kaushal Singh. He has turned hostile on the said aspect and also on the aspect of recovery of clothes of the deceased from the room. However, the said witness has been recalled and the seizure memo of the clothes of the deceased and pointing out memo were put to him.

1. He has duly identified his signatures on the documents Ex.PW11/H i.e. seizure memo of the clothes of the deceased and Ex.PW11/K i.e. pointing out memo of the room.

2. According to him, he had signed the aforesaid documents after the contents of the same were read out to him by the police.

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 73

8. Smt. Ahilya She is the mother of the deceased who has deposed on (PW18) the following lines:

1. That she was having two boys and two girls and deceased Baby Devi was her younger daughter.

2. That her daughter Baby was firstly married to Mantu Singh of Bhumra who expired in an accident and thereafter her daughter Baby was married to Kaushal Singh R/o Village Dhanwa according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.

3. That in marriage they had given all the articles including the jewellery and after the marriage her daughter told her that accused Kaushal was having illicit relationship with his bhabhi and due to this illicit relationship accused Kaushal had brought her daughter to Delhi and killed her and thrown her dead body in the jungle.

4. That the incident of killing of her daughter took place around two years back and they received this information through telephone from Navada.

5. That thereafter about 10­12 police officials from Delhi reached at village Paharpur and raided at the houses of the relatives of accused and after about four months accused was arrested.

6. That the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with accused about two years prior to this incident.

7. That after the marriage when her daughter came to their house, she told her that accused was demanding Rs.50,000/­ and one motor cycle and used to harass her and give beatings to her.

8. That they went to the house of Kaushal to counsell him but he continued to harass her daughter.

9. That her daughter also told her that Kaushal was having illicit relations with his bhabhi Seema Devi and Kaushal had asked her not to disclose this fact, otherwise he threatened to kill her.

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 74

10. That she had told this fact to her husband and they came to know about the incident of killing of her daughter about four years go.

11. That they came to know that Kaushal had come back to Bihar after killing her daughter.

12. That when her husband and son Pappu went to police station to register the FIR, police refused to register the FIR and after inquiry, it was revealed that the accused was saying that Baby Devi had consumed poison and she was cremated in Delhi and police had left him.

13. That Delhi Police had shown him a photograph of her daughter and she identified her in the photograph and one photograph of her daughter was handed over by her husband to the police.

She has correctly identified the accused Kaushal Singh in the court as the husband f her daughter Baby Devi.

9. Santosh Kumar This witness has deposed on the following aspects:

(PW23) 1. That he was having a plot No.196 in Baba Haridas Colony, Tikri Border and had constructed six rooms on that plot which he used to give on rent.

2. That he occasionally visit on his plot and there was one Kamlesh Yadav opposite his house and his house was under his (Kamlesh Yadav) supervision who used to give room on rent.

3. That Kamlesh Yadav told him that he had given one of his room on rent on 25.09.05 to one Kaushal Singh and that Kaushal Singh along with his wife remained in that room for about one or two days and thereafter they went away after locking the doors.

4. That thereafter on 25­26 December, 2005 he had visited his room and there he came to know that Kaushal had committed murder of his wife.

5. That he had told all these facts to the police and the police had seized the articles from the room.

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 75 MEDICAL EVIDENCE

10. Dr. Manoj Dhingra He has proved the postmortem report prepared by Dr. (PW16) Ashosh Jain which is Ex.PW16/A. He has proved that as per the postmortem report no definite opinion regarding cause of death can be given as body was decomposed. He has also proved that the cut throat injury and other injury are postmortem in nature except injury on left side of face i.e. (injury No. 2 ­ Incised wound present over left side of face extending up to forehead going into brain tissue and cutting with maxilla and mandible) and time since death was approximately 5 days.

POLICE WITNESSES (Proving investigations)

11. Const. Rajbir He has proved that on 27.09.2005 he had delivered the (PW7) copy of FIR at the residence of Ld. MM, Joint Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioner of Police.

12. Ct. Ajit (PW8) He has deposed on the following aspects:

1. That on 28.09.2005 he along with SHO Police Station Nangloi SI Sita Ram and other staff went to bushes near Nizam Pur Phatak near Railway line where a head and legs of a dead body were found.

2. That the Investigating Officer got the photographs from different angles of head and legs and thereafter, he took the head and legs to mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital where parts of dead body were got preserved.

3. That the Investigating Officer and SHO got conducted the postmortem of dead body as the remaining parts of dead body were already recovered after which the dead body was cremated in electric crematorium.

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 76

4. That on 26.12.2005 accused Kaushal was taken out from lock up and accused was interrogated, thereafter, accused took SI Sita Ram, Ct. Rajni and himself to Patel Nagar Bahadurgarh i.e. house of accused Jitender where wife of Jitender met them and she told them that accused Jitender had gone to Baba Hari Dass Colony, Tikri Border.

5. That when they were coming back and reached near Toll Tax barrier, accused Kaushal pointed out towards accused Jitender who was arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/A, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW8/B.

6. That on the instructions of SI Sita Ram he took the accused to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and got him medically examined after which he came back to Police Station Nangloi and MLC was handed over to SI Sita Ram.

13. HC Varinder Singh He is the Duty Officer who has proved having (PW9) recorded the FIR of the present case copy of which is Ex.PW9/A. He has also proved having made his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW9/B.

14. SI Sita Ram He is the initial investigating officer and had reached (PW11) the spot after having received the information. He has proved the following documents:

Ex.PW11/A DD No. 14

                                Ex.PW11/B         Seizure   memo   of   blood   stained   mud  
                                                  and sample mud
                                Ex.PW11/C         Seizure memo dari and bed sheet
                                Ex.PW11/D         Seizure memo of the thread 
                                Ex.PW11/E         Arrest  memo  of   the  accused  Kaushal  
                                                  Singh



St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi                            Page No. 77 
                                 Ex.PW11/F         Personal   search   memo   of   accused  
                                                  Kaushal Singh 
                                Ex.PW11/G         Disclosure   Statement   of   accused  
                                                  Kaushal Singh
                                Ex.PW11/H         Seizure memo of bag and clothes of the  
                                                  deceased 
                                Ex.PW11/K         Pointing out memo of room of Pappu 
                                Ex.PW11/L         Pointing out memo of Chote
                                Ex.PW11/M         Pointing  out  memo  of  the  spot where  
                                                  the dead body was cut into pieces by  
                                                  the accused
                                Ex.PW4/A          Sketch of the Dao
                                Ex.PW11/N         Site plan of the place of recovery 
                                Ex.PW11/O         Pointing out memo of accused Jitender
                                Ex.PW8/A          Arrest memo of the accused Jitender
                                Ex.PW8/B          Personal search memo of the accused  
                                                  Jitender
                                Ex.PW11/P         Disclosure   Station   of   the   accused  
                                                  Jitender
                                Ex.PW11/Q         Pointing   out   memo   of   the   room   by  
                                                  accused Jitender 
                                Ex.PW11/R         Pointing out memo of the place where  
                                                  the dead body was cut 
15.     HC Ram Niavs            This witness has proved having taken the photographs,  
        (PW12)                  negatives of which are Ex.PW12/1 to Ex.PW12/10 and  
                                photographs are Ex.PW12/11 to Ex.PW12/20. 
16.     SI Anil Kumar           He was the Incharge of Mobile Crime Team and has  
        (PW13)                  proved   having   inspected   the   spot   where   he   found   a  
                                female   dead   body   without   head   and   legs   and   also  
                                having   prepared   the   Crime   Team   report   which   is  
                                Ex.PW13/A. 




St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi                                Page No. 78 
 17.     Inspector               He was also the Incharge of Mobile Crime Team, West  
        Devender Singh          District and has proved having inspected the spot i.e.  
        (PW14)                  near Nizampur Railway Phatak towards Baba Haridas  

Colony, Tikri Boarder, Nangloi, Delhi where he found one head of a lady with long hair, two feet lying at the spot and blood was also scattered there. He has also proved having prepared his Crime Team report and gave appropriate advise to the Investigating Officer which was mentioned by him in his report Ex.PW14/A and handed over his report to the Investigating Officer at the spot.

18. HC Jaivir Singh This witness has proved having taken eight (PW15) photographs of a head of a female with long hair and two feet lying at the spot from different angles and Incharge and other team inspected the place of occurrence, negatives of which are Ex.PW15/A1 to Ex.PW15/A­8 and the photographs are Ex.PW15/B1 to Ex.PW15/B­8.

19. HC Bhagwati He has proved that on 27.09.05 he recorded DD No. 14 (PW17) to the effect that one dead body severed head of a lady was lying near the Nizam Pur Phatak after which DD No.14 is Ex.PW17/A.

20. SI Mahesh Kumar He is the Draftsman who has proved having prepared (PW19) the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW19/A.

21. HC Tarif Singh He is the MHCM who has proved having made the (PW20) various entries in Register no. 19 which entries are Ex.PW20/A to Ex.PW20/G.

22. HC Brij Kishore This witness has proved having taken nine sealed (PW21) pullandas alongwith sample seal and FSL form from MHC(M) for and deposited the same in FSL Rohini.

23. ACP Harpal Singh He is the investigating officer who has proved the (PW22) various investigation proceedings conducted by him.

Apart from the documents proved by SI Sita Ram (PW11), he has proved the following documents:

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 79

                                 Ex.PW22/A         Brief facts
                                Ex.PW22/B         Form 25.35
                                Ex.PW22/C         Brief facts
                                Ex.PW22/D         Form 25.35
                                Ex.PW22/E         Site plan
                                Ex.PW22/F         Advertisement 
                                Ex.PW22/G         Request for conducting the autopsy
                                Ex.PW22/H         Receipt of cremation
                                Ex.PW22/J         Seizure of the pullandas handed over  
                                                  by the doctor after postmortem
                                Ex.PW22/K         Request   for   taking   opinion   of   the  
                                                  doctor
                                Ex.PW22/L         Opinion of the doctor 
                                Ex.PW22/M         Sketch   of   the   Dao   prepared   by   the  
                                                  doctor
                                Ex.PW22/N         Another   application   seeking   opinion  
                                                  on   the   parts   of   the   body   of   the  
                                                  deceased
                                Ex.PW22/O         Opinion of the doctor
24.     HC Devender             This   witness   has  joined  investigations  along  with  SI  
        (PW24)                  Sita Ram and has corroborated his testimony.

Now coming to the microscopic examination of the evidence in respect of the accused.

Ocular Evidence:

Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case. Unfortunately, in the present case there is no ocular/ eye St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 80 witness account and the entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence.

Last Seen Evidence:

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Baby Devi was last seen alive by her family when the accused Kaushal Singh had come along with his brother in law/ Jija Subodh Kumar to her parental house to take her to Delhi with him on 22.9.2005. Thereafter when she came to Delhi she was also seen alive by the landlord and also the owner of the STD booth and the shopkeeper. In this regard, the testimonies of the witnesses Ramudit Kumar @ Pappu (PW2) who is the brother of the deceased Baby Devi would be relevant.

Before proceedings to analyze the evidence on record, I may observe that the 'Last Seen' theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It is a settled law that even in such cases the courts should look for such corroboration. (Sanjay Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No. 1699/2005 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on India on 5.5.2006).

It is settled law that when there is no direct evidence against the accused and the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 81 evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be in compatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of other person. (Ref: Ved Prakash @ Bhagwan Dia Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 992).

Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, now coming to the testimony of Ramudit Kumar @ Pappu (PW2) who is the brother of the deceased Baby Devi. It is evident that in his testimony he has specifically deposed that earlier Baby Devi was married to one Mantu Kumar who unfortunately expired in a road accident. Thereafter, her marriage was solemnized with the accused Kaushal Singh with Hindu Rites and Rituals and she started residing at her matrimonial house at village Dhanama (Bihar). According to Ramudit Kumar within one year of marriage the deceased started complaining against the accused on account of harassment and misbehaviour due to demand of dowry and specific demand raised by him for a sum of Rs.50,000/­ and a motorcycle. He has also deposed that during this period she was blessed with a son who unfortunately expired and thereafter the deceased started living at Paharpur (Bihar) at his village where the accused used to frequently visit her. However, with the intervention of the family members there was a reconciliation between the accused and the Baby Devi and when Kaushal Singh came St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 82 to his village accompanied by his Jija Subodh Kumar both of them took his sister to Delhi. This was the last of what was seen of Baby Devi by her brother and other family members.

It is evident that there is a contradiction with regard to the date when the deceased was sent with the accused. In his first complaint made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada (Bihar) Ramudit Kumar had given the date when Kaushal Singh had gone to the village of the deceased and took her to Delhi as 22.9.2005 but in his testimony before the court he has given this date as 25.9.2005. This date of 22.9.2005 appears to be the correct date because had the deceased been in Bihar on 25.9.2005 she could not have been murdered in Delhi on the same date. Therefore, the date given by Ramudit Kumar in his first complaint to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada (Bihar) i.e. 22.9.2005 is correct.

Ramudit Kumar has further deposed that it was on 29.9.2005 at about 10:00 AM that he had received an information from SI Sita Ram of Delhi that his sister had been murdered. This aspect finds due corroboration from the testimony of SI Sita Ram who has in his testimony confirmed that it was he who had telephonically informed the family of the deceased about the death of Baby Devi and recovery of her dead body. According to Ramudit Kumar (PW2) when he came to know of the aforesaid, he immediately went to the village of St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 83 the accused on the same day where he could not find the accused but he came to know that the accused had come to the village and informed everybody that Baby Devi had committed suicide after consuming some poison and he had performed her last rites in Delhi itself. Ramudit Kumar has further deposed that on coming to know of this, he immediately went to the local police and tried to file a complaint against the accused but his complaint was not registered and he therefore went to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Nawada, Bihar and filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Nawada, Bihar which complaint is Ex.PW2/DA. The perusal of the said complaint, copy of which has been placed on record, reveals that Ramudit Kumar had at the first opportunity mentioned the details regarding the marriage of the accused with his sister and the demand of dowry and harassment caused to her thereafter and also the fact that on 22.9.2005 he had sent his sister Baby Devi to Delhi along with Kaushal Singh and Subodh Kumar and further that on 29.9.2005 he had received a telephonic information that the deceased had been killed. The version given by Ramudit Kumar (PW2) in the court finds due corroboration from the first complaint made by him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Nawada, Bihar and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 84

It is further evident from the evidence on record that some parts of the body of the deceased were recovered on 27.9.2005 and the remaining parts were recovered on 28.9.2005, after which the dead body was duly reconstructed and photographs were taken and inquiries were made and finally it was Amit Kumar, the owner of the STD Booth situated at Plot No. 421, Baba Haridass Colony who identified the photograph of Baby Devi as the wife of Kaushal Singh residing in the same colony in the vicinity who was the tenant of Kamlesh Yadav on which he informed the police about the same. Therefore, police went to the house of Kamlesh Yadav where Kamlesh Yadav admitted that Kaushal Singh had been kept as a tenant in a room opposite in property as his wife had come and also that Kaushal Singh was the brother of one Suchit Kumar who was his tenant. It was thereafter that the police was able to lead and get the details of the family of the deceased. In this regard I may observe that in so far as the witness Amit Kumar (PW5) is concerned, he has completely turned hostile and has denied having made any such statement to the police. Kamlesh Yadav (PW10) had initially turned completely hostile but later on he was recalled and asked to identify his signatures on the seizure memo and pointing out memo, when in his testimony he has admitted the same and also the fact that the police had come to his house and made inquiries. St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 85

It is evident that both PW5 Amit and PW10 Kamlesh Yadav have made incorrect statements before the court because unless Amit Kumar would have given the lead to the police, it was not possible for them to have tracked down the deceased to the house of Kamlesh Yadav. The fact that Kamlesh Yadav (PW10) and Amit (PW5) have not come out with the complete truth is also evident from the testimony of Santosh Kumar (PW23) who has admitted that Kamlesh Yadav was having a property opposite his property which was under his supervision and it was Kamlesh Yadav who had let out one room to the accused Kaushal Singh as told to him by Kamlesh Yadav as the wife of Kaushal Singh had joined him. Santosh Kumar (PW23) has further deposed that Kamlesh Yadav had told to him and Kaushal Singh and his wife stayed for about one or two days and thereafter they locked the same and gone away. It was later that Santosh Kumar came to know about the murder of the deceased.

Further, it is evident from the record that the postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 1.10.2005 and the time of death has been mentioned as approximately five days i.e. 25.9.2005. Naturally the deceased was sent with the accused by her family members on 22.9.2005 would have reached Delhi sometime on 24.9.2005 or 25.9.2005 during which time the accused had taken a room on rent in the house of Santosh Kumar (PW23) from Kamlesh Yadav (PW10) and St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 86 would have stayed in the said room for some time before the deceased was murdered on 25.9.2005. The time of death proves that the gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the time of her death is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible, the deceased being with the accused during this period. Marriage between the accused and the deceased:

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Baby Devi was married to the accused. In fact the accused was the second husband of the deceased, her first husband Mantoo Kumar having expired in a road accident. When the incriminating evidence was put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, he has denied the aforesaid aspect and has stated that he was never legally married to the deceased and in fact her first husband is still alive but she had walked out of her first marriage and was residing with him with her consent. I have considered the defence so raised by the accused before me. I may observe that the evidence lead by the prosecution in the form of testimony of the brother of the deceased namely Ramudit Kumar (PW2), father of the deceased namely Madan Singh (PW3) and mother of the deceased namely Smt. Ahilya (PW18) is very clear and succinct. They had specifically St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 87 identified the accused Kaushal Singh as the second husband of Baby Devi. In their testimonies they have deposed that Baby Devi was married to accused in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies and after the married even a son was born to her who unfortunately expired. Though they have not been able to place on record the photographs of marriage of Baby Devi with the accused yet the fact that the accused himself has admitted that he was into a relationship with Baby Devi and she was residing with him is sufficient in so far as this court is concerned. Even otherwise, the testimony of Ramudit Kumar (PW2), Madan Singh (PW3) and Smt. Ahilya (PW18) have not been controverted on the aspect of marriage and I therefore hold that it stands established that the accused and the deceased had been living as husband and wife.

Identification of the dead body:

The case of the prosecution is that when the head of the deceased had been severed from the torso and legs had also been cut and thrown at various places. When the dead body was recovered, it was partly eaten by maggots and thereafter had to be stitched together for purposes of reconstruction and the photographs of the same was taken. The accused has raised a defence is that the deceased is still alive and the prosecution in order to work out the case, has wrongly got the body of the deceased identified as that of Baby Devi whereas the St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 88 body belong to some other lady. He has also submitted that the DNA examination of the dead body has not been conducted to confirm the identity of the deceased.

I have considered the submissions made and I may observe that the photographs of the face taken at the time when it was recovered from the fields have been placed on the judicial record. Though the brain matter and internal parts had been eaten by maggots yet the external features were clearly identifiable and after the various parts of the body of the deceased were stitched and photographs were taken, the said photographs matched with the photograph of the deceased given by the family of the deceased to SI Sita Ram. Even this court has observed that both the photographs are matching and appear to be of the same person. Even otherwise, the brother of the deceased namely Ramudit Kumar (PW2), father of the deceased namely Madan Singh (PW3) and mother of the deceased Smt. Ahilya (PW18) have all been shown the photographs of the deceased and they have duly identified the same as that of Baby Devi and there is no reason to disbelieve them. The question of DNA examination would only arise in case of dispute where body is disfigured to such an extent that it is difficult to identify the same. In the present instance the photograph Ex.PW1/B­2 shows that some of the external features of the face were still intact and identifiable and therefore, the question of there being St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 89 any doubt with regard to the identity does not arise. Merely because the dead body has not been identified by her family member before cremation would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution once the photographs of the body of the deceased Ex.PW1/B­1 & Ex.PW1/B­2 taken at the time of recovery of the body by the parents and brother of the deceased as that of Baby Devi and the same has not been duly controverted by the accused.

Medical Evidence/ Cause of death and time of death:

In so far as the aspect of death is concerned, the same is not disputed. It is evident that the deceased had died an unnatural death but in view of the fact that the body of the deceased had been cut into pieces and was in a mutilated condition with maggots filled inside it and it was not possible for the Autopsy Surgeon to give a definite opinion in view of the decomposed position of the body. PW16 Dr. Manoj Dhingra who had conducted the postmortem examination on 1.10.2005, has proved that there was a fracture in the right arm; incised wound was present over left side of face extending up to forehead going into brain tissue and cutting with maxilla and mandible; green colour ligature present around neck; head was separated from trunk upper 2 cervical vertebra and brain cavity was filled with maggots, truck bead C­5 and C­7 Vertebra and there was a cut injury present St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 90 over face, cutting both angle of mouth about 15 cm in length.

According to him, no definite opinion regarding cause of death can be given as the body was decomposed; the cut throat injury and other injury were postmortem in nature except injury on the left side of face (injury no. 2) i.e. incised wound over left side of face extending upto forehead going into brain tissue and cutting with maxilla and mandible and time since death was approximately five days. This proves that the body had been cut into pieces later on but before her death the deceased had been hit with a sharp object on the left side of the face extending upto forehead as a result of which the injury was so deep that it went to the brain tissue and cutting with maxilla and mandible. This proves that she was given one blow with a sharp weapon before her death. Further, the photographs Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B2 show that the eyes of the deceased were shut but the mouth was wide open with tongue protruding out showing that the deceased after being given the blow with a sharp weapon, was perhaps strangulated since all the other cut throat injuries were postmortem in nature. Further, the Dao got recovered by the accused has been produced in the court which is Ex.P­1 and its sketches which are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW22/M have been duly proved. The said Dao was placed before the Autopsy Surgeon for seeking opinion on the same and as per the opinion Ex.PW22/L the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report could St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 91 be possible with this or similar such weapon and the opinion with regard to the cause of death is consistent. The Dao Ex.P­1 has also been produced in the court and it is evident that the blade of the said Dao was 19 cms i.e. approximately 7.5 inches which matches with the size of the incised wound over left side of the face extending upto forehead going into brain tissue and cutting with maxilla and mandible which injury was inflicted upon her before her death, as reflected in the photographs.

I may also observe that, no doubt the doctor conducting the postmortem has not rendered any positive opinion with regard to the cause of death but it is evident that firstly incised wound was present over left side of face of the deceased extending upto forehead going into brain tissue and cutting with maxilla and mandible and secondly a green colour ligature was present around neck as evident from the postmortem report Ex.PW16/A. P.V. Guharaj in his book Forensic Medicine, page 180 (as was duly relied upon by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog in the case of Shakeel Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No. 960/2008 decided on 19.4.2010) opined that 'where death has taken place immediately from reflex cardiac arrest of vasodilatation on the carotid body, the signs of asphyxia and the injuries on the neck may be slight or absent'. Further it is opined by Jaisingh P. Modi in the celebrated text Modi's Medical St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 92 Jurisprudence and Toxicology (22nd Edition page 263) that 'In some cases the mark in the neck may not be present at all, or may be very slight, if the ligature used is soft and yielding like a stocking or scarf and if it is removed soon after death'. In the present case as evident from the photographs Ex.PW1/B1 & Ex.PW1/B2 the mouth of the deceased was wide open with tongue protruding out and hence, the injury no. 2 i.e. incised wound over left side of face of the deceased extending upto forehead going into brain tissue and cutting with maxilla and mandible being ante­mortem in nature, it appears to be first inflicted upon the deceased and therefore, there is a likelihood of the deceased Baby Devi being strangulated which aspect is also confirmed from the postmortem report Ex.PW16/A showing a green coloured ligature mark present around the neck.

Further, in so far as the Time of Death of the deceased is concerned, it is evident that the postmortem examination was conducted on 1.10.2005 and the time of death has been mentioned as approximately five days i.e. 25.9.2005. Naturally the deceased was sent with the accused by her family members on 22.9.2005 and would have reached Delhi sometime on 24­25.9.2005 during which time the accused had taken a room on rent from Kamlesh Yadav and would have stayed in the room for some time before she was murdered on 25.9.2005.

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 93 Arrest of the accused and recovery of the weapon of offence (Dao) and clothes of the deceased:

After the incident a complaint had been made by the brother of the deceased on 30.9.2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada (Bihar) and while Delhi Police was investigating the case regarding the recovery of parts of dead body, the accused was absconding during this period. Non Bailable Warrants were obtained against him and ultimately on 20.12.2005 the accused surrendered before the court of Sh. Paramjit Singh the then Ld. MM and was arrested after taking the permission of the court, vide memo Ex.PW11/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/F. The accused also made a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the offence after which seven days police custody remand of the accused was taken as the weapon of offence used by him was to be recovered. PW11 SI Sita Ram has proved that during police custody remand the accused pointed out towards the house of Santosh where he kept his wife and also the room which was found locked. The lock was broken and from inside the room one bag was found containing ladies clothes which the accused Kaushal Singh disclosed as belonged to his deceased wife which were seized vide memo Ex.PW11/H in the presence of Kamlesh Yadav (PW10). I may observe that Kamlesh Yadav (PW10) has admitted his signatures on the St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 94 said seizure memo though he has turned hostile on the aspect of recovery but on further query from the court he has admitted that he was aware of the contents of the documents which he had signed. Rather, he has admitted that he was present at the time when the police had come to the spot along with the accused and had broken the locks and searched the room.

Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued that the said clothes have not been put to the parents or the brother of the deceased to confirm whether the same belong to Baby Devi or not. In this regard I may observe that the clothes have been got recovered by the accused Kaushal Singh himself which seizure has been witnesses by Kamlesh Yadav. Accused Kaushal Singh was married to Baby Devi and had taken a separate room for purposes of stay and therefore, it is only natural under these circumstances that the bag of the clothes would belong to the deceased Baby Devi. Rather, had it been of some other person, Kaushal Singh would have given an explanation for the same but in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, instead a vague denial and no explanation is forthcoming for the said bag containing clothes of the deceased on behalf of accused Kaushal Singh.

I may observe that Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent it is St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 95 relevant, provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer.

Recently, in the case of Bachchi Singh & Anr. Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) bearing Criminal Appeal No. 261/1997 decided on 30.7.2010 by the Revision Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Badar Durez Ahmed of Delhi High Court wherein the Hon'ble Judges while making reference to the earlier decisions and various judicial pronouncements, briefly culled out the law relating to the statement made by the accused while in police custody and the extent to which it can be relied upon.

In State of U.P. Vs. Deoman Upadhyaya reported in 1960 Cri.L.J. 1504, Supreme Court inter alia, observed as under:­ "When a person not in custody approaches a police officer investigating an offence and offers to give information leading to the discovery of a fact, having a bearing on the charge which may St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 96 be made against him he may appropriately be deemed to have surrendered himself to the police. Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be taken in custody: submission to the custody by word or action by a person is sufficient. A person directly giving to a police officer by word of mouth information which may be used as evidence against him, may be deemed to have submitted himself to the "custody" of the police officer within the meaning of S.27 of the Indian Evidence Act."

Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that SI Sita Ram (PW11) has proved that the accused Kaushal Singh took them near railway line where he had allegedly cut down Baby Devi with Dao and pointed out the place where he had thrown the pieces of the body which tallied with the place from where the pieces of the body were recovered earlier. He thereafter produced one Dao from the bushes near the railway line pulia, sketch of which Dao was prepared and the same was sealed with the seal of SRT after converting into a pullanda seized vide memo St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 97 Ex.PW4/B. SI Sita Ram (PW11) has also proved that the site plan of the place of recovery was also prepared which is Ex.PW11/N. The entire proceedings regarding the recovery of the weapon of offence was witnessed by an independent public witness namely Mahipal (PW4) who was a property dealer in the area and was having his fields. On noticing the police at the spot, he went and made inquiries as to what had happened and thereafter he joined the proceedings. Mahipal has also been examined in the court as PW4 and has duly proved the presence of the accused Kaushal Singh along with police officers and the recovery of Dao from the bushes. He has proved his signatures both on the Seizure Memo Ex.PW4/A and site plan Ex.PW4/B. Further, PW4 Mahipal has corroborated the testimony of SI Sita Ram (PW11). He is a public witness who was present at his field and was watering on 21.12.2005. He has proved that some police officials and one person cane there and and he went to inquire as to what was the matter and joined the investigations along with the police party. He has further proved that he was told that the person with the police had murdered his wife with a Dao which Dao had to be recovered and thereafter the said person took them near the bushes and got recovered the Dao. The said witness has not only identified the accused Kaushal Singh but also the Dao which was got recovered from the bushes which Dao is Ex.P­1 and there is no reason to disbelieve his St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 98 version. Mahipal is a resident of the same area and his presence at his fields which he was watering, is natural. He has duly proved the sketch of the Dao which is Ex.PW4/A and its seizure memo which is Ex.PW4/B and there is no reason to disbelieve him.

Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has also submitted that the place of recovery of the Dao i.e. the bushes near the railway line pulia is easily accessible to public and therefore, not much importance can be attributed to the recovery of Dao. I have considered the submissions made. I may observe that the place where the body of the deceased and the Dao was got recovered is not frequented. In fact it is evident from the testimony of Mahipal (PW4) that the place is visited by hardly one or two persons in five to six days. The requirement of law is not that the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was visible to others and if not then it is immaterial that the place of concealment is accessible to other. [Ref.: State of HP Vs. Jeet Singh reported in AIR 1999 SC 1293 and Tahir & Others Vs. State reported in 87 (2000) DLT 207 (Delhi) (DB)]. The Dao had been got recovered from bushes in the area around the railway lines which was not visible to others. I therefore find no substance in the argument raised by the Ld. Counsel.

Therefore, under these circumstances, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the recovery of St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 99 clothes of the deceased Baby Devi from the room taken on rent by the accused Kaushal Singh and the recovery of the Dao at the instance of the accused.

Subsequent conduct of the accused Kaushal Singh:

The case of the prosecution is that the subsequent conduct of the accused is relevant and point out a definite finger of suspicion upon him. It has been pointed out that after the marriage of the accused with the deceased, the deceased Baby Devi initially resided with the accused and even a son was born from the wedlock who later expired. However, later due to certain differences between the accused and the deceased Baby Devi was residing with her parental family and it was the accused Kaushal Singh and his brother in law/ Jija Subodh Kumar who come and taken her from her father's house on the pretext of getting her to Delhi with the accused and it was within five days of Baby Devi having left her village with the accused, that her dead body which was cut into pieces was discovered near railway lines at Nizampur and information was given to her parents. The accused was neither available in Delhi nor at his native village at that time. In fact when the brother of the deceased Ramudit Kumar (PW2) received a call from SI Sita Ram regarding death of his sister, he immediately went to the village of the accused Kaushal Singh at village Dhanama to confirm the information but could not find the accused there. Rather, St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 100 on the contrary he was told by the villagers that the accused Kaushal Singh had come to the village and informed them that the deceased had expired as she had consumed poison and he had performed her last rites in Delhi.

As per the provisions of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.

The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceedings, in reference to such suit or proceedings, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

It is hardly said that there is any action without a motive. Conduct of a person to proceedings in reference to any fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant. As per the provisions of Section 8 of the Evidence Act the conduct of a person whether previous or subsequent to an offence against whom is the subject of inquiry, is relevant if the said conduct influences or influenced by any fact in issue or a relevant fact as it throws light upon a person's motive, intention, good­faith etc. Subsequent act of a person which is indicative of desire to avoid or St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 101 stifle judicial inquiry into an offence of which the party doing the act is accused or suspected is relevant. The conduct of a person immediately after the offence is relevant under these circumstances and in the absence of any explanation for such act the presumption would be against such person.

In the present case it is evident that the subsequent conduct of the accused has been most dubious. Where was he during this period when his wife was butchered in Delhi is an aspect on which no explanation is forthcoming from the accused. He was the one who took her with him and therefore, it is the accused who is the best person to offer an explanation or what happened to her, which he has not done (Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act). Rather, it is evident from his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure that he has put up a vague defence of being in Punjab from July to December 2005 without specifying the place of his employment or the name of his employer. It is also evident that in his first complaint made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada (Bihar) which is Ex.PW2/DA Ramudit Kumar has specifically mentioned that when he went to the native village of the accused he came to know from the villager that accused Kaushal Singh had informed them that the deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison and he had conducted her last rites in Delhi. This statement of Ramudit Kumar (PW2) also finds due St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 102 corroboration from the testimony of SI Sita Ram (PW11) who has similarly deposed that when he had gone to the village of the accused Kaushal Singh to investigating the matter he did not find anybody there but come to know from the villagers that the accused Kaushal Singh had come to the village and informed them that the deceased Baby Devi had committed suicide and he had cremated her at Delhi. There is no reason to disbelieve SI Sita Ram (PW11) or Ramudit Kumar (PW2) in this regard. This apparently has been done by the accused only to divert the course of investigations so that nobody in his village could question him with regard to the whereabouts of his wife. This conduct of the accused in locking the doors of the room which he had taken on rent in Delhi and thereafter going to his native village and informing the villagers that the deceased Baby Devi had committed suicide by consuming poison and he had already performed her last rites coupled with his conduct of running away and absconding till 20.12.2005, is suggestive of his guilt.

Contradictions and Discrepancies:

Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has vehemently argued that Ramudit Kumar (PW2) in his first statement made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada (Bihar) has stated that it was on 22.9.2005 that the accused had come to their village along with Subodh Kumar and had taken his sister away to Delhi but before the St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 103 court has given the date of 25.9.2008 which is a material contradiction and his testimony is liable to be discarded.

Further, the Ld. Counsel has argued that there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of various witnesses of the police in so far as the time of recovery of the pieces of the dead body of the deceased, giving of information to the family of the deceased, identification of the dead body and the recovery of the clothes of the deceased from the room of the accused and recovery of weapon of offence is concerned. Though this argument has been raised but it is evident from the memorandum of arguments placed on record that the discrepancies as aforesaid have not been specified.

It is a settled law that there are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.

The Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to why discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. In the judgment of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 104 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC, the Supreme Court pointed out the following reasons as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses.

(a) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.

(b) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events.

The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.

(c) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.

(d) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.

(e) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 105 Again, it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person.

(f) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated lateron.

(g) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross­examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, of fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved through the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism activated on the moment.

Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that as regards the above discrepancies, it may be observed that the same are too minor to be even taken into consideration. The witness Ramudit Kumar (PW2) being totally illiterate, coming from a remote village of Bihar to depose in a Court in Delhi, a lot of events happening in a short span, is likely to get nervous or mix­up in so far as the date is concerned being overawed by Court St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 106 atmosphere. Therefore, the date on which the deceased left with the accused is concerned, the testimony of Ramudit Kumar having been recorded after almost two years of the incident, the possibility of the witness having forgotten the date cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the date given by him in his first complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada (Bihar) is the one which is liable to be considered by this court because it is this date which tallies with the time of death of deceased in Delhi. Naturally, the deceased being in Delhi on 25.9.2005 could not have been present in Bihar on the said date. Further, it would be improper to reject the testimony of Ramudit Kumar (PW2) only on this count. The discrepancies in the timings as pointed out by the counsel for the accused are too immaterial which can be ignored attributing the same to the lapse of time as the material facts have been substantially proved by the prosecution. Defence of the accused Kaushal Singh:

The accused before this court raised many inconsistent defence and has also raised the defence of alibi stating that at the time of incident he was not available in Delhi and was working as labour in Punjab. I may observe that in his entire statement he has not specified the place where he was present at the time of the incident, the name of his employer or the place of his employment and his defence is vague. Rather, on the contrary his presence in the village stands established St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 107 from the testimony of family members and brother of the deceased since he was the one who had gone to fetch the deceased from her village. Further SI Sita Ram has also corroborated what has been stated by Ramudit Kumar and in his testimony has deposed that when he went for investigations to the village of the accused Kaushal Singh, he could not find anybody at his house but he came to know from the villagers on inquiry that Kaushal Singh had come to the village and told them that deceased had committed suicide and he had also performed her last rites in Delhi itself. The testimony of Ramudit Kumar is also relevant in this regard. After he had received a call from SI Sita Ram, he immediately rushed to the village of the accused Kaushal Singh but there he could not find anybody. Rather, on inquiry from the villagers he came to know that Kaushal Singh came to the village and had informed that Baby Devi had expired due to poisoning and he had also cremated her and performed her last rites in Delhi itself. Therefore, finding this suspicious Ramudit Kumar immediately first went to the local police for registration of a case against the accused but on refusal of the local police to do so, he immediately filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada (Bihar) vide Ex.PW2/DA wherein this fact finds a specific mention. This only proves and establishes that the manner in which the murder of the deceased had been carefully planned and executed. I find no force in St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 108 the defence so raised by the accused.

Allegations against the accused Kaushal Singh stands established:

The case of the prosecution is that after the accused Kaushal Singh was already having a dispute with the deceased which according to the family of the deceased was on account of demand of Rs.50,000/­ and a motorcycle made by the accused but I may observe that the mother of the deceased namely Smt. Ahilya (PW18) has come up with a different version. According to her, the deceased Baby Devi had informed her before her death that the accused was having illicit physical relations with his sister in law/ Bhabhi namely Seema and also threatened her that in case if she discloses this fact to anybody, he would kill her. The accused on the other hand has raised a defence that since the deceased was into a consensual relationship with him outside her marriage, her family was apprehensive of the same due to which reason they have themselves either killed her or hidden her somewhere and falsely implicate him in the present case.

I have considered the rival contentions and the evidence on record. I may observe that Firstly in so far as the defence of the accused that Baby Devi is still alive and has been concealed by her family members is devoid of merit as her dead body had been duly identified by them and even the photographs placed on record which have not been duly controverted by the accused Kaushal Singh are St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 109 identical with the photographs of the deceased. Secondly the fact that the accused was living with the deceased as husband and wife also stands established. Rather, the accused has admitted the same. Thirdly the fact of the accused having gone to the village of deceased along with his Jija Subodh Kumar and brought Baby Devi to Delhi on 22.9.2005 also stands established from the testimonies of the family members of the deceased and from the first information given by Ramudit Kumar to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada (Bihar) vide Ex.PW2/DA. Fourthly the fact that the accused Kaushal Singh was initially residing with his brother Suchit Kumar and his Bhabhi Seema in a rented accommodation of Kamlesh Yadav also stands established from the testimony of Kamlesh Yadav (PW10). Further, the fact that thereafter the accused Kaushal Singh thereafter took another room on rent in the property of Santosh Kumar on the ground that his wife had now joined him, has also been established from the testimony of Santosh Kumar (PW23). In this regard, I may observe that Kamlesh Yadav (PW10) has not completely supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that it was he who had let out the room in the property of Santosh Kumar to the accused Kaushal Singh. On a complete reading the entire testimony of Kamlesh Yadav, he is found to be consistent in his deposition on the aspect of preparation of seizure memo of clothes of the deceased at the spot which seizure memo duly St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 110 bears his signatures. Fifthly it is evident that Santosh Kumar (PW23) has admitted that he had constructed various rooms in his property which was being let out to different persons and Kamlesh Yadav who was having his property just opposite to his (Santosh Kumar's) property and was supervising the same. According to Santosh Kumar, he had been told by Kamlesh Yadav that he had let out one room to Kaushal Singh as his wife had joined his company but after one or two days they left the room after closing the doors and when he came to know about the murder of Baby Devi, he informed the police about the same.

Kamlesh Yadav (PW10) had been letting out the rooms in the area under his supervision and understandably being known to the people in the area, it is only natural that he would like to keep away from any kind of legal intricacies and it was for this reason that he had not come out with the complete truth. Sixthly the weapon of offence i.e. Dao had been got recovered at the instance of the accused Kaushal Singh which recovery had been witnessed by an independent public witness namely Mahipal (PW4). Seventhly the nature of injuries on the body of the deceased and the findings on the postmortem report are compatible and match with the weapon of offence particularly the incised wound over left side of face extending up to forehead going into brain tissue and cutting with maxilla and mandible (injury no.2) in the postmortem report Ex.PW16/A). The said injury is evident from the St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 111 photograph of the deceased placed on record and evidently as of the same size as that of the blade of the Dao which is Ex.P­1. Lastly it stands established from the testimony of the police officers that the various pieces of the body of the deceased were recovered from the area near the railway crossing, Nizampur on 27th and 28th of September 2005.

This being so, I hereby hold that the allegations against the accused that he brought Baby Devi to Delhi and thereafter took a separate room on rent where he brutally murdered her and thereafter disposed off her body by cutting it into pieces and threw it in the ground near the railway line stands established and proved. Case against the accused Jitender Singh:

In so far as the accused Jitender Singh is concerned the only charge against him is under Section 201 read with 34 Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of evidence by concealing the dead body near railway crossing Nizampur with the intent to screen Kaushal Singh from punishment. The allegations against him are that he is the brother in law (sala) of Suchit the brother of the accused Kaushal Singh and the accused Kaushal Singh with the help of accused Jitender Singh had concealed the dead body of Baby Devi near railway crossing Nizampur. The only evidence is the disclosure statement of the St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 112 accused Kaushal Singh which is Ex.PW11/G wherein he had disclosed to the police that on 25.9.2005 after his wife had come to Delhi, he had taken a room of the house of Santosh on rent which room was given to him on rent by Kamlesh Yadav and since he suspected his wife having carrying somebody else's baby as her stomach was enlarged and therefore, he strangulated her and thereafter sought the help from the accused Jitender along with Pappu and also of one Chote and in the late night hours they wrapped the body of the deceased in a dari and bed sheet and took her near the Nizampur railway crossing where they cut the body of the deceased while Jitender and other persons caught hold of it and they thereafter stewed the pieces in the area and came back. In so far as the aspect of the deceased being pregnant is concerned, the same is not borne out from the postmortem report. Further, the only witness to connect Jitender with the offence was Vijender Singh (PW6) but Vijender Singh (PW6) has turned hostile with regard to the earlier statement made by him to the police mark X­1 recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has denied that on the intervening night of 26­27.3.2005 at about 2:30 am when he got up he noticed that Kaushal, Jitender, Navin and Pappu were passing in front of his shop and Kaushal was having a gathri on his head and when he inquired from them, they told that they were removing their household items as they were going to the native village by the St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 113 morning train. There is no other witness or evidence to nail the accused Jitender Singh. This being so, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations made against the accused Jitender.

FINAL FINDINGS:

In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre­requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 114

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the identity of the accused Kaushal Singh stands established. He has been duly identified as the second husband of the deceased Baby Devi with whom Baby Devi had been residing as a wife. It has also been established that initially after her marriage Baby Devi stayed with the accused and even gave birth to a baby boy who unfortunately expired. Thereafter due to certain differences with the accused Baby Devi was living at her parents house at village Bihar but thereafter she was sent to Delhi along with the accused Kaushal Singh and his brother in law (jija) Subodh Singh after a reconciliation between them. The prosecution has also duly established that the accused Kaushal Singh was initially residing with his brother Suchit Kumar and his Bhabhi Seema in a rented accommodation of Kamlesh Yadav. It has been established that the accused Kaushal Singh thereafter took another room on rent in the St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 115 property of Santosh Kumar through Kamlesh Yadav on the ground that his wife had now joined him. The prosecution has been able to establish that the accused Kaushal Singh stayed in the room of Santosh Kumar for some time with the deceased. It further stands established that the deceased was murdered sometime between 24.9.2005 and 25.9.2005 (i.e. within just one or two days of her coming to Delhi with the accused). She was first hit with the Dao on the left side of her face due to which reason she received an incised wound over left side of face extending up to forehead going into brain tissue and cutting with maxilla and mandible which matches with the blade of the Dao got recovered by the accused later and was perhaps later strangulated. Thereafter the body of the deceased was cut into pieces and was thrown in the area along the railway line Nizampur and the Dao was thrown in the bushes which Dao was got recovered by the accused on 21.12.2005 in the presence of public witness Mahipal Singh.

Therefore, in so far as the accused Kaushal Singh is concerned, the prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 116 the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. I hereby hold that the accused Kaushal Singh committed the murder of Baby Devi and in order to screen himself from legal punishment he concealed the dead body of Baby Devi near railway crossing Nizampur, Delhi and cut her body into pieces which he threw in the bushes. Hence, the accused Kaushal Singh is hereby held guilty of the offence under Section 302 and Section 201 Indian Penal Code for which he is accordingly convicted.

However, in so far as the accused Jitender Singh is concerned, I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused Jitender Singh and the possibility of some other person being the author of the offence cannot be ruled out. The possibility of the offence having been committed by either one person or even more than one cannot be ruled out. There is nothing on record to definitely establish that the accused actually committed the offence. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 117 ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it has not been established that in all human probability the act has been done by the accused. The materials brought on record by the prosecution are insufficient to hold that the accused Jitender Singh was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not established a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused namely Jitender Singh. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases based on circumstances evidence. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Jitender Singh, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them who are acquitted of the charges under Section 201 Indian Penal Code.

Case be listed for arguments on sentence qua the convict Kaushal Singh for 22.7.2011.

Announced in the open court                                    (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 19.7.2011                                               ASJ­II(NW)/ ROHINI




St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi                  Page No. 118 
       IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSION 
       JUDGE­II(NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI


Session Case No. 1110/08
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0441532006

State                             Vs.      (1)      Kaushal Singh
                                                    S/o Lt. Chandrika Singh
                                                    R/o Village Dhanwa,
                                                    Distt. Nawada, Bihar
                                                    (Convicted)

                                           (2)      Jitender Singh
                                                    S/o Sh. Kapil Dev Singh
                                                    R/o Pachrukhi, Distt. Gaya,
                                                    Bihar
                                                    (Acquitted)


                                           (3)      Naveen @ Chote
                                                    S/o Kishan Singh
                                                    Village Dhanwa, PS Rupo,
                                                    Distt. Nawada, Bihar
                                                    (Proclaimed Offender)

                                           (4)  Pappu 
                                                S/o Naresh Singh
                                                R/o Village Paki, PS Silav,
                                                Distt. Nalanda, Bihar
                                                (Proclaimed Offender)
FIR No.:                                   968/05
Police Station:                            Nangloi
Under Section:                             302/201/34 Indian Penal Code

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi                     Page No. 119 
 Date of conviction:                        19.7.2011

Arguments heard on:                        8.8.2011/ 18.8.2011

Date of sentence:                          18.8.2011


APPEARANCE:

Present: Sh. Taufique Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Convict Kaushal Singh in judicial custody with Sh. Arvind Singh Advocate.

ORDER ON SENTENCE:

The convict before this court is the husband of the deceased who brutally killed his wife Baby Devi in a pre planned manner and after committing the murder, he in order to screen himself from legal punishment, took the help of accused Jitender, Naveen (PO) and Pappu (PO) and disposed off her body by cutting it into pieces. The matter did not end there and further in order to escape legal punishment and divert the course of investigations, he went to his native village and disclosed to the neighbours that his wife Baby Devi had committed suicide and he had cremated her at Delhi itself. However, having come to know about the death of Baby Devi her brother namely Ramudit Kumar went to the village of the accused after which he filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 120 Nawada (Bihar) and made allegations against the accused Kaushal Singh.

The case as put up by the prosecution is that the accused Kaushal Singh is the second husband of the deceased Baby Devi . Her first husband had expired in a road accident after which she was married to the accused Kaushal Singh. There was some dispute between the accused and the deceased since as per the allegations the accused was harassing the deceased and she was residing at the village of her brother at Paharpur, Bihar. On 22.9.2005 the accused Kaushal Singh along with his brother in law/ Jija went to the village of the brother of the deceased and took her to Delhi. The deceased came to Delhi and the accused Kaushal Singh had taken one room in the house of Santosh through one Kamlesh Yadav on rent where he stayed for some time with the deceased. The deceased was murdered by the accused Kaushal Singh sometime between 24.9.2005 and 25.9.2005. The deceased was first hit with the Dao on the left side of her face due to which reason she received an incised wound over left side of face extending up to forehead going into brain tissue and cutting with maxilla and mandible. Thereafter, she was strangulated to death and her body was cut into pieces with the Dao which pieces were thrown in the area and the Dao was thrown in the bushes. After the arrest of the accused he got recovered the clothes of the deceased Baby Devi from St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 121 the room which he had taken on rent. On 21.12.2005 the accused also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Dao with which he had cut the body of the deceased into pieces in the presence of public witness Mahipal Singh.

There is no eye witness to the incident but the circumstances speak for themselves. On the basis of the medical evidence and the Last Seen evidence coupled with the subsequent conduct of the accused and the testimony of the family members of the deceased, this court vide a detailed judgment, has held the accused Kaushal Singh guilty of the offence under Section 302/201 Indian Penal Code and convicted him accordingly. However, benefit of doubt has been given to the accused Jitender who has been acquitted of the charge under Section 201/34 Indian Penal Code.

I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence. The Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the present case falls under the category of Rarest of Rare and placed his reliance on the judgments of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC (Crl.) 580 and Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 SCC (Crl.) 681. He has argued that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no alternative before this court but to impose death sentence upon the convict Kaushal Singh who has committed a heinous crime against a woman St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 122 who was none else but his own wife. It is argued that keeping in view the perversity exhibited by the convict who not only committed the murder but in order to shield himself cut the body of the deceased into pieces and threw it near the railway track, Capital Punishment may be imposed. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the convict is a danger to the society and therefore, under no circumstances he should be treated with leniency. He submits that in case if this court is not satisfied that the case falls within the Rarest of Rare category then this court may consider the alternative option as the case falls in the category of Rare Case.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has vehemently argued that the present case does not fall within the category of Rarest of Rare. It is submitted that the convict who is aged about 41 years, is the sole bread earner of his family comprising of aged parents and one elder brother. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that the convict is not a previous offender and has no criminal background and is in judicial custody since 20.12.2005.

I have considered the rival contentions. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Sarin in the case of State Vs. Atbir & Ors. and Atbir Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 1802 has culled out the law relating to principles governing the determination of sentence. It has been observed by his lordships that for the offence of St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 123 murder, life sentence is the normal rule with death sentence an exception to be imposed in rarest of rare cases. The legal principle for determining whether a case warrants extreme penalty of death sentence or lesser punishment, can be conveniently culled out from among the following judgments of the Supreme Court:­

1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, MANU/ SC/0111/1980:

1980 Cri.LJ 636.

2. Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1974 (4) SC 443.

3. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0353/1983:

(1984) ILLJ 35 SC.

4. State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram, MANU/SC/0618/2003 :

(2003) 8 SCC 224.

5. Ram Pal v. State of UP, MANU/SC/0545/2003 : 2003 Cri.L.J. 3760.

6. Amit @ Amma v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 8 SCC 1993.

7. Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand, 2004 SCC (Crl) 529.

8. Devatha Venkataswami @ Rangaiah v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, MANU/SC/0685/2003 : 2003 Cri.L.J. 4332.

In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), the court noted that it was neither practicable nor desirable to imprison St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 124 the sentencing discretion of a judge or a jury in the strait­jacket of exhaustive and rigid standards. Further, it was not impossible to lay down broad guidelines as distinguished from ironcased standards which would minimize the risk of arbitrary imposition of death penalty for murder and some other offences under the penal code. Noting the provisions of Sections 354(3) and 235(2) of Cr.P.C, the court held that the extreme penalty can be inflicted only in gravest cases of extreme culpability and in making choice of the sentence, in addition to the circumstances of the offence, due regard must be paid to the circumstances of the offender also. The court noted in para 197 that pre­planned, calculated, cold blooded murder has always been regarded as one of an aggravated kind. If a murder is "diabolically conceived and cruelly executed", it would justify the imposition of the death penalty on the murderer.

In Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), the court observed that "The weapons used and the manner of their use, the horrendous features of the crime and hapless state of the victim, and the like, steel the heart of the law for a sterner sentence."

Further, in the case of Bachan Singh, the court also noted the "Aggravating circumstances" and "Mitigating Circumstances"

which ought to be considered for imposition of penalty of death in its discretion which are as under:

St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 125

Aggravating circumstances

(a) if the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or

(b) if the murder involves exceptional depravity; or

(c) if the murder is of a member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of a member of any police force or of any public servant and was committed­

(i) while such member or public servant was on duty; or

(ii) in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such member or public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty as such member or public servant whether at the time of murder he was such member or public servant, as the case may be, or had ceased to be such member or public servant; or

(d) if the murder is of a person who had acted in the lawful discharge of his duty under Section 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or who had rendered assistance to a Magistrate or a police officer after demanding his aid or requiring his assistance under Section 37 and Section 129 of the said Code.

Mitigating circumstances

1. That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 126 mental or emotional disturbance.

2. The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death.

3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence.

4. That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person.

5. That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.

In Machi Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), the court held the following propositions for determination of rarest of rare cases which emerge from Bachan Singh's case:­

1. When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.

2. When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g murder by hired assassin for money for reward or a cold blooded murder for gains of a person vis­a­ vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position or trust, or murder is committed in the course for St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 127 betrayal of the motherland.

3. When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath, or in cases of "bride burning" or "dowry deaths" or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation.

4. When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed.

5. When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or helpless woman or an old or infirm person or a person vis­a­vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community I may mention that Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Sarin had clarified that in so far as the conditions no. 3 and 4 as given in Bachan Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court only intended these to be enumerated as relevant considerations and factors and not conditions precedent. It does not appear plausible for the State to always lead affirmative evidence to prove that an accused does not St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 128 satisfy the probability that he would not commit criminal acts as would constitute a continuing threat to society or that the accused cannot be reformed.

Coming now to the argument of the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor that the present case falls within the category of Rare Cases and the alternative option in this regard can be explored. I may observe that hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog in his decision as rendered in Shree Gopal @ Mani Gopal Vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 528/09 decided on 31.8.2009 examined this facet pertaining to the sentencing procedure i.e of consideration of alternative options while referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as rendered in the case Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharashtra, JT 2009 (7) SC 249. Further, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nandrajog also considered the various alternatives available to him in the light of Section 433 Cr.P.C. and Section 433A Cr.P.C. regarding the meaning of the sentence for imprisonment for life and the power of the executive to grant remission but, not before a period of 14 years of imprisonment. He also referred to various other decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while classifying the sentence of imprisonment in two categories i.e the ordinary category whereby the court leaves the exercise of executive power at the discretion of the executive, to be so exercised after 14 years of imprisonment and grant St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 129 remission; and a higher category, where the Court, in a Rare Case, but not the Rarest of the Rare, would clip the said benefit being extended to the convict by directing that the convict shall undergo an actual sentence for a higher period or even for the remainder of his life. Such kind of cases can be put in the category of Rare Cases with appropriate direction of not being entitled to the benefit of remission till a fixed term of imprisonment is undergone. Some of the decisions, noted in this regard by the Hon'ble Judge were Swami Shraddhanand Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2007 (SC) 2531 in paras 60 to 63 of the said decision i.e the decisions reported as Shri Bhagwan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2001 (6) SCC 296, Parkash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 (2) SCC 35, Ram Anoop Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2002 (6) SCC 686 and Mohd. Munna Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (7) SCC 417. The convict in the said case was thus sentenced to imprisonment for life with a direction that he will not be considered for being grant of remission till he undergoes an actual sentence of 20 years.

In the case of Shree Gopal @ Mani Gopal Vs. State (Supra) under similar circumstances, the Delhi High Court has Ruled against Capital Punishment but at the same time has held it to be a St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 130 Rare Case thereby sentencing the convict to life with the condition that he shall not be entitled to any remission till he has undergone an actual imprisonment for 20 years.

Now applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the various aggravating circumstances are that the convict is a mature man of 41 years and was the second husband of the deceased. The manner in which the deceased had been brutally killed proves that the offence had been pre­ planned and he has executed the same in a cold blooded manner and the extent of brutality is writ large. Further, in order to screen himself from legal punishment, he ruthlessly cut the body into pieces and stewed them in the ground along the railway line. The only mitigating factor on the other hand being that the convict has no previous criminal record and being the earning hand of his family comprising of aged parents.

I may observe that the proportion between the crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle and it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence can do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. Society cannot long endure under such serious threats and hence, the duty of the court is to award proper sentence having regards to the nature of the offence. St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 131 Friedman in his book "Law in Changing Society" had observed that, State of criminal law continues to be as it should be a decisive reflection of social unconsciousness of society and therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. Therefore, under the given circumstances I hereby hold that by deft modulation sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be and any undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence in the present case can be misplaced. In the present case, after considering the balance sheet of the aggravating and mitigating factors as drawn up herein above and the brutality reflected from the photographs so gruesome and sickness that anybody who would have seen the scene or even the photographs of the severed portion of the body parts stewed all over the ground, would not have slept for days. The convict before this court certainly deserves no mercy.

No doubt the case in hand would not fall within the category of Rarest of Rare but it certainly falls within the category of Rare Cases calling for consideration of alternative options as laid down in the cases of Swami Shraddhanand Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2007 (SC) 2531 and in the case of Shree Gopal @ Mani Gopal Vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 528/09 decided on 31.8.2009. St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 132

I, therefore, award the following sentences to the convict Kaushal Singh:

1. The convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life with the direction that he shall not be considered for grant of remission till he undergoes an actual sentence of Twenty (20) years and fine for a sum of Rs.10,000/­ (Rs. Ten Thousand) for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. I also sentence the convict to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Four Years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/­ for the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week.

Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules.

The convict has been informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi Page No. 133 Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34­37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.

Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached with his jail warrants.

File be consigned to Record Room to be taken up on the arrest of the accused Naveen @ Chote and Pappu who are proclaimed offenders.

Announced in the open court                                (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 18.8.2011                                         ASJ­II(NW)/ ROHINI




St. Vs. Kaushal Singh Etc., FIR No. 968/05, PS Nangloi                Page No. 134