Delhi District Court
State vs Rajender @ Sonu S/O Late Sh. on 17 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE - 2 : WEST/ TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 31/3/10
Assigned to Sessions. 05/07/10
Arguments heard on 24.08.2011
Date of order. 17.09.2011
FIR No. 74/10
State Vs Rajender @ Sonu s/o Late Sh.
Satpal, R/o Village Mundlana,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
Police Station Ranhola
Under Section 302 IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Briefly facts of the case are that on 14.03.2010 Ct. Satpal gave information to duty officer at PS Ranhola regarding lying a dead body of one female near Barat Ghar, Gurdayal Vihar. Accordingly a DD No.17A was lodged at about 10:25 AM by the duty officer. This DD was marked to ASI Jai Singh who was on emergency duty and copy of the same was sent to ASI Jai Singh through Ct. Gulab for necessary action.
2. ASI Jai Singh along with PSI Shiv Kumar and Ct. Gulab reached at the State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 1 / 45 place of occurrence. After some time, PW19 Insp. Sajjan Singh also reached at the spot. He found dead body of a female aged about 4045 years old lying in an open space near Barat Ghar, Gurdayal Vihar and there were injuries on her head, neck and on the face. At a distance of 56 feet on the right side of the dead body one spade having blood stains was also found lying there and on the other side of the dead body one iron Khudaal about three and a half feet long was also lying at a distance of 56 feet. One woolen cardigan was also lying above the bushes, at a distance of 1520 feet away from the dead body. No eye witness was found present at the spot. ASI Jai Singh made his endorsement on the DD itself and gave the same to Ct. Gulab for getting the case registered.
3. During the course of inquiry, it was revealed that the name of deceased was Babli, who used to live in a nearby house. Crime Team officials were called at the spot who inspected the site, took the photographs from different angles. No chance prints/fingerprints could be lifted by them. After registration of the case, Ct. Gulab reached back at the spot and gave copy of FIR and original tehrir to PW19 Ins.Sajjan Singh as further State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 2 / 45 investigation was marked to him. He also inspected the site, prepared site plan vide Ex.PW19/A, bearing sign at point A. He lifted exhibits i.e. one spade, one Khudaal, blood stained earth with hair, earth control and woolen cardigan and all these exhibits were given serial no. 1 to 5 respectively and were kept in separate parcels and all the parcels were sealed with the seal of JS and the seal after use was given to ASI Jai Singh. He prepared seizure memo vide Ex.PW5/B in this regard. He had also taken the artificial chain along with locket, one pair of artificial tops, one artificial ring, another artificial ring having Nag and one iron ring from the dead body of Babli, kept all these articles in a parcel and it was also sealed with the seal of JS and same was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW5/C. Dead body was sent to mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for preservation through Ct. Satpal. Case property was deposited in the malkhana.
4. On 15.03.2010, I.O. conducted inquiry, recorded statement of witnesses. He completed the proceedings under section 176 Cr.P.C., vide Ex.PW19/B. On 16.03.2010, I.O. recorded dead body identification State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 3 / 45 statements of Satish and Rajbir vide Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW10/A and got conducted the postmortem. After the postmortem, the dead body was given to Rajbir, brotherinlaw of Rajbir vide Ex.PW19/C. Ct. Satpal gave one polythene duly sealed and one envelope containing blood on gauze of deceased and one sample seal and same was taken into possession through seizure memo vide Ex.PW2/A and later on it was deposited in the malkhana.
5. In the evening of 16.03.2010, I.O./PW19 along with ASI Jai Singh, Ct.Vinod, Ct. Gulab, Ct. Driver Satbir went to Chanchal Park for investigation of the present case. At about 07:00 PM, one secret informer met who stated that the person who committed murder, would come from Bakkarwala Side for going to his residence. I.O. asked 56 public persons to join the investigation but no one came forward. Thereafter, I.O. prepared a raiding party consisting of aforesaid police officials and raiding party was deployed at Bakkarwala road and they were instructed to apprehend the accused as and when I.O. give signal through torch. The secret informer pointed towards one person as State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 4 / 45 Rajender @ Sonu as the murderer of his mother. At that time, that person was limping. I.O. gave signal by torch to the raiding party who all apprehended that person whose name on interrogation revealed as Rajinder @ Sonu. Accused was interrogated, his disclosure statement was recorded. As per his disclosure statement, he disclosed that his mother was living with some other person and his father had already died and due to this reason their reputation was at stake and that is why he has murdered his mother. I.O. recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW4/C. Consequent upon his disclosure statement accused led the police party towards Bakkarwala drain, near Shani Mandir and from the bushes accused produced one polythene and it was found containing checkdar shirt, one light Matiyaali pant, at the back pocket of the pant Dean Man was printed. Both the clothes were blood stained. Both the clothes were kept in the same polythene and it was kept in a cloth parcel and was sealed with the seal of JS and the seal after use was given to SI Jai Singh. I.O. prepared pointing out memo and seizure memo vide Ex.PW4/D. Accused had also pointed the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW4/E. Accused State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 5 / 45 was arrested vide his arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW4/A and B. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Accused was put behind the lock up. I.O recorded statement of witnesses. On the next day, accused was produced before the concerned court and from there he was sent to J/C.
6. On 13.04.2010 exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini through SI Sudhir Kumar, along with FSL Form and the forwarding letter. On the next day, I.O. got prepared the scaled site plan through SI Mahesh Chand along with SI Jai Singh of the place of occurrence. Result was obtained from FSL. During the course of investigation, I.O. had also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery vide Ex.PW19/D.
7. This case was committed to this Court and was received on 05.07.2010 for trial as it pertains to the heinous crime committed under section 302 IPC which is exclusively triable by court of Sessions. A charge for the offence u/s 302 IPC was framed against the accused to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 6 / 45
8. To prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses namely PW1 Ct. Manoj Kumar - formal witness who delivered the copies of FIR to the senior police officials, PW2 Ct. Satyapal Singh - formal witness, PW3 ASI Pradeep Kumar - duty officer on 14.03.2010, PW4 and PW16 is HC Gulab Singh no.100/W - who visited the spot during the course of investigation, PW5 ASI Jai Singh no. 557/D - another witness who accompanied the I.O., PW6 Satpal Singh - is the witness who affirmed the fact that deceased Rajbala was residing with one Suresh, PW7 ASI Jai Singh no.3942/D, PW8 HC Inder Raj, PW9 Sardar Singh @ Sardare - public witness but hostile witness in this case, PW10 Rajbir - formal witness who identified the dead body of deceased Rajbala, PW11 Satish another formal witness who identified the dead body of deceased Rajabala, PW12 Ct.Anil Kumar formal witness being photographer who took photographs of the scene of occurrence, PW13 SI Mahesh Kumar - another formal witness being Draftsman, PW14 SI Sudhir Kumar - formal witness being MHCM, PW15 Suresh Pehalwan - another witness who affirmed the fact that State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 7 / 45 deceased Rajbala was residing with one Suresh @ Kala at Gurdayal Vihar, PW16 HC Gulab Singh - another witness who accompanied the I.O. at the spot, PW17 SI Shiv Kumar - another witness who also accompanied the I.O. at the spot on receiving information regarding lying dead body of deceased, PW18 Dr. J V Kiran is the witness who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased on 16.03.2010 and PW19 Insp. Sajjan Singh - I.O. of the case.
9. PW 1 Constable Manoj Kumar came to the witness box deposed that on 14.03.2010 he was posted at PS Ranhola where Duty Officer ASI Pradeep Kumar handed over copies of FIR to him kept in different envelopes to be delivered to senior Police Officers and the Elaka Magistrate. Accordingly he delivered copies to the Elaka Magistrate, nd Joint C.P Southern Range, DCP West1st and 2 ACP Nangloi and DCP PCR. This witness has not been crossexamined.
10.PW2 Ct. Satyapal Singh came to the witness box and deposed that on 16.03.2010 he was posted at PS Ranhola. He had gone to Sanjay State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 8 / 45 Gandhi Hospital Mortuary where doctor handed over to him a sealed Pulanda sealed with the hospital seal containing clothes of the deceased and another Pulanda containing blood sample which was also seized with the hospital seal. This witness handed over the Pulandas to the IO which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex PW2/A. This witness has been crossexamined by Smt. Chitramal, Amicus Curie counsel for the accused. During the course of crossexamination this witness deposed that pulandas were handed over to him approximately 12 Noon.
11.PW3 ASI Pradeep Kumar deposed that on 14.03.2010 he was posted as duty officer at PS Ranhola and his duty hours were 9AM to 5PM. He further deposed that a rukka was sent by ASI Jai Singh through Ct.Gulab Singh on receipt of which he registered FIR bearing number 74/2010. The same is in his handwriting and bears his signature at point A on Computerized copy of FIR vide Ex PW3/A. This witness further deposed that he has also made an endorsement on the rukka and the same is Ex Pw3/B. Investigations of the case were taken up by Inspector Sajjan Singh. This witness further deposed that he had also recorded DD State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 9 / 45 no.17A and the same is Ex PW3/C. This witness has also been cross examined by Smt. Chitramal, Amicus Curie counsel for the accused. During the course of crossexamination he deposed that he received the rukka at 01.00 P.M. He completed FIR at 01.35PM.
12.PW4 H.C Gulab Singh has also been examined as PW16 in this case. This witness came to the witness box and deposed that he was posted at PS Ranhola on 14.03.2010. The DO had handed over to him DD no. 17A. Thereafter, he along with ASI Jai Singh and SI Shiv Kumar reached at Gurdayal Vihar which is in Chanchal Park. He further deposed that near the Barat Ghar he found a dead body of a female aged about 45 years. He had also seen a Phavda and a Khudaal lying near the dead body. He had also seen a woolen cardigan lying at a distance of about 1520 feet from the dead body. ASI Jai Singh prepared a Tehrir and the same was handed over to him. He went to the PS and got the present case registered. Copy of FIR and rukka was handed over to Insp. Sajjan Singh who carried further investigations.
State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 10 / 45
13.This witness further deposed that again on 16.03.2010 he joined the investigations of the present case. He along with ASI Jai Singh, HC Vinod and the I.O. have gone to Chanchal Park in Official vehicle. At about 7 P.M. a secret informer came and met the IO and informed him that a person who is wanted in the present case, is the son of the deceased, and his name is Sonu and who is partially handicapped in walking would come from Bakarwala Gaon side and would go towards his house. I.O. on receipt of the information requested 45 public persons to join the investigation and the raiding party but none was willing to join and all of them left without giving their names and addresses. Without wasting any time the IO constituted a raiding party comprises of the Police staff. At about 7.30 P.M. accused was seen coming. I.O. gave the predetermined signal through torch. Accused was apprehended and his name was revealed as Rajender @Sonu. He was arrested vide arrest and personal search memo Ex Pw4/A and Pw4/B. His disclosure statement Ex Pw4/C was also recorded. The accused later on led the police party near Shani Mandir bushes from where he got recovered a polythene containing his wearing clothes on the day of the State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 11 / 45 incident and having blood stains the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex Pw4/D. The accused had also pointed out the spot of occurrence where he had allegedly killed his mother by means of Phavda. Pointing out memo Ex Pw4/E was prepared and signed. The case property was sealed with the seal of JS. The wearing clothes comprised of a check shirt, one Pant of Matiala colour having the label of Deanman.. Seal after use was handed over to ASI Jai Singh. This witness identified the clothes as the same were got recovered at the instance of accused from near Shani Mandir bushes. Clothes are already collectively Ex.PC. He correctly identified the accused. This witness has been crossexamined. I have perused the same. No contrary evidence has come on record.
14.PW5 ASI Jai Singh came to the witness box and deposed more or less on similar lines as deposed by PW4 since he visited the spot on 14/03/2010 on receiving DD no.17A. This witness got exhibited the arrest and personal search memo of accused as Ex PW4/A and PW4/B. Disclosure statement of accused as Ex PW4/C. This witness further State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 12 / 45 affirmed and deposed that accused led the police party near Shani Mandir bushes from where he had taken out a polythene containing his wearing clothes on the day of the incident and having blood stains the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex Pw4/D. The accused had also pointed out the spot of occurrence where he had allegedly killed his mother by means of Phavda vide pointing out memo Ex.PW4/E. This witness identified one spade (Fawda) as Ex.PA; Kudal as Ex.PB; clothes of accused having blood stained collectively as Ex.PC; the cardigan as Ex.PD; and one artificial chain with locket, one artificial pair of tops, one artificial ring, another artificial ring having Nag and one iron ring as Ex.PE (collectively). He has also correctly identified the accused. This witness has been crossexamined by Ms. Chitramal, Amicus Curae for accused. During the course of crossexamination it has come on record that they did not make any separate entry for their departure from the spot. Public persons were requested but they did not join the investigation. In that Shani temple, people used to visit the temple and used to offer their prayer. He did not find any devotee at Shani temple at that time. This witness admitted in the cross State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 13 / 45 examination that cardigan was lying in a open space, same is his answer regarding spade and Kudal. Public persons were requested to join the investigation at the time of recovery of spade, Kudal and the clothes but none came forward to join the proceedings. He did not give notice to any of the public persons.
15.PW6 Satpal Singh came to the witness box and deposed that he is having a plot at Gurdayal Vihar, Chanchal Vihar near Barat Ghar. There are 67 rooms constructed in the said plot. One person namely Suresh was residing as a tenant in the said plot since September 2009, along with one lady namely Raj Bala. Suresh used to say that Raj Bala is his Bhabi and also used to say that she is a widow and her husband had already expired. Raj Bala was a resident of village Mudlana, Sonepat Haryana as stated to him by Suresh. This witness has been cross examined by Smt.Chitra Mal Amicus Curie for the accused. In the crossexamination it has been admitted that he has no personal knowledge with regard to the relation between Suresh and Raj Bala regarding her residence.
State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 14 / 45
16.PW7 ASI Jai Singh came to the witness box and deposed that on 14.03.2010 he was posted as Incharge at Mobile Crime Team Janakpuri Delhi. One call was received from the control room to reach at Gurdayal Vihar Chanchal Park near Barat Ghar. He along with HC Uddham Singh, finger print expert and Constable Anil Kumar, photographer reached there. IO ASI Jai Singh and SHO Inspector Sajjan Singh along with other staff were present at the spot. He saw that a dead body of a woman was lying in the open space near Barat Ghar. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared SOC report vide is Ex PW7/A and he gave the same to the IO. Constable Anil Kumar had taken the photographs of the dead body at the direction of the IO from different angles. No finger prints could be lifted from the spot by HC Uddham Singh. He noticed that one iron kassi and iron subble were lying near the dead body and one woolen cardigan was also lying near the spot. This witness further deposed that he had seen that there were wound marks on the neck of that lady and upper lip was found cut and some blood was also lying at the spot. This witness has been cross State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 15 / 45 examined by Smt.Chitra Mal Amicus Curie for the accused. During the course of crossexamination he could not tell the measurement of kassi and subble. These articles were lying at a distance of approximately 20 paces. No finger prints could be lifted by finger print expert. He does not remember the colour of the cardigan.
17.PW8 HC Inder Raj appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 14.03.2010 he was posted at Police Station Ranhola as MHCM. On that day Inspector Sajjan Singh deposited five sealed parcels and another parcel which was found containing artificial jewellery of deceased Babli. He made an entry to this effect in the store room register at serial no.72. He brought the original store room register containing the said entry which is in his hand vide photocopy of the same is Ex PW8/A. (OSR). This witness again deposed that on 16/03/2010 Inspector Sajjan Singh deposited two sealed parcels and also deposited one Polythene duly sealed and having containing clothes of the deceased. He made an entry to this effect in the store room register at serial no.74 vide photocopy of the same Ex Pw8/B.(OSR).
State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 16 / 45 This witness further deposed that on 13/04/2010 he sent 8 sealed parcels and one sample seal to FSL Rohini through SI Sudhir Kumar vide RC No.32/21/10 vide photocopy of the same is Ex Pw8/C(OSR). He again deposed that all the parcels remained intact till it remain in his possession. This witness has been crossexamined by Smt.Chitra Mal Amicus Curie for the accused. In the crossexamination it has come on record that he does not remember the time when he made entry serial no.72 and 74. He even could not tell that the said entry was made in the morning hours, afternoon hours, or in the evening hours. He denied the suggestion that said entries are manipulated entries at the instance of the IO or that the same are implicated or that case property was tempered.
18.PW9 Sardar Singh @ Sardare S/o Sh. Neki Ram, Age69 years, R/o 136, Talangpur Kotla Village, Delhi. Runnying a Milk Diary, is the most material witness in this case being public witness. This witness has come to the witness box and deposed that he is having a 300 square yard plot at Gurdayal Vihar Chanchal Park, there is vacant government State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 17 / 45 land adjacent to the said plot and people used to keep/ Upla ( made of cattle dung) in that vacant government land. This witness further th categorically deposed that on 14 of that month, he does not remember the month but it was in the year 2010 at about 11.30 am he was taking away his buffaloes, he saw that one lady namely Rajbala and her son were in that government vacant land and they both were altercating at that time. He had seen them quarreling and thereafter, he along with his buffaloes went away from there and later on he came to know that lady has been killed by her son. Her son came to live along with that lady to the last five six days. After the occurrence, son of that lady ran away from there. He was later on arrested by the police officials after three days. This witness has also deposed that he had noticed that Kassi ( Kudal) and Fabra were lying near the dead body of Rajbala. He correctly identified the accused This witness on seeing case property stated that it is not his fawda and he has not seen this fawda at the place of occurrence. This witness further stated with regard to the identification of Kudal that he has not seen this kudal at the spot. Thereafter, this witness has been crossexamined at length by the ld. State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 18 / 45 APP after declaring him hostile. In the crossexamination done by ld. APP this witness stated that he did not state on the last date of hearing that is 04.09.2010 that he had noticed that kudal and fawda were lying near the dead body of Rajbala. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely as he has been won over by the friends and relatives of accused. He also denied the suggestion that it was his fawda which is now Ex. PA, which accused had taken from him to dig the earth or that he had seen accused digging the earth with the help of fawda and kudal now, Ex. PB. Thereafter, this witness has been crossexamination by defence counsel. In the crossexamination he turned hostile and deposed that on 14.03.2010 he did not witness the quarrel/altercation between accused and his mother. He was not present at the spot. Police did not enquire from him either on 14.03.2010 or 17.03.2010.
19.PW10 Sh. Rajbir S/o Sh. Ram Kishan, Age45 years, R/o Village Mudlana, District Sonipat, Haryana. Occupation Farmer. He came to the witness box and deposed that he identified the dead body of his Bhabhi namely Rajbala at mortuary, SGM, Hospital, Mangolpuri, vide State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 19 / 45 identification memo Ex. PW10/A. This witness has been cross examined by Ms. Chitramal, Amicus Curie for accused. In the cross examination he deposed that he identified the dead body on 16.3.2010.
20.PW11 Satish S/o Sh. Pyare Lal Age28 years, R/o H. No. 814, Vikas Nagar, Panipat, Haryana. Occupation Private worker. He has also identified the dead body of his motherinlaw namely Rajbala at mortuary, SGM, Hospital, Mangolpuri, vide identification memo Ex. PW11/A. This witness has been crossexamined by Ms. Chitramal, Amicus Curie for accused. He deposed in the crossexamination that he identified the dead body on 16.3.2010.
21.PW12 Ct. Anil Kumar No. 614/W, Mobile Crime Team, District West, Delhi, is a formal witness being photographer. He deposed that on 14.3.2010 he was posted at Mobile Crime Team, District West as photographer. On that day he alongwith ASI Jai Singh, Incharge MCT and HC Udham went at the spot i.e. near Baratghar Chanchal Park, Gurdayal Vihar where dead body of one lady was lying in a open space. State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 20 / 45 He took the photographs of the spot from the different angles at the direction of IO. Photographs have been given to the IO. He brought 11 negatives these are the same negatives which were taken by him. This witness got exhibited the negatives and the photographs collectively as Ex.PW12/A. This witness has been crossexamined by Ms. Chitramal, Amicus Curie for accused. In the crossexamination it has come on record that IO alongwith other police staff was also present at the spot when he took the photographs. He could not say as to what other proceedings were conducted by the IO as he was busy in taking the snaps of the spot.
22.PW13 SI Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman, Crime Branch, PHQ, Delhi, another formal witness. He deposed that on 14.04.2010 he was called by Insp. Sajjan Singh, SHO P.S. Ranhola He reached at P.S from where along with Insp. Sajjan Singh and ASI Jai Singh. He visited the place occurrence i.e. vacant land Chanchal Park, Gurdayal Vihar, near community Center, Bakarwala, where at the instance of ASI Jai Singh he prepared rough notes and measurements of the spot. On the basis of State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 21 / 45 those rough notes and measurement he prepared scaled site plan vide Ex. PW13/A. He handed over the scaled site plan to IO and destroyed the rough notes and measurement. This witness has not been cross examined.
23.PW14 SI Sudhir Kumar cane to the witness box and deposed that on 13.04.2010 he was posted at PS Ranhola. On that day MHC(M) gave him a sealed parcel. He deposited the same at FSL Rohini vide R/C No. 32/21/10. He gave receipt of the same to MHC(M). This witness deposed that case property remained intact till it remained in his possession. This witness has been crossexamined by Ms. Chitramal, Amicus Curie for accused. In the crossexamination he deposed that he took the parcel at around 11.30 am and deposited the same at around 12.30 p.m. and returned back to PS at around 2 pm.
24.PW15 is Suresh Pehlwan S/o Sh. Daya Kishan, Age49 years, Village Bakarwala, Delhi, Occupation Property Dealer. He deposed that he is dealing in property at Chanchal Park. He categorically stated that State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 22 / 45 Rajbala is used to reside as Gurdayal Vihar alongwith one person namely Suresh @ Kala. Suresh used to come to meet him. Raj Bala used to say that Suresh @ Kala is her Dever. She used to say that she was resident of Mundlana, Haryana. She also used to say that she was having three children. This witness further deposed that one boy namely Sonu S/o Rajbala, who was lame person was residing alongwith her for the last 45 days before the date of incident and after the murder of Rajbala, Sonu ran away from there. This witness has been cross examined by Ms. Chitramal, Amicus Curie for accused. In the cross examination it has come on record that this witness does not have any personal knowledge regarding the present case. He never used to go at the residence of Rajbala. On one or two occasion Rajbala herself came at his office. He had heard that Sonu was present alongwith Rajbala for the 4 5 days before the date of occurrence.
25.PW16 HC Gulab Singh came to the witness box and deposed that on 14.03.2010 he was posted at P.S. Ranhola. On that day Duty Officer, ASI Pradeep gave him DD No. 17/A for giving the same to ASI Jai State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 23 / 45 Singh. He handed over the same to ASI Jai Singh and at that time PSI Shiv Kumar was also alongwith him. Thereafter, he along with them went to Gurdayal Vihar, Chanchal Park, where dead body of one female was lying in open place. On right side of the dead body one spade was lying and one Kudal was also lying on the other side and one woolen cardigan was also lying at some distance. IO gave him tehrir for getting the case registered. He went to PS Ranhola and got the case registered. Thereafter, he again came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original Tehrir to the IO Insp. Sajjan Kumar who had also reached at the spot. This witness has also been crossexamined by Ms. Chitramal, Amicus Curie for accused. During the course of cross examination it has come on record that I.O. gave him Tehrir at about 12.45 pm. and he reached at the PS within 1015 minutes. After one hour he came back at the spot alone. Insp. Sajjan Kumar came at the spot at about 11.45 am.
26.PW17 SI Shiv Kumar appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 14.3.2010 he was posted at PS Ranhola. On that day he was on State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 24 / 45 probation period. He deposed that he alongwith ASI Jai Singh went at Barat Ghar Bakarwala and noticed that a dead body of lady was lying in open ground, having injuries on her hand and mouth. On the right hand of the dead body, one spade having blood stained was lying and on the other side one iron kudal was lying and at a distance of 1520 feet one woolen cardigan was lying IO lifted all these exhibits. Crime team officials were also called by the IO, who inspected the site, took the photographs. IO prepared Tehrir and gave the same to Ct. Gulab for getting the case registered. This witness after seeing the seizure memos Ex. PW5/B, PW5/C, PW5/D deposed that all these bear his signatures at point B. This witness has also been crossexamined. During the course of crossexamination it has come on record that no public person was present near the spot. They were standing at some considerable distance from the spot. Crime team official lifted finger prints from the spade. He signed two document i.e. two seizure memos. Three crime team official came at the spot at about 11.30 am. He denied the suggestion that he signed all the documents at the PS. State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 25 / 45
27.PW18 Dr. J.V. Kiran, Sr. Resident, Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi came to the witness box and deposed that on 16.03.2010, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of one Raj Bala, 48 years, female, vide PM report no. 242/10. This witness mentioned the internal and external injuries on PM report. He further deposed that in the present case, the death was due to spinal cord damage consequent to blunt force impact to the neck. All injuries were antemortem and fresh in duration. Time since death was about 2 days. He also seized the clothes and the blood on gauze of deceased. This witness got exhibited the PM report is Ex.PW18/A. Ms. Chitramal, amicus curie crossexamined this witness. In the crossexamination it has come on record that he mentioned the brief history i.e. deceased was hit by her own son with a fawda on 14.03.2010 at about 10:25 AM, as per the history given by the IO.
28.PW19 Insp. Sajjan Singh, No. 16810061, MACT Cell, West District, Delhi is the most material witness in this case being I.O. For the sake of brevity and convenience his statement is being reproduced verbatim State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 26 / 45 which is as under: "On 14.03.2010, I was posted at PS Ranhola as SHO. On that day, Ct. Satpal gave information to duty officer regarding lying of dead body of one female near Barat Ghar, Gurdayal Vihar and accordingly one DD No.17A was lodged at about 10:25 AM by the duty officer and that DD was marked to ASI Jai Singh who was on emergency duty and the copy of the same was sent to ASI Jai Singh through Ct. Gulab for necessary action. ASI Jai Singh along with PSI Shiv Kumar and Ct. Gulab reached at the place of occurrence. After some time, I also reached at the spot. I found that dead body of a female aged about 4045 years was lying in an open space near Barat Ghar, Gurdayal Vihar and there were injuries on her head, neck and on the face. At a distance of 56 feet on the right side of the dead body one spade having blood stains was lying and on the other side of the dead body one iron Khudaal about three and a half feet long was also lying at a distance of 56 feet. One woolen cardigan was also lying above the bushes, at a distance of 1520 feet away from the dead body. No eye witness was found present at the spot. ASI Jai Singh made his endorsement on the DD itself and gave the same to Ct. Gulab for getting the case registered. On inquiry, it was revealed that the name of deceased was Babli who used to live in a nearby house. Crime Team officials were called at the spot who inspected the site, took the photographs from different angles. No chance prints/fingerprints could be lifted by them. After registration of the case, Ct. Gulab reached back at the spot and gave me copy of FIR and original tehrir as the further investigation was to be conducted by me. I also inspected the site, prepared site plan vide Ex.PW19/A, bears my sign at point A. I lifted exhibits i.e. one spade, one Khudaal, blood stained earth with hair, earth control and woolen cardigan and all these exhibits were given serial no. 1 to 5 respectively and were kept in separate parcels and all the parcels were sealed with the seal of JS and the seal after use was given to ASI Jai Singh. I prepared seizure memo vide Ex.PW5/B, bears my sign at point B. I had also taken the artificial chain along with locket, one pair of artificial tops, one artificial ring, another artificial ring having Nag and one iron ring from the dead body of Babli, kept all these articles in a parcel and it was also sealed with the seal of JS and same was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW5/C, bears my sign at point C. I got removed the dead body from the spot to mortuary Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for preservation through Ct. Satpal. We came back to the PS. State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 27 / 45 Case property was deposited in the malkhana.
On 15.03.2010, I conducted inquiry, recorded statement of witnesses. I had also completed the proceedings under section 176 Cr.P.C., vide Ex.PW19/B, bears my sign at point A. On 16.03.2010, I recorded identification statements of Satish and Rajbir, vide Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW10/A, bears my sign at point B, got conducted the post mortem and after the post mortem, the dead body was given to Rajbir, brother in law of Rajbir, vide Ex.PW19/C, bears my sign at point A. Ct. Satpal gave me one polythene duly sealed and one envelope containing blood on gauze of deceased and one sample seal. I had taken the same into my possession through seizure memo vide Ex.PW2/A, bears my sign at point B and later on it was deposited in the malkhana.
In the evening of 16.03.2010, I along with ASI Jai Singh, Ct.Vinod, Ct. Gulab, Ct. Driver Satbir went to Chanchal Park for investigation of the present case. At about 07:00 PM, one secret informer met me who stated that the person who committed murder, would come from Bakkarwala Side for going to his residence. 56 public persons were asked to join the investigation by telling the facts of the case and the secret information but no one came forward. Thereafter, I prepared a raiding party consisting of aforesaid police officials and raiding party was deployed at Bakkarwala road and they were instructed to apprehend the accused as and when I give signal through torch. The secret informer pointed towards one person as Rajender @ Sonu as the murderer of his mother. At that time, that person was limping. I gave signal by torch to the raiding party who all apprehended that person whose name on interrogation revealed as Rajinder @ Sonu. I identified Rajender @ Sonu, present before the court. I interrogated accused, recorded his disclosure statement at his version to the effect that his mother was living with some other person and his father had already died and due to this reason their reputation was at stake and that is why he has murdered his mother. I recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW4/C, bears my sign at point A and in his disclosure statement he stated that he can get recovered the clothes which he was wearing on the day of occurrence. Thereafter, accused had taken us towards Bakkarwala drain, near Shani Mandir and from the bushes, accused produced one polythene and it was found containing checkdar shirt, one light Matiyaali pant, at the back pocket of the pant Dean Man was printed. Both the clothes were blood stained. Both the clothes were kept in the same polythene and it was kept in a cloth parcel and was sealed with the seal of JS State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 28 / 45 and the seal after use was given to SI Jai Singh. I prepared pointing out memo and seizure memo vide Ex.PW4/D, bears my sign at point C. Accused had also pointed the place of occurrence and I prepared the pointing out memo vide Ex.PW4/E, bears my sign at point C. Accused was arrested, I prepared his arrest memo and personal search memo vide Ex.PW4/A and B, bear my sign at point C. Accused was got medically examined at SGM Hospital. Case property was deposited in the malkhana, accused was put behind the lock up. I recorded statement of witnesses. On the next day, accused was produced before the concerned court and from there he was sent to J/C. On 13.04.2010, I sent exhibits to FSL Rohini through SI Sudhir Kumar, along with FSL Form and the forwarding letter. On the next day, I got prepared the scaled site plan through SI Mahesh Chand along with SI Jai Singh at the place of occurrence. I recorded statement of witnesses. Result was obtained from FSL and same was submitted before the hon'ble court. During the course of investigation, I had also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery, vide Ex.PW19/D, bears my sign at point A. I had seen 11 photographs and negatives already Ex.PW12/A, these are the photographs of the place of occurrence.
At this stage, MHC(M) produced one parcel duly sealed with seal of the court. Parcel is got opened and it is found containing one spade (Fawda). The same is taken out and shown to the witness. I have seen the spade, this is the same spade which was taken into possession from the place of occurrence by me. The spade is already Ex.PA.
At this stage, MHC(M) produced one parcel duly sealed with seal of the court. Parcel is got opened and it is found containing one Kudal. The same is taken out and shown to the witness. I have seen the Kudal, this is the same Kudal which was taken into possession from the place of occurrence by me. The Kudal is already Ex.PB.
At this stage, MHC(M) produced one parcel bearing no. 8 duly sealed with seal of court. Parcel is got opened and it is found containing one pant and one shirt. The same are taken out and shown to the witness. I have seen the clothes, these are the same clothes which were got recovered at the instance of accused from the bushes near Shani temple, Bakkarwala Drain. I identify the clothes, the same are collectively Ex.PC.
At this stage, MHC(M) produced one parcel bearing serial no. 4 duly sealed with seal of court. Parcel is got opened and it is found containing one cardigan. The same is taken out and shown to the witness. I have seen the cardigan, this is the State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 29 / 45 same cardigan which was found at a distance of 1015 paces from the place of occurrence. I identify the cardigan, the same is Ex.PD.
At this stage, MHC(M) produced one parcel with the seal of court. Parcel is got opened and it is found containing, one paper wrapped and it is found containing, one artificial chain with locket, one artificial pair of tops, one artificial ring, another artificial ring having Nag and one iron ring. I have seen these articles. These are the same articles which were taken into possession by me. These articles are collectively Ex.PE. XXX by Ms. Chitramal, amicus curiae for accused.
It is correct that no eye witness was found at the spot when we firstly reached there. I did not record statement of secret informer. It is correct that secret informer was not an eye witness. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded after 07:30 PM on 16.03.2010. Recovery of clothes of accused was effected from near drain, from the bushes but I do not remember the exact time. At that time, the main entrance of Shani temple was closed. It is wrong to suggest that temple was opened or that priest was there inside the temple or that devotees were also present inside the temple. The clothes of the accused were not lying in open condition. The same were lying inside the bushes, in a polythene. Polythene was taken into possession along with the clothes. It is wrong to suggest that people used to throw garbage and other articles at the place where the recovery was effected. I received secret information at Chanchal Park. After pointing towards accused and after we had apprehended the accused, the secret informer left the place within half an hour. I cannot tell the names of the persons who were requested upon to join the investigation as they left the spot without telling their names and addresses. Chanchal Park where I received secret information, is a residential colony and some shops were also there and shops were opened at that time. The houses were inhabited. I do not remember the number of the house and names of the person to whom I asked to join the investigation. The disclosure statement was recorded at the place where accused was apprehended. Residential area was nearby, approximate 250300 yards. I asked only to passersby not any resident of the area. I do not serve any notice to any person. No writing was done regarding handing over of seal and taking over of seal. It is wrong to suggest that I did not visit the Shani Mandir, Bakkarwala Drain, bushes nearby or that nothing is recovered by the accused at his instance or that shirt and pant do not State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 30 / 45 belong to the accused. It is wrong to suggest that accused is falsely implicated in this case. It is wrong to suggest that all the documents are prepared in the PS itself. It is wrong to suggest that accused did not make any disclosure statement. It is wrong to suggest that disclosure statement was recorded by our own. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as it was an untraced case. I inquired from Satpal, owner of the premises, where deceased was residing as a tenant who stated that deceased Rajbala was residing as a tenant for the last one year along with another person namely Suresh. I recorded statement of Satpal at the place where he used to reside. I met him during investigation at his residence. It is wrong to suggest that Satpal and others gave statement at my instance. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. "
29.Having gone through his testimony carefully it has come on record that on 14.03.2010 he was posted at PS Ranhola as SHO. He deposed that on reaching at the spot he found that dead body of a female aged about 4045 years was lying in an open space near Barat Ghar, Gurdayal Vihar and there were injuries on her head, neck and on the face. At a distance of 56 feet on the right side of the dead body one spade having blood stains was lying and on the other side of the dead body one iron Khudaal about three and a half feet long was also lying at a distance of 56 feet. One woolen cardigan was also lying above the bushes, at a distance of 1520 feet away from the dead body. No eye witness was found present at the spot. On inquiry, it was revealed that the name of deceased was Babli who used to live in a nearby house. No chance prints/fingerprints State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 31 / 45 could be lifted by them. After registration of the case, Ct. Gulab reached back at the spot and gave him copy of FIR and original tehrir as the further investigation was to be conducted by him. He inspected the site, prepared site plan vide Ex.PW19/A. He lifted exhibits i.e. one spade, one Khudaal, blood stained earth with hair, earth control and woolen cardigan and all these exhibits were given serial no. 1 to 5 respectively and were kept in separate parcels and all the parcels were sealed with the seal of JS and the seal after use was given to ASI Jai Singh. He prepared seizure memo vide Ex.PW5/B, bears his sign at point B. He also took the artificial chain along with locket, one pair of artificial tops, one artificial ring, another artificial ring having Nag and one iron ring from the dead body of Babli, kept all these articles in a parcel and it was also sealed with the seal of JS and same was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW5/C. He sent the dead body to mortuary Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for preservation through Ct. Satpal. On 15.03.2010 he completed the proceedings under section 176 Cr.P.C., vide Ex.PW19/B. On 16.03.2010, he recorded identification statements of Satish and Rajbir, vide Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW10/A and got conducted the State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 32 / 45 postmortem and after the postmortem, the dead body was given to Rajbir, brotherinlaw of Rajbir, vide Ex.PW19/C. It has also come on record that in the evening time of 16.03.2010, he along with ASI Jai Singh, Ct.Vinod, Ct. Gulab, Ct. Driver Satbir went to Chanchal Park for investigation of the present case. At about 07:00 PM, one secret informer met him who stated that the person who committed murder, would come from Bakkarwala Side for going to his residence. He asked 56 public persons to join the investigation but no one came forward. Thereafter, he prepared a raiding party consisting of aforesaid police officials and raiding party was deployed at Bakkarwala road and they were instructed to apprehend the accused as and when he would give signal through torch. He deposed that secret informer pointed towards one person as Rajender @ Sonu as the murderer of his mother. At that time, that person was limping. This witness gave signal by torch to the raiding party who all apprehended that person whose name on interrogation revealed as Rajinder @ Sonu. Accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded. This witness further deposed that at the version of accused to the effect that his mother was State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 33 / 45 living with some other person and his father had already died and due to this reason their reputation was at stake and that is why he has murdered his mother. He recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW4/C, bears his sign at point A. Consequent upon the disclosure statement, accused led the police party towards Bakkarwala drain, near Shani Mandir and from the bushes, accused produced one polythene and it was found containing checkdar shirt, one light Matiyaali pant, at the back pocket of the pant Dean Man was printed. Both the clothes were blood stained. Both the clothes were kept in the same polythene and it was kept in a cloth parcel and was sealed with the seal of JS and the seal after use was given to SI Jai Singh. He prepared pointing out memo and seizure memo vide Ex.PW4/D. Accused had also pointed the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo vide Ex.PW4/E, bears his sign at point C. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo and personal search memo vide Ex.PW4/A and B. Accused was got medically examined at SGM Hospital. Case property was deposited in the malkhana, On 13.04.2010, he sent exhibits to FSL Rohini through SI Sudhir Kumar, along with FSL Form and the forwarding letter. On the State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 34 / 45 next day, he got prepared the scaled site plan through SI Mahesh Chand along with SI Jai Singh at the place of occurrence. He recorded statement of witnesses. He has also deposed that result was obtained but no from FSL and same was submitted before the Hon'ble court witness from FSL has been cited by the I.O. to prove the FSL report. During the course of investigation, he had also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery, vide Ex.PW19/D, bears his sign at point A. He had seen 11 photographs and negatives already Ex.PW12/A, these are the photographs of the place of occurrence. This witness has also identified the spade(Fawda) which was taken into possession from the place of occurrence as Ex.PA; Kudal as Ex.PB; he also identified the clothes, as the same clothes which were got recovered at the instance of accused from the bushes near Shani temple, Bakkarwala Drain as Ex.PC Collectively; the cardigan, which was found at a distance of 1015 paces from the place of occurrence as Ex.PD; one artificial chain with locket, one artificial pair of tops, one artificial ring, another artificial ring having Nag and one iron ring, same articles which were taken into possession Ex.PE collectively. This witness has been crossexamined State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 35 / 45 at length by Ms. Chitramal, amicus curiae for accused. In the cross examination it has come on record that this witness has admitted that no eye witness was found at the spot when they firstly reached there. He did not record statement of secret informer. He also admitted the fact that secret informer was not an eye witness. He could not tell the names of the persons who were requested upon to join the investigation as they left the spot without telling their names and addresses. Chanchal Park where he received secret information, is a residential colony and some shops were also there and shops were opened at that time. The houses were inhabited. Residential area was nearby, approximate 250300 yards. He asked only to passersby not any resident of the area. He did not serve any notice to any person. No writing work was done regarding handing over of seal and taking over of seal.
30.After recording the prosecution evidence, statements of accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded. Accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is innocent. However, he did not lead any State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 36 / 45 defence evidence.
31.Final arguments heard at length. During the course of arguments ld. counsel/ Amicus Curiae for accused argued and submitted that accused is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. Nothing was recovered at the instance of accused. No pointing out memo was also prepared at his instance and the same is planted upon the accused as it was a blind case. It has also been argued and submitted that PW9 is the star witness in this case but he has not supported the prosecution case. He has been got declared hostile by ld. APP. Ld. counsel again argued and submitted that PW9 Sardar Singh @ Saradare on seeing case property stated that it is not his fawda and he has not seen this fawda at the place of occurrence. This witness further stated with regard to the identification of Kudal that he has not seen this kudal at the spot. PW9 has also denied the suggestion that it was his fawda which is now Ex. PA, which accused had taken from him to dig the earth or that he had seen accused digging the earth with the help of fawda and kudal now, Ex. PB. Ld. Amicus Curiae also argued and State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 37 / 45 submitted that PW9 in the crossexamination has stated that on 14.03.2010 he did not witness the quarrel/altercation between accused and his mother. He was not present at the spot. Police did not enquire from him either on 14.03.2010 or 17.03.2010. It is also argued and submitted that other witnesses are formal in nature. No witness from FSL has come in the court to support the prosecution case. On these grounds ld. Amicus Curiae submitted that accused be acquitted.
32.Contrary to it, ld. APP submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case. Ld. APP submitted that all the witnesses have correctly identified the accused. It is also argued by the ld. APP that this case is based on circumstantial evidence since there is no direct eye witness to the incident. On these grounds ld. APP argued and submitted that accused be convicted since he has murdered his own mother.
33.The latest technical questions while deciding a case on the circumstantial evidence, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in case 'Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. Vs. State Of M.P. 2010 [3] State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 38 / 45 JCC 1648' that:
49. To my mind, the first rule is that the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence, it must create a network from which there is no escape for the accused. The facts evolving out of such circumstantial evidence must be such as not to admit of any inference except that of guilt of the accused. {See Raghav Prapanna Tripathi and others vs. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 74}.
51. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, we must remember the principle laid down in Ashraf Ali vs. Emperor (43 Indian Cases 241 at para 14) that when in a criminal case there is conflict between presumption of innocence and any other presumption, the former must prevail.
53. When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role. In Nibaran Chandra Roy vs. King Emperor (11 CWN 1085) it was held the fact that an accused person was found with a gun in his hand immediately after a gun was fired and a man was killed on the spot from which the gun was fired may be strong circumstantial evidence against the accused, but it is an error of law to hold that the burden of proving innocence lies upon the accused under such circumstances. It seems, therefore, to follow that whatever force a presumption arising under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act may have in civil or in less serous criminal cases, in a trial for murder it is extremely weak in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence."
Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case ruled that the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Similarly, it was also observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that all links in the chain of evidence must be State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 39 / 45 proved beyond reasonable doubt and they must excludes the evidence of guilt of any other person than the accused. Again, it was observed that inter alia that when there is conflict between the presumption of innocence and any other presumption, the former must prevail and when a murder charge is proved solely on the circumstantial evidence, the presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role. In judgment 'State vs Nikhil @ Rahul, 27 November, 2009' Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul quoted the judgment which is relevant for the cases covered under circumstantial evidence: "39. Pulukuri Kottayya v. King Emperor is an authority for the proposition that "fact discovered" envisaged under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given in that behalf must relate distinctly to that effect, stating:
"The condition necessary to bring the section into operation is that discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a Police Officer must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the information as related distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved."
34.It is noted from the finding as mentioned above that there is no direct evidence against the accused for causing the death of his own mother. In State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 40 / 45 view of this the case is required to be decided on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The top line principles to decide such type of cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court in a latest judgment 'Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. Vs. State Of M.P. 2010 [3] JCC 1648' (supra), it has been categorically observed by the Hon'ble Court that the presence of innocence of accused has a dominant role in deciding such cases.
35.Again, Ld. Amicus curie for the accused requested for his acquittal submitting that there are several contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. There is no eye witness, there is no mens rea, and no forensic evidence against the accused. The present case does not even have any circumstantial chain of evidence as there are only snaps in the so called chain of evidence.
36.It is further interesting to note that the evidence brought on record against the accused is that as per version of PW9 Sardar Singh, he had seen accused quarreling with her deceased Rajbala on the day of incident and lateron he came to know that lady had been killed by her son. After the State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 41 / 45 occurrence son of that lady ran away from there. But this witness has been got declared hostile by ld. APP on the point of identification of case property i.e. Fawda and Kudal since these do not belong to him and he had seen the things on the spot. He has also denied the suggestion that it was his Fawda which is now Ex.PA, which accused took from him to dig the earth or that he had seen accused digging the earth with the help of Fawda and Kudal now Ex.PB. This witness has also turned hostile in the crossexamination and stated that he did not witness the quarrel / altercation between accused and his mother. He was not present at the spot. Police did not enquire from him either on 14.03.2010 and 17.03.2010.
37.Having heard the arguments of ld. Amicus Curiae and ld. APP, it is clear from the record that there is no direct eye witness to the incident and the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and last seen theory. Fingerprints of the accused and the chance prints could not be lifted from the spot vide depositions of police officials PW19, which clearly indicates that there is missing link of chain and compels to think otherwise that whether accused was present at the spot when the alleged incident had occurred or not.
State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 42 / 45
38.The investigation conducted in this case also appears to be not proper and despite the spot of occurrence being a public place, the spot of arrest being a public place and the investigation also being conducted at public place, no person from the public has been associated at any point of time. The explanation given by the prosecution that the public persons had left without disclosing their names and addresses appears to be a bald assertion without any substantive evidence. The IO has neither given any notice to the persons who declined to join the investigation nor has taken any legal action against them. Where independent persons from the public are available and are not joined in the investigation and there is apparently no justification for the same nor any legal action is taken by the investigation officer against them things speak itself. Then the version put forth becomes unreliable. The accused has been prejudiced by the non joining of the public witnesses in the investigation.
39.These facts in totality throw a shadow of doubt on the prosecution story since the spot in question is situated in a thickly populated area. Merely because accused is the son of deceased and her mother was living with one Suresh (dever) does not imply in any manner that it was the accused and none else who had come there and committed the offence. The identity of the accused person as a culprit not established by the prosecution precisely for the reasons that PW9 Sardar Singh, the most material witness in this case has been got declared hostile and no finger prints or chance prints could be detected at the spot. The Kudal and Fawda allegedly recovered State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 43 / 45 does not show that the blood on it was of human or animal origin. Since, in the present case, there is no direct eye witness, the entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence. Regarding cases based on circumstantial evidence, it has been held in 2009 111 AD (SC) 389 as follows : "when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy of quoted tests viz: the circumstance from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; those circumstance should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of accused; the circumstance taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and in capable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
40.The most material part of the evidence in this case, which has come on record, is recovery of the blood stained clothes at the instance of accused which were worn by him at the time of committing offence as alleged by the prosecution. These clothes were got exhibited Ex.PC collectively. These clothes were also sent to FSL for examination but to this effect no expert person has been made witness to prove the same on record. Though, I have gone through the FSL report no.FSL2010/B1527 Bio No.390/2010 dated 10.09.2010 and during the course of perusal of the said FSL report it reveals that 'pant' & 'shirt' which have been exhibited as Ex.PC collectively found 'inconclusive result'. So long as other implements are concerned, no direct nexus with regard to causing death of deceased Rajbala by accused conclusively has come on record. This inconclusiveness for the determination of the facts raises a needle of doubt that whether in all probabilities the offence of murder was committed by the accused or not. In State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 44 / 45 view of these facts and circumstances no conclusion and hypothesis has come on record which can give inference that in all probabilities accused has committed the offence of murder of his mother. In light of the above discussed discrepancies, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses do not appear to be reliable. The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence. The role of the accused as culprit in the prosecution story has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused for the offence under section 302 IPC. Hence, I acquit accused Rajender @ Sonu from the offence u/s 302 IPC.
Accordingly, accused Rajender @ Sonu is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. COURT OBSERVATIONS Before parting with the judgment the court would like to record its observations that I.O. has not conducted the investigation fairly. He did not make witness from FSL Office to prove the prosecution story. The conduct of the I.O. with regard to preparatory, adoptive, communicative and implementative framework was found inadequate with regard to conduct of investigation of the case. Copy of the judgment be sent to DCP concerned to take necessary steps into the matter so as to prevent the recurrence of such incidents. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17.09.2011 (RAJ KAPOOR) ASJ2/ West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi State Vs Rajender @ Sonu FIR no. 74/10 45 / 45