Delhi District Court
State vs Vikas on 14 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03/SPECIAL JUDGE
(COMPANIES ACT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CNR No. : DLSW01-008772-2022
SC No. : 666/2022
State Vs. : Vikas
FIR No. : 357/2022
U/s. : 452/324/308 IPC
P.S. : Uttam Nagar
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW01-008772-2022
2. Date of commission of offence : 15.05.2022
3. Date of institution of the case : 12.08.2022
4. Date of committal to Sessions Court : 25.08.2022
5. Name of the complainant : Sangeeta
6. Name of accused, parentage &
address : Vikas,
S/o Sh. Bhirgu Nath
R/o RZ-C-192,
Gali no.6, Jai Vihar,
Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
7. Offences complained of in
chargesheet : 302/452 IPC
8. Offences under which charges
were framed : 302/452 IPC
9. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
10. Date on which arguments heard : 26.09.2024
11. Date of final order : 14.10.2024
12. Final order : Acquitted
SC No.666/2022 Page No. 1 of 28
State vs. Vikas
FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar
JUDGMENT
Facts
1. The investigation was set into motion on receiving DD no.153A dated 15.05.2022 PS Uttam Nagar in which it has been recorded that a call was received from DDU Hospital in respect of admission of patient Sheela who was brought by her mother namely Sangeeta on receiving injuries by Sheela. The said DD was marked to SI Leela Ram who went to DDU hospital alongwith Ct. Mahesh. He found that Sheela was unfit to give her statement. He recorded statement of mother of the injured namely Sangeeta wherein she stated that her daughter Sheela had friendship with accused Vikas. Accused Vikas went to Jail in some matter and in his absence, her daughter Sheela befriended one other boy Inder. 3-4 days prior to the date of incident, Vikas had come out of Jail. On 14.05.2022, he came to her house and after talking to Sheela, he went back. Again on 15.05.2022 at around 6.15 pm when she alongwith her son Vipin and daughter Sheela were present in the house, accused Vikas forcibly came inside and started talking to her daughter about Inder. He started shouting in anger and stated to her " tu mere jail jaane ke baad Inder se kyon baatein karti thi". Complainant tried to pacify him and went inside to bring water. Accused Vikas was repeatedly asking the address of Inder from Sheela which she refused to tell. Accused Vikas took out a blade from his pocket and inflicted multiple injuries with the blade on her face. When she tried to rescue herself, he kicked her forcibly due to which her head banged with the wall and she fell down. Complainant and her SC No.666/2022 Page No. 2 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar son tried to apprehend accused but he pushed them and ran away.
2. On the basis of above complaint of complainant Sangeeta, rukka was prepared and FIR under Section 452/308/324 IPC was registered. During investigation, crime team was called at the spot who took blood stained earth control from the spot. The statement of other witnesses were recorded. On 16.05.022 DD No.33A PS Uttam Nagar was received in respect of death of injured Sheela at DDU Hospital and investigation was further marked to Inspector Govind. During further investigation, Insp. Govind sent the dead body of Sheela for postmortem. At the instance of secret informer, accused Vikas was arrested and at this instance, one piece of blade having mark V12 and two blood stained piece of bricks were recovered from a vacant plot. Same were seized. Subsequent opinion on the blade recovered at the instance of accused was taken from the concerned doctor. The exhibits i.e. blood stained clothes of victim, blood on gauze piece, viscera alongwith sample seal were handed over by Autopsy Surgeon and these exhibits alongwith blade were sent to FSL and thereafter chargesheet under Section 302/452 IPC was filed awaiting the supplementary chargesheet.
3. After compliance of section 207/208 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Charges
4. Charge under Section 452/302 IPC was framed against accused Vikas on 28.10.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and SC No.666/2022 Page No. 3 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar claimed.
Prosecution Evidence
5. Prosecution cited as many as 24 witnesses in main chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet out of which 8 witnesses have been examined. Statement of accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he admitted the copy of FIR; scaled site plan, postmortem report, death report, crime team report, MLC of deceased, GD No.153A dated 15.05.2022, GD No.33A dated 16.05.2022, GD No.90A dated 16.05.2022, GD No.175A dated 16.05.2022, GD No.164A dated 30.05.2022, GD No.183A dated 30.05.2022, two site plans, seizure memo of blood and earth control, seizure memo dated 16.05.2022 of exhibits (PM no.774/2022), seizure memo of MLC No.11059, subsequent opinion dated 30.05.2022, 25 photographs of crime scene, CD and certificate under Section 65B of IE Act, Arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure statement, pointing out memo, MLC of accused, FSL Result No.SFSL DLH/6817/BIO/1580/22 dated 15.09.2023 as Ex.PX1 to Ex.PX18, Ex.PX19 (Colly), Ex.PX20 to Ex.PX25. The witnesses pertaining to these documents i.e. witnesses mentioned at Serial No.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 21 in the list of prosecution witnesses in the main chargesheet and witness mentioned at Serial No.1 in the list of prosecution witnesses in the supplementary chargesheet, were dropped.
6. PW-1 Smt. Sangeeta is complainant/mother of deceased. She deposed as under:
SC No.666/2022 Page No. 4 of 28State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar "My daughter namely Ms. Sheela had expired on 15.05.2022. She died at DDU Hospital during her treatment regarding injuries sustained by her which were inflicted to her by somebody while she was in our house. When, she was inflicted injuries at that time, I was not present at my home as I went to market. When I returned back to my home, I saw that my daughter Ms. Sheela who was in injured condition and was in pool of blood which was lying on the ground in a room. I took my daughter to hospital in a vehicle hired by me. I do not know who had inflicted injury to my daughter Ms. Sheela. I cannot identify the person who had inflicted injury to my daughter. I do not know anything else about this case."
7. Since PW-1 Smt. Sangeeta - mother of the deceased had completely turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution at all, she was extensively cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State, however, she did not change her version. She was also duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused.
8. PW-2 Sh. Nitin is the brother of the deceased and is a witness only with respect to identification of dead body. He deposed that on 16.05.2022, he identified the dead body of his sister Sheela in Mortuary of DDU Hospital.
9. PW-3 Sh. Vipin is another brother of the deceased. He deposed as under:
"We were five brothers and sisters. Now we are four brothers and sisters. My sister Sheela had died. My sister Sheela was residing separately. She used to visit us in the interval of 15-20 days. On 15.05.2022, I came back home about 4.00 pm. At about SC No.666/2022 Page No. 5 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar 4.30 pm, I alongwith my mother went to market for buying some vegetable etc. We came back around 7.00 or 7.30 pm. As soon as we entered the home, we noticed that my sister was lying on the floor in the pool of blood. My mother called an auto and we immediately removed my sister to DDU Hospital. At DDU hospital, around 10.00 or
10.30 pm, doctor declared my sister as died. Dead body of my sister was given on next day after postmortem. I signed the statement of identification of dead body of my sister. My statement is on record and is now exhibited as Ex.PW3/A bearing my signature at point-A.
10. Since PW-3 did not support the case of prosecution on all material aspects, he was cross examined at length by ld. Addl. PP for the State but to no avail.
11. PW-4 Sh. Adarsh Mishra deposed as under:
"On 16.05.2022, I received a call from IO of present case for photography and videography during the postmortem proceedings at DDU Hospital. I have taken the photographs and videos for the PM No. 774/2022 Dated 16.05.2022 having FIR No. 357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar. I have supplied 22 photographs and videos as well as photos in a DVD to IO bearing my signature on DVD. Said photographs are already on record and now Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A22. Said DVD is also on record and same is now Ex.PW4/B. I have supplied certificate u/s 65-B of I.E. Act to IO and same is also on record and now Ex.PW4/C bearing my signature at point A."
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused.
SC No.666/2022 Page No. 6 of 28State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar
12. PW-5 Insp. Govind Singh is the Investigating Officer He deposed as under:
"On 16.05.2022, investigation of present case was marked to me after adding Section 302 IPC. I along with ASI Vinod, HC Gopal proceeded in the investigation of present case in Govt. Vehicle No. DL-1-CX-7450. Thereafter, we reached at Dwarka More and met with secret informer. Information of the case was shared with him. He gave the clue of accused. We along with secret informer reached at Baprola Vihar, Gali No. 16, 25 Foota Road, Kisan Vatika, Najafgarh, Delhi and met with SI Leela Ram and Ct. Mahesh there. They also stated that they have input regarding the accused Vikas. On the pointing out of secret informer, accused Vikas was apprehended from the vacant plot of measure about 1000 Sq. Meter. He was interrogated and after admitting his guilt, he was arrested in present case. On his instance from the north side corer of plot, one piece of blade Mark V-12 and blood stained piece of bricks was recovered. Recovery site plan, seizure memo, arrest memo, personal search memo were prepared (already exhibited under Section 294 Cr.P.C.). Thereafter on the pointing out of accused, pointing out memo of place of occurrence was prepared. Thereafter accused was given in the custody of Ct. Mahesh. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. I along with SI Leela Ram reached at DDU Hospital for postmortem of deceased. Postmortem was conducted by Dr. Vikas Arora vide PM No. 774/22 (already exhibited under Section 294 Cr.P.C). Exhibits given by Dr. Vikas Arora were taken into police possession vide seizure memo (already exhibited under Section 294 Cr.P.C). Thereafter, medical examination of accused Vikas was conducted in Casualty SC No.666/2022 Page No. 7 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar vide MLC No. 11059 (already exhibited under Section 294 Cr.P.C). The blood stained clothes of accused was seized by Dr. Athira Shivrajan was taken into police possession vide seizure memo (already exhibited under Section 294 Cr.P.C). Accused was produced before the Court and sent to JC. Exhibits were deposited in Malkhana.
Accused is present in the Court today (Correctly identified).
PM Report of deceased was obtained from DDU Hospital in which manner of death of Homocide. Thereafter, on 30.05.2022 subsequent opinion of the report, piece of blade i.e. weapon of offence was obtained from DDU Hospital Forensic Department. Thereafter exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini, Delhi. Scaled site plan was also got prepared on the instance of complainant. I can identify the case property, if shown to me."
13. PW-5 was again re-examined on 18.03.2024 at the request of learned Addl. PP for the State. PW-5 Insp. Govind Singh when re-examined on 18.03.2024, deposed as under:
On 16.05.2022, the investigation of the present case was marked to me. Thereafter, I along with ASI Vinod and HC Gopal went to the spot i.e. vacant plot measuring 100 sq. yards in the deep end of street No. 13, near Kishan Vatika, Baprola Vihar, Najafgarh, New Delhi on the basis of secret information. SI Leela Ram and Const. Mahesh also reached the spot. The secret informer pointed out towards the accused Vikas and on the pointing out of the secret informer, he was apprehended and thereafter SC No.666/2022 Page No. 8 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar arrested after interrogation vide arrest memo already Ex.PX20 bearing my signature at point A. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo already Ex. PX21 bearing my signature at point A. On the pointing out of the accused towards the north side corner of the plot, one piece of saving blade make V-12 was recovered which was lying between two pieces of bricks. The blade and the bricks were blood stained. I seized the said blade in a plastic container duly taped with the help of doctor tape and sealed with the seal of 'GS'. I also seized both the pieces of bricks in blood stained condition in a plastic container duly taped with the help of doctor tape and sealed with the seal of 'GS'. The abovesaid case property was seized by me vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A bearing my signature at point A. Some public persons were stopped to join the investigation of the present case but all of them refused to join stating their personal difficulties. We came back to the PS and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Const. Mahesh was sent along with the accused to DDU Hospital for getting him medically examined as there was blood stains on the clothes of the accused. Const. Mahesh handeed over to me one sealed white parcel duly sealed with the seal of CMO DDU Hospital along with one sample seal. The same was seized by me vide seizure memo already Ex. PX17 bearing my signature at point A. The site-plan of the place of recovery of the case property was prepared by me, same is already Ex.PX14 bearing my signature at point A. The postmortem of the SC No.666/2022 Page No. 9 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar deceased was got conducted and the clothes of the deceased, blood on gauze, viscera and three sample seals which were handed over by the autopsy surgeon were seized by me vide seizure memo already Ex.PX16 bearing my signature at point A. I took the subsequent opinion of the weapon of offence i.e. blade from the concerned doctor.
Accused took me to the spot during investigation and pointing out memo was prepared by me. The same is Ex.PX23 bearing my signature at point A. I can identify the case property, if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow parcel No.3 having seal of FSL AmR DELHI is opened with the permission of the court and found containing one small plastic container having seal of GS on the top of it and one sample seal of PM DDUH. One blade having V-12 written on it is taken out. After seeing the same, witness correctly identifies the same. The same is Ex.P-1.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow parcel No.4 having seal of FSL AmR DELHI is opened with the permission of the court and found containing one plastic container having seal of GS on the top of it. Two pieces of bricks having dirty stains on it are taken out. After seeing the same, witness correctly identifies the same. The same is Ex.P-2 (colly).
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow parcel No.5 having seal of FSL AmR DELHI is opened with the permission of the court and found SC No.666/2022 Page No. 10 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar containing one blue jeans (having dark stains), one dark blue full sleeves shirt and white vest are taken out. After seeing the same, witness correctly identifies the same as that of the accused and these clothes were worn by the accused at the time of his arrest. The same is Ex.P-3 (colly).
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow parcel No.6 having seal of FSL AmR DELHI is opened with the permission of the court and found containing one dark stained top, one pant having dark stains and one brassier having brown stains are taken out. After seeing the same, witness correctly identifies the same as that of deceased. The same is Ex.P-4 (colly).
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow parcel No.7 having seal of FSL AmR DELHI is opened with the permission of the court and found containing blood on gauze. After seeing the same, witness correctly identifies the same as it was handed over by the Autopsy Surgeon. The same is Ex.P-5.
I sent the case property to the FSL.
After getting the result of the FSL, I prepared the supplementary charge-sheet and filed the same before the court."
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused.
14. PW-6 HC Mahipal deposed as under:
" On 03.06.2022 I was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as constable. On that day, as per the directions of IO/Insp. Govind Singh, I collected exhibits 01 sealed Pullanda which SC No.666/2022 Page No. 11 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar was deposited in the Malkhana vide RC No.147/21/22 and other 8 & 3 sealed envelopes which were deposited vide RC No.148/21/22 from the MHC(M) and went to FSL (Rohini) and deposited the aforesaid properties at the said office vide FSL No.FSL(DLH)6817BIO/1580/22 and FSL(DLH)6818BIO/ 2321/22 both dated 03.06.2022. I came back to the PS and handed over copy of receiving to MHCM (C.P.)/HC Inderjeet. During the time when the case property was in my possession, the same was not tampered with at any point of time. My statement was recorded by the IO."
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused.
15. PW-7 Sh. Santosh Tripathy, Asstt. Director (Chemistry) deposed as under:
"On 03.06.2022, I was posted as Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry) at FSL, Rohini. On that day, one sealed wooden box was received at the office of FSL and the same was marked to me for chemical examination. The said wooden box was sealed with four seals of 'PM DDUH'. The seals were found intact and were tallied with the specimen seal. I opened the said parcel and examined the contents i.e. Ex.1A, 1B and 1C. There were total three exhibits in the said wooden box.
On chemical microscopic and TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits Ex.1A, 1B and 1C.SC No.666/2022 Page No. 12 of 28
State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar After examination, the remnants of the exhibits have been sealed with the seal of 'STY FSL DELHI'. My detailed report No.SFSLDLH/6818/CHEM/2321/22 dated 17.08.2022 of examination is Ex.PW7/A bearing my signature at points-A and B."
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused.
16. PW-8 SI Leela Ram deposed as under:
"On 15.05.2022, I was posted at PS Uttam Nagar. On that day, my duty timings were from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am. I received DD No. 153A Ex.PX-7 with regard to one injured being brought at DDU Hospital. I along with Const. Mahesh went to DDU Hospital where I met injured Sheela. She was unfit to give her statement. I met mother of the injured namely Sangeeta. I recorded her statement and came back to the PS. I prepared tehrir Ex.PW8/A bearing my signature at point A. The same was handed over to DO for registration of FIR.
Thereafter I went to the spot i.e. E-210, Om Vihar, Phase V, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. After some time, Const. Mahesh reached the spot. He handed over to me copy of FIR and original tehrir. Crime team was also called at the spot. Thereafter, I took blood, earth control and blood stained earth control from the spot. Same are kept in transparent plastic box and sealed with the seal of 'LR'. The same is seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PX-15 bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I recorded statement of witnesses i.e. Vipin and crime team witnesses.
Case property was deposited in Malkhana. Thereafter, I received a call vide DD No. 33A with regard to death of injured Sheela at DDU Hospital. Thereafter the SC No.666/2022 Page No. 13 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar investigation of present case was further marked to Insp. Govind. I along with HC Gopal, Const. Mahesh and Insp. Govind Singh reached at Dwarka More in Govt. Vehicle and Insp. Govind Singh met with secret informer. Information of the case was shared with him. He gave the clue of accused. We along with secret informer reached at Baprola Vihar, Gali No. 16, 25 Foota Road, Kisan Vatika, Najafgarh, Delhi. On the pointing out of secret informer, accused Vikas was apprehended from the vacant plot of measure about 1000 Sq. Meter. He was interrogated and after admitting his guilt, he was arrested in present case. On his instance from the north side corner of plot, one piece of blade Mark V-12 and two blood stained pieces of bricks were recovered. Recovery site plan, seizure memo, arrest memo, personal search memo were prepared in my presence (already exhibited under Section 294 Cr.P.C.). Thereafter on the pointing out of accused, pointing out memo of place of occurrence was prepared. Thereafter accused was given in the custody of Const. Mahesh. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. I along with Insp. Govind Singh reached at DDU Hospital for postmortem of deceased. Postmortem was conducted by Dr. Vikas Arora vide PM No. 774/22 (already exhibited under Section 294 Cr.P.C). Exhibits given by Dr. Vikas Arora were taken into police possession vide seizure memo (already exhibited under Section 294 Cr.P.C). Thereafter, accused Vikas was sent for his medical examination. Exhibits were deposited in Malkhana.
Accused is present in the Court today (Correctly identified).
I can identify the case property, if shown to me. (Identification of case property SC No.666/2022 Page No. 14 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar is not disputed by Ld. Defence Cousnel. However the manner of recovery is not admitted).
I can identify the spot, if shown to me.
At this stage, photographs of the spot already Ex.PX-19 are shown to the witness. Witness correctly identifies the same."
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused.
17. Thereafter, prosecution was closed.
18. Supplementary chargesheet in respect of FSL result was received during the trial wherein blood of the deceased on the gauze matched with the blood found on the weapon of offence i.e. blade recovered at the instance of accused.
Statement under Section 313 CrPC & Defence Evidence
19. Statement under Section 313 CPC of the accused was recorded wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case by police as he was involved in some other case of PS Uttam Nagar and he has been falsely implicated only to solve this case.
20. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
Arguments on behalf of parties
21. I have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. counsel for accused.
SC No.666/2022 Page No. 15 of 28State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar
22. Ld. Addl. PP for the State had argued that though eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, however, as per the FSL result, DNA profile generated from the blood of deceased on the gauze matched with the blood found on the blade (weapon of offence) and with the DNA generated from the blood found on the clothes of the accused and deceased. He has further argued that this proves that accused has committed murder of Sheela and therefore, he be convicted for the offences under Section 452/302 IPC.
23. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the accused had argued that the mother and brother of the deceased were the eye witnesses, however, both of them had not supported the prosecution case at all. He had further argued that they completely failed to identify him as the person who had inflicted injuries to the deceased. He had further argued that the deceased used to consume drugs and when she did not get the drugs, she hit her head on the wall and inflicted injuries to her. Ld. counsel for the accused had argued that recovery of weapon does not stand proved as the blade has been recovered from an open plot which is accessible to all. He had further argued that the IO was in the possession of blood of the deceased and he had put the blood of deceased on the clothes of the accused in order to falsely implicate him. He had further argued that no independent witness was asked to participate when the clothes of the accused were seized. Ld. counsel for accused had argued that the case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and SC No.666/2022 Page No. 16 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar therefore, the accused be acquitted of the charges framed.
Analyisis, Reasoning & Findings
24. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance in this regard is placed on Nasir Sikander Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (SC) 2005 Crl.L.J. 2621 and Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab (SC) 1996 (1) RCR 465 .
25. In order to prove that the deceased was murdered, the death has to be homicidal. In this regard, MLC Ex.PX6 dated 15.05.2022 (which has been admitted by accused under Section 294 CrPC) shows following injuries on her local examination by doctor:
"multiple incised wound present over left cheek/right cheek/forehead/chin/ neck in variable size and in different plane. No other complaint present at the time of examination."
26. Record shows that Sheela succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. Postmortem report of deceased is Ex.PX3. Perusal of the postmortem report shows that she had received several external injuries and the internal injuries which are as under:-
"External Injuries
1. Abrasion, reddish, of size 5 cm x 5 cm, present over left side of head, situated just above left ear.SC No.666/2022 Page No. 17 of 28
State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar
2. Laceration, of size 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, present just outer to left eye.
3. Multiple incised wounds, around 25 in number, present involving both sides of forehead, face and neck, with size varying from 2 cm x 0.1 cm x skin deep to 10 cm x 0.1 cm x subcutaneous deep. Tailing present in different directions.
4. Multiple contused abrasions, reddish, around 5 in number, present in an area of size 10 cm x 6 cm, involving front and sides of neck and upper part of front of chest, with size ranging from 2 cm x 2 cm to 4 cm x 3 cm.
5. Multiple contused abrasions, reddish, present in an area of size 18 cm x 8 cm, over back of abdomen, situated just above the level of iliac crest, with size ranging from 2 cm x 1 cm to 7 cm x 6 cm.
6. Multiple abrasions, reddish, present in an area of size 8 cm x 6 cm, over back of left shoulder with size ranging from 1 cm x 1 cm to 3 cm x 2 cm.
7. Abrasion, reddish, of size 4 cm x 2 cm, present over inner aspect of left ankle joint.
Internal injuries:
A-HEAD:
1. Scalp Effusion of blood present over bilateral frontal, right parietal, left temporal and occipital region.
2. Skull Fracture of left parietal and left temporal bone present with effusion of blood present along the fracture.
3. Brain and Meninges: Sub-dural haemorrhage present over bilateral cerebral hemispheres. Haemorrhagic contusion with softening of parenchyma present over left temporal and left parietal lobes.
4. Base of skull: Intact, NAD.SC No.666/2022 Page No. 18 of 28
State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar B- NECK:
1. Hyoid Bone/Thyroid Cartilage/Cricoid Cartilage/Tracheal Rings & Mucosa/Any Foreign Body in Trachea: NAD.
C-CHEST (THORAX):
1. Ribs and Chest Wall : Fracture of 2nd rib present over right side.
2. Oesophagus : NAD
3. Pleural Cavities : NAD.
4. Lungs : Pale.
5. Heat and pericardial sac : NAD.
D-Abdomen:
1. Abdominal wall : NAD
2. Peritoneal Cavity : Around 500 ml blood present.
3. Stomach :
a. Contents : About 50 grams brownish fluid present.
b. Mucosa : NAD
4. Small intestine : Contained fluid and gas; walls NAD.
5. Large intestine : Contained faecal matter, fluid and gas; walls NAD.
6. Liver : Pale.
7. Spleen : Lacerated
8. Kidneys : Pale.
E- GENITAL ORGAN:
1. Urinary Bladder : Empty
2. Rectum : Empty
3. Genital organs : NAD SPINAL COLUMN : Intact; NAD."
27. In the postmortem report Ex.PX3, cause of death is given as under:
"Cranio-cerebral injuries consequent upon blunt force impact to the head. All injuries SC No.666/2022 Page No. 19 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar are ante-mortem in nature and fresh in duration. Injuries no.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are caused by blunt force impact and injury no.3 is caused by share pointed weapon."
28. The aforesaid postmortem report is no at all disputed, therefore, it stands proved beyond any doubt that death of Sheela was homicidal.
29. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had cited two eye witnesses. PW-1 Smt. Sangeeta is the mother of the deceased and PW-3 Sh. Vipin is brother of the deceased.
30. PW-1 in her statement completely turned hostile and she did not even utter a word against the accused or about occurrence of incident. She simply stated that she had gone to market when incident took place and when she returned back home, she found her daughter in pool of blood and she took her to the hospital. She was extensively cross examined by ld.Addl. PP for the State wherein she denied the entire prosecution case. She was duly cross examined by learned counsel for the accused wherein she went to the extent of admitting that her daughter used to take drugs and that her daughter used to hit her head on wall when she did not get drugs to consume. She also admitted that deceased used to frequently caused self inflicted injuries to her.
31. PW-3 Sh. Vipin - brother of the deceased, who was the next star witness of the prosecution, also deposed on the same lines as that of his mother i.e. PW-1 and did not support the case of prosecution at all. Despite being cross examined by ld. Addl.
SC No.666/2022 Page No. 20 of 28State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar PP for the State at length, nothing could be elicited in his cross examination. He was also given suggestion by ld. counsel for accused in respect of his sister taking drugs and he admitted the same.
32. Insofar as eye witness account is concerned, prosecution case failed on the eye witness account completely.
33. Now it is to be seen whether there is enough circumstantial evidence against the accused in order to connect him with the crime and hold him guilty. This case primarily has turned from an eye witness account to a case of circumstantial evidence which is guided by the judgment in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 AIR 1622 / 1985 SCR (1) 88, wherein it was held that :
"3:3. Before a case against an accused vesting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in Hanumat's v. State of M.P. [1953] SCR 1091. [163C]
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; [163D]
2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; [163G]
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; [163G]
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and [163H]
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable SC No.666/2022 Page No. 21 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar 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. [164B] These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and in the absence of a corpus deliciti. [164B].
It was further held in aforesaid case :
3:4. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that a case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no pure moral conviction. [164F]"
34. In Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh dated 28.01.2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while discussing the nature of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof of prosecution stated as under:-
"39. In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a complete sequence. This Court finds that this case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious approach as circumstantial evidence is "inferential evidence" and proof in such a case is derivable by inference from circumstances."
35. Since the eye witnesses have turned hostile, therefore, the motive cannot be proved at all. Though in the cases of circumstantial evidence, undoubtedly motive is an important link, however, absence of the same does not completely shatter the prosecution case if other evidence is able to complete the chain SC No.666/2022 Page No. 22 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar establishing that accused is guilty of the offence.
36. Now the circumstances which have to be seen are:
(i) Arrest of accused.
(ii) Recovery of weapon of offence.
(iii) Seizure of clothes of accused having blood stains.
(iv) Subsequent opinion on the blade (weapon of offence)
and FSL result.
(i) Arrest of accused
37. PW-5 Insp. Govind Singh has conducted the
investigation in the present case after Sheela had expired and Section 302 IPC was added. He deposed that on 16.05.2022 he alongwith ASI Vinod, HC Gopal and secret informer reached at Baprola Vihar, Gali no.16, 25 Foota Road, Kisan Vatika, Najafgarh, Delhi and met with SI Leela Ram and Ct. Mahesh there. On the pointing of secret informer, accused Vikas was apprehended from a vacant plot measuring about 1000 sq.mtrs. Arrest memo of accused Vikas has been exhibited as Ex.PX20 which is signed by the police officials as witnesses. As per the testimony of PW-5, accused Vikas was interrogated and he had admitted his guilt and he was arrested in the present case. PW-5 was cross examined by ld. counsel for accused wherein he admitted that no independent public person was joined at the time of arrest of the accused. He also admitted that PW-5 was having a smart phone. Despite that no photography was done. It was admitted by PW-5 that there were houses near the place of recovery but he explained that no public person was visible there and therefore, no one could be joined. Insofar as the arrest of the accused is concerned, though independent public witness was not SC No.666/2022 Page No. 23 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar joined admittedly, however, it is a matter of fact which is known to one and all that no public person is interested in joining the police proceedings. Hence, the testimony of a police witness is also to be treated at par with the other witnesses. From the cross examination of PW-5, nothing could be taken out so as to shake the testimony of PW-5 in respect of arrest of the accused. There is no reason to disbelieve the fact that accused was arrested from the vacant plot at the instance of secret informer on 16.05.2022. Therefore, the arrest of accused stands proved.
(ii) Recovery of weapon of offence
38. In respect of recovery of weapon of offence, PW-5 Insp. Govind Singh deposed that after the accused was interrogated and he admitted his guilt. He was arrested in the present case and at his instance, from the northern side corner of the plot, one piece of blade having marking V12 and blood stained pieces of bricks were recovered. The testimony of PW-5 Insp. Govind Singh shows that immediately after the arrest, the weapon offence was recovered at the instance of the accused from the very same place where he was apprehended and arrested. Seizure memo of the shaving blade as well as two pieces of bricks in blood stained condition has been exhibited as Ex.PW5/B wherein it is stated that the said exhibits were recovered at the instance of the accused. In this regard, disclosure statement of the accused becomes relevant. Perusal of the said disclosure statement shows that in the said disclosure statement, accused had confessed his crime but nowhere in the entire disclosure statement, he has mentioned that he could get the weapon of offence recovered.
SC No.666/2022 Page No. 24 of 28State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar Without having any disclosure statement in respect of the recovery of the weapon of offence, straightaway seizure memo of the said weapon was prepared. The said recovery cannot be said to be admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Even otherwise, it is seen that the recovery of the blade is shown from a vacant plot, which was accessible to one and all. The law in this regard has been discussed in Trimbak vs. State of M.P. AIR 1954 SC 36 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held -
"When the recovery of incriminating articles was made from an open and accessible place it is difficult to hold positively that the accused was in possession of these articles. The fact of recovery by the accused is compatible with the circumstance of somebody else having placed the articles there and of the accused somehow acquiring the knowledge about its whereabouts and that being so, the fact of discovery cannot be regarded as conclusive proof that the accused was in in possession of these articles."
39. PW-5 in his cross examination has admitted that similar kind of blade is easily available in the open market. The recovery having been effected from an open and accessible place to all and sundry is doubtful. It is nowhere mentioned in the testimony of PW-5 that accused had concealed the said blade within the vacant plot which could not have been seen by any person through his naked eye. It is not at all the case of prosecution which has been put forth by PW-5 Insp. Govind Singh that the blade was found at such a place which was in the exclusive knowledge of the accused, therefore, in these circumstances, recovery of blade from the accused does not stand proved.
(iii) Seizure of clothes of accused having blood stains
40. PW-5 Insp. Govind Singh had deposed that after the SC No.666/2022 Page No. 25 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar accused was taken into custody and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana, postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Vikas Arora and the exhibits given by Dr. Vikas Arora were taken into police possession and thereafter, medical examination of accused Vikas was conducted in the Casualty. The blood stained clothes of the accused were seized by the doctor and were taken into police possession. During the cross examination of said witness, a suggestion was put to the IO that he was having blood of the deceased which was put on the clothes of the accused in order to work out the present case. Though this suggestion was denied by IO/PW-5, however, the fact remains that when the accused was arrested, why his blood stained clothes were not taken into possession immediately and why did they go for postmortem first wherein the exhibits handed over by the doctor including blood of the deceased was taken into police possession.
41. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention here that in the arrest memo, the time of arrest of accused is shown to be 12.30 pm on 16.05.2022. Autopsy is stated to have started at 1.30 pm. Accused was arrested from Najafgarh. Within an hour, disclosure statement was recorded by the IO, weapon of offence was recovered and then he reached DDU Hospital at Hari Nagar at 1.30 pm which is at quite a distance from Najafgarh from where accused was arrested. This creates suspicion in the testimony of PW-5. The factum of finding the blood on the clothes of the accused and having seized such clothes of the accused is doubtful which dents the prosecution case.
SC No.666/2022 Page No. 26 of 28State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar
(iv) Subsequent opinion on the blade (weapon of offence) and FSL Result
42. PW-5 IO/Inps. Govind had deposed that blade was sealed with the seal of 'GS' vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. Vide DD No.183A dated 30.05.2022, the said blade was sent to Dr. Vikas Arora for getting a subsequent opinion. It is difficult to understand that why weapon of offence allegedly having blood stains of deceased was not immediately sent to the FSL and why before sending it to the FSL, it was sent for subsequent opinion to the doctor. The possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out in these circumstances. Further, the blade having the blood stains was in a sealed condition. That seal of the IO would have been opened by the doctor in order to give the subsequent opinion. After the blood dries, there is a possibility that while desealing or sealing again, blood stains would have been erased by repeated rubbing. After getting the subsequent opinion, it was sent to FSL. It is quite possible that at the time when the blade was desealed, the blood of the deceased would have been sprinkled on the said blade. It is highly unethical to get the sealed case property i.e. weapon of offence which is crucial piece of evidence that too in a murder trial, to get it opened without sending it directly to the FSL for the purpose of getting an expert opinion. As per the FSL result, DNA profile generated from the blood of deceased on the gauze matched with the blood found on the blade (weapon of offence) and with the DNA generated from the blood found on the clothes of the accused and deceased. The failure to prove recovery of weapon of offence (blade) at the SC No.666/2022 Page No. 27 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar instance of accused and recovery of blood stained clothes of accused makes the FSL result inconsequential.
43. Prosecution has failed to connect the accused with offence for which charges have been framed against him. It does not stand proved that accused had forcibly entered the house of deceased and inflicted injuries upon Sheela which were sufficient to cause her death.
44. Hence, accused Vikas stands acquitted of the charges framed under Section 302/452 IPC in present FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar.
Digitally signedAnnounced in open court VANDANA by VANDANA JAIN on 14.10.2024 JAIN Date: 2024.10.14 14:50:23 +0530 (Vandana Jain) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi Note: This judgment contains 28 (twenty eight) pages and having my signature on each page. Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.14 14:50:28 +0530 (Vandana Jain) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi SC No.666/2022 Page No. 28 of 28 State vs. Vikas FIR No.357/2022, PS Uttam Nagar