State vs Jag Prasad on 3 June, 2024

[Cites 26, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs Jag Prasad on 3 June, 2024

         IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA:
     ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST:
               KARKARDOOMA: DELHI

SESSIONS CASE NO. 35/2017
CNR No. DLNE01-005549-2016

FIR No. 346/2016
P.S. Karawal Nagar
U/s : 302 of IPC

STATE
                                  Versus

JAG PRASHAD
s/o Jagat Narayan
r/o H. No. 135, Gali. no. 5,
SBS Colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi
Also at: Village Purai Pukha,
PS Parashpur, Distt. Ghonda, UP

Date of Institution       :       15-02-2017
Date of Argument          :       14-05-2024
Date of Judgment          :       03-06-2024


JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of this case are that on 02/10/2016, at about 02:29 PM, an information was received at PS Karawal Nagar through wireless operator that "Wife of caller committed suicide at near Prahlad model school, Gali no. 4". The information was reduced into writing vide DD no. 26B( Ex. PW5/A), and the same was marked to SI Abodh (hereinafter referred to as first IO/investigating officer). Thereafter, first IO along with Ct. Pawan reached at the spot and found one female dead body lying on the floor in a room situated at first floor of the house no. 135, Gali no. 4, SBS colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. The husband of FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 1 of 61 the deceased was also found present there, who informed that his wife Smt. Kiran had committed suicide. Senior police officials, crime team officials, and SDM concerned were informed. Crime team officials came and inspected the spot, took 11 photographs. Ligature mark was noticed on the neck of the deceased. Request for getting the postmortem conducted was placed. Two pieces of sari, one steel drum and plastic stool, which as per the version of husband / accused Jag Prasad were used by the deceased in committing suicide, and one scissor, were seized. One mobile phone belonging to the deceased was also seized. Enquiry was made from neighborhood, but nothing incriminating against anyone could come forward. On 03.10.2016, parents of deceased came at PS and their statement got recorded before the SDM on 04.10.2016. The Executive Magistrate concerned had completed inquest proceedings at GTB hospital. Request form for conducting PM was prepared by the IO. After conclusion of postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. On 10.10.2016, postmortem report was received wherein the cause of death was opined as "asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem ligature strangulation". On 11.10.2016 at about 5 PM, as per directions of senior police officials, present FIR came to be registered for an offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. Further investigation in the present case was handed over to Inspector Ravinder Malik (hereinafter referred to as 2nd IO/Investigating officer). Accused Jag Prasad was arrested, as on the basis of postmortem report, police officials came to the conclusion that accused had given false statement that his wife had committed suicide by hanging with ceiling fan. After completion of necessary formalities, chargesheet in the present FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 2 of 61 case filed in the court of concerned 'Ilaqua' MM. COMMITTAL

02. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 Cr. PC, present case was committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 03-02-2017 of ld. CMM/(NE)/KKD. Thereafter, the then Ld. District and Sessions Judge, KKD Courts allocated this case to the ld. Predecessor of this court.

CHARGE

03. On the basis of facts emerging from the chargesheet and after hearing the arguments, Ld. Predecessor of this court framed charge against the accused vide order dated 09-03-2017 for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution got examined as many as 28 witnesses.

(4) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE (I) PUBLIC WITNESSES/ EYE WITNESSES

(i) PW-1 Vashishth Mishra deposed that he is Pandit (Priest) by profession and he is the brother of Kiran (deceased). He further deposed that his sister Kiran was 10 th standard pass and she was married with Jag Prasad Mishra, accused, on 21.05.2011 and she started to reside with her husband and in- laws at village Purai Purva, Distt. Ghonda, UP. He further deposed that after some months, his jeeja Jag Prasad shifted his residence alongwith his family on rent in the area of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Colony, Karawal Nagar, near Sher Pur Chowk, North East, Delhi. He deposed that his sister gave birth to two male children. He further deposed that in the end of 2012, he had come to Delhi at the house of his aforesaid sister and he lived FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 3 of 61 with her in her matrimonial house and in those days, his jeeja was supervisor in a private factory where he (PW1) had also worked as a labour. He further deposed that he had stayed for a period of 2½ years along with his sister and her husband. He further deposed that in the month of May and June, he left the house of his sister and went to his native village and there he again started his work as a priest. He also deposed that his sister Kiran was residing happily along with her husband and her children and no quarrel took place between both in those days when he had stayed with them. He further deposed that his sister never made complaint to him on any issue and his jeeja never doubt on the character of his sister.

He further deposed that on 02.10.2016, in the evening hours, he received phone call from PS Karawal Nagar that his sister had committed suicide by hanging at her matrimonial house. He deposed that he alongwith his mother Smt. Nanka and his maternal uncle Sh. Jagdamba Prasad Pandey came to Delhi on 03.10.2016 and reached at the house of one Ajay Mishra where his jeeja was working in those days.

He further deposed that on 04.10.2016, he had seen dead body of his sister Kiran in the mortuary of GTB hospital and he and his mother had identified the dead body before police vide his statement Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that statement of his mother was also recorded regarding identification of dead body in his presence and the same is Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that the Executive Magistrate in whose presence they had identified dead body of Kiran had also recorded their statement. During his examination, he admitted his signature on his statement dt. 04.10.2016 recorded by Executive Magistrate. He FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 4 of 61 deposed that he had told to Executive Magistrate that he had not seen any quarrel between his jeeja and his deceased sister at any point of time and his sister was never harassed for demand of dowry and he had also told to Executive Magistrate that he had no doubt against accused for death of his sister Kiran as there was no quarrel between her and her husband.

He also deposed that on 12.10.2016, it came into his notice from police officials of PS Karawal Nagar that as per postmortem report, his sister Kiran was murdered. He stated that he did not know know the other facts of this case.

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as he was resiling from his earlier statement.

During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, he denied that Police had recorded his statement on 12.10.2016. He affirmed that he and accused present in court both had worked breaking the almonds in the area of Karawal Nagar, Delhi in those days when he had stayed with him and his sister. He denied that it came into his notice during his stay with accused at Karawal Nagar that he had doubt against his wife for her character. He denied that there was hot talks and quarrel between accused and her sister Kiran on the aforesaid issue. He denied that his sister used to make complaint against her husband when he was residing at his native place that her husband was harassing her on the issue of her character. He denied that on 02.10.2016 at about 11 A.M., his sister Kiran had talked to him on phone or that she told him that her husband quarreled with her or that her husband had warned her to reform her character otherwise she will face consequences. He affirmed that his statement and statement of her mother were recorded by FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 5 of 61 Executive Magistrate at his office in Nand Nagri when they were produced by SI Abodh on 04.10.2016. He affirmed that after postmortem examination, they had received the dead body of Kiran or that he had cremated the same at Delhi or that his jeeja accused Jag Prasad had also participated in the cremation.

He denied that it came into his notice on receiving PM report that his sister Kiran was strangulated by cord (rassi) or that she was murdered or that his jeeja Jag Parshad is responsible for the murder of her sister as she has doubt on her character. He denied that he is deposing falsely on the facts that his statement was recorded by IO on 22.10.2016. He denied that he was deposing falsely in order to save the accused present in court or that he had been won over by him outside the court. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of accused as he and his mother had settled the matter with accused outside the court. He denied that accused has doubt on the character of his sister or that due to this doubt, he committed murder of his sister or that his sister had talked him on phone at about 11 A.M. on the day of incident or that she had told to him that her husband had quarreled with her at about 11 A.M. on the day of incident.

The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

(ii) PW-7 Shiva Kant Pandey deposed that his native village is Kure Pandey, District Ghonda, UP and he has been working as Munim in the factory of one Anil Mishra at Mangal Bazar, New Sabha Pur, Village Karawal Nagar, Delhi for last 5-6 years. He deposed that accused Jag Prashad is known to him as he had started his duty in the aforesaid factory to operate the machine for breaking the almonds in the year 2015. On the day of incident i.e. 02-10-2016, accused Jag Prashad had come to perform his duty at Mangal Bazar workshop/ godwn and he worked there in his presence till 1 pm. Thereafter, he went to his FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 6 of 61 house for lunch and he did not return from there. On the same day at about 4 or 5 pm, it came to his notice from other workers of the workshop that wife of Jag Prashad committed suicide by hanging. Police recorded his statement.

During cross-examination, he deposed that there were 15- 20 minutes walking distance between the residence of accused and godown/ workshop. On 02-10-2016, accused Jag Prashad had come at workshop at about 6 am.

(iii) PW10 Smt. Nanka deposed that she is the mother of deceased Kiran. She deposed that they had solemnized marriage of Kiran with Jag Prasad (accused) in their village on 21.05.2011 according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, her daughter Kiran started to reside with her husband and in-laws in her matrimonial house Purai Purva, Gonda and after some months, Jag Prasad shifted his residence to Delhi on rent at H.No.135, Gali No.4, SBS Colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi and he started to reside with his wife. Her younger son namely Vashisht Mishra used to reside with Jag Prasad in Delhi and her son was doing his job in a godown at Karawal Nagar. Accused Jag Prasad was also doing his job at aforesaid godown in those days. Her daughter used to talk to her on phone. She had told that her husband was demanding motorcycle, gold chain. The cousin of accused Jag Prasad had got motorcycle, gold chain etc from his in-laws in his marriage. She deposed that her daughter Kiran studied upto 10th standard. She deposed that about 4-5 days prior to incident, her daughter Kiran had talked with her on phone and told her that she had demanded expenses from her husband but he did not give any money to her for maintenance and her husband used to give his income to one girl namely Radha who was residing at his job place. She deposed that earlier her daughter had told her that she had seen her husband with aforesaid girl namely Radha. On 02.10.2016, at about 2:30 P.M., FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 7 of 61 elder brother of accused namely Lalta informed her regarding the incident of suicide. On next day, she alongwith her brother namely Jagdamba and her son Vashisht Mishra came at matrimonial house of her daughter and then, they went to PS and from there they went to mortuary and they had seen the dead body of her daughter Kiran.

PW10 further testified that on 04.10.2016, postmortem examination was conducted and she had identified dead body during inquest proceedings, there her statement regarding identification of dead body was recorded vide Ex.PW1/B. Her son Vashisht Mishra was also present at that time. Her statement was also recorded by SDM Sh. Rajesh Dhaval vide Ex.PW3/A . After postmortem examination, she had received dead body of deceased against receipt. She deposed that they had cremated her dead body as per customs in Delhi.

PW10 further deposed that her daughter had not committed suicide, she was killed by her husband and she had seen injury on her head and blood was oozing out from her nose. She had not given her correct statement to SDM as accused had extended threats at the point knife to her elder daughter Ram Devi and her daughter had told to her the aforesaid facts on phone prior to recording of her statement by SDM.

PW10 added that at about 1 1⁄2 year, prior to day of incident, in the month of May, her daughter had told to her that she was harassed and given beatings by her husband for demand of dowry. She had also told her that accused used to drag her out from the room by holding her hair. She further deposed that her husband used to say "yahan se chali jao". She deposed that accused and her daughter Kiran had visited their house 5-6 times. She deposed that they visited their home in the month of February, 2016. Her daughter had told to her on that visit that her husband used to harass and beat her for demand of dowry and FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 8 of 61 used to say "chali jao yahan se". She deposed that her daughter also told to her that her husband used to live with one girl Radha as her daughter had seen her husband with Radha. Six months prior to the date of incident, her son Vashisht Mishra had shifted his residence from Delhi to his native place.

In her cross-examination by Ld. Defense counsel, PW10 stated that they reached at the matrimonial house of her daughter Kiran at about 4 P.M. on 03.10.2016. The dead body had already been shifted to the mortuary. She volunteered that on 02.10.2016, dead body was sent to mortuary as told to her by police. She deposed that they had visited PS on 03.10.2016 at about 5 P.M and they had not told to Police at that time that her daughter was killed by her husband. She volunteered that they were under threat of Lalta, brother accused who had brought us from Railway Station to spot and had stated that you had already received the dead body of deceased and tell nothing to anyone). She deposed that they had not made complaint against accused Jag Prasad pertaining to demand of dowry in between date of marriage to date of incident. She deposed that they had not seen/met Radha personally. It is affirmed that she was alone in the office of SDM when her statement was recorded at about 11:30 A.M. on 04.10.2016. It is denied that she is deposing falsely regarding the demand of dowry, demand of motorcycle, demand of chain and on the facts that accused killed her daughter as she lost her daughter and she is in extreme pain.

(iv) PW-11 Ajay Mishra deposed that he is residing at aforesaid address along with his family for the last two years. He deposed that in the year 2016 and before, he was running his business to clean the almonds in my godown at a some distance from my aforesaid residence in the same gali and accused Jag Prasad Mishra is known to him as he had worked as helper in his aforesaid godown. He deposed that he used to pay Rs.10,000/-

FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 9 of 61

per month to him as salary for his work. He deposed that on 02.10.2016, at about 1:30 P.M., accused Jag Prasad Mishra had made phone call to him at his phone no. 9582953481 and he told him that his wife Smt. Kiran committed suicide at home. He deposed that when he asked from Jag Prasad why she committed suicide, immediately he switched off his mobile phone. He deposed that he reached at the residence of Jag Prasad and found his wife lying dead on the floor of his room. He deposed that as far as he remember, brother-in-law of Jag Prasad had worked in his godown for a few months in the year 2015 whose name was Vashisht Mishra. He deposed that he had paid salary to him. He deposed that in those days when incident took place, Vashisht Mishra was not residing with Jag Prasad. He deposed that someone had informed to Police. He deposed that police had come at spot and inspected the dead body. He deposed that police had shifted the dead body to the mortuary of GTB for postmortem examination. He deposed that he was not aware why wife of Jag Prasad committed suicide.

The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

(v) PW-13 Smt. Arti deposed that she has been residing along with her family at H. No. 229, Gali no. 4, SBS Colony, Karawal Nagar on rent at first floor for the last four years. Kiran was also residing along with her husband and two children on rent in front of their house in the same gali. She and Kiran used to talk to each other once or twice in a month. Behaviour of Kiran was not social due to which, they did not use to have frequent conversation with each other. On 02-10-2016 at about 4 pm, she returned to her house from house of her sister-in-law/ bhabhi. She noticed crowd in the gali in front of house of Jag Prashad. It came to her notice that Smt. Kiran w/o Jag Prasad had committed suicide. She had not seen Jag Prasad going inside FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 10 of 61 the house at about 10 am on 02-10-2016. After about 8 days, police had visited their house and recorded her statement. On that day, it came to her notice that Kiran was killed by strangulation.

The witness was cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for State as she was resiling from her earlier statement.

During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, she affirmed that police had recorded her statement but she did not remember the date. She volunteered that police had obtained her signature on her statement. She denied that IO had obtained her signature on her statement on 11-10-2016. She denied that on 02-10-2016 at about 12 noon, she had talked with Kiran when she was present at her balcony and she was happy. She volunteered that on that day, she had gone to the house of her sister-in-law at about 10 am. She denied that she had returned to her house at around 2 pm from the house of her sister-in-law. She affirmed that police officials had visited house of Jag Prasad and they had shifted the dead body of Kiran to the mortuary for postmortem examination. She denied that IO had recorded her statement in present of her mother-in-law. She denied that she had seen accused Jag Prasad taking entry in his house at about 1 pm. She denied that she was intentionally not supporting the prosecution case by taking a turn in favour of accused Jag Prasad.

During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, she affirmed that Kiran never told to her that her husband used to take liquor and used to beat her. No quarrel had taken place between Kiran and her husband on the issue of visit of some other girl in their house.

(vi) PW14 Smt. Sulochana deposed that she had been residing alongwith her family at aforesaid address on rent at first FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 11 of 61 floor portion for last one year and Kiran was also residing alongwith her husband and two children on rent in front of their house in the same gali. She deposed that she and Kiran used to talk to each other on domestic issues.

She deposed that on 02.10.2016, she had not seen Jag Prasad coming and going from his house in noon hours. She deposed that on that day at about 11:45 A.M., she had talked with Kiran on domestic issues. At that time, she was happy with her children. On that day at about 2 or 2:30 P.M., she had noticed public persons in gali in front of house of Jag Prasad, then it came into her notice that Kiran committed suicide. Police had visited the room of Kiran and took the dead body to mortuary. Police had recorded her statement after 8-9 days at her home. She was not aware what happened with Kiran and she did not know the other facts of this case.

The witness was cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for State as she was resiling from her earlier statement.

During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, she denied that on 11.10.2016, it came into notice that Kiran was killed by strangulation. She affirmed that her statement was recorded in presence of mother-in-law of PW13 Smt. Arti. She denied that today she was deposing falsely in order to save the accused as he is her neighbour.

During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, she affirmed that Kiran never made any complaint against her husband and in-laws regarding dowry demand and harassment on account of demand of dowry. No quarrel had taken place between Kiran and her husband on the issue of visit of some other girl in their house.

(vii) PW16 Paras Nath Mishra deposed that he is the registered owner of aforesaid house measuring about 100 sq. FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 12 of 61 yards and he is running his work of cracking the almonds. His wife is also registered owner of another house bearing No. 135, Gali No.4, SBS Colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi measuring about 50 sq. yards. Same is constructed upto first, second and third floor. He deposed that accused Jag Prasad alongwith his wife and two children was residing as tenant in a room of second floor of aforesaid house and he used to pay rent Rs.1200/- per month to him.

He further deposed that on 06.11.2016, it came into his notice in his native village that wife of accused Jag Prasad had committed suicide. He was not in Delhi on the day of incident i.e. 02.10.2016. He did not know the other facts of this case.

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement.

During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, he denied that his statement was recorded in this case on 17.10.2016. He denied that he was at his home in Delhi on 02- 10-2016. He denied that on 02.10.2016 at about 1 P.M., it came into his notice that Smt. Kiran w/o accused Jag Prasad had committed suicide in his room or that Police had visited the spot or that dead body was taken to mortuary in his presence. He denied that he was intentionally not supporting the prosecution case in order to save the accused as he was his tenant.

The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

(II) FORMAL/EXPERT WITNESSES.

(i) PW-2 SI Umed Singh, Nodal Officer, CPCR, PHQ deposed that he issued certificate u/s 65B of IEA dated 19-10- 2016 Ex. PW2/A with regard to PCR form and same was handed over to IO on 19-10-2016. He also issued the certificate u/s 65B FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 13 of 61 of IEA dated 19-10-2016 Ex. PW2/C for handing over audio CD containing contents of PCR call, which was delivered to IO.

The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

(ii) PW-19 Dr. Adiba deposed that on 12-10-2016, she was on duty as CMO in JPC hospital, Shastri Park, Delhi. On that day, at about 5 pm, patient Jag Prasad was brought by Ct. Arvind Kumar for collection of his blood sample. She had taken his blood sample which was sealed and handed over to police along with sample seal in intact condition. No fresh external physical injuries seen on naked eye examination. She recorded general condition of patient and obtained his thumb impression on the MLC Ex. PW19/A. The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

(iii) PW-24 Dr. Vishwajeet Singh, Assistant Professor deposed that o0n 04.10.2016, he was posted as Senior Demonstrator, Forensic Medicine Department, GTB hospital. On the said date. Executive Magistrate and SI Abodh Kumar brought inquest papers for postmortem examination of deceased Smt. Kiran, 24 years female. The postmortem examination was started at 3.10 p.m. and was concluded at 4.20 p.m. The details of the injuries over neck are mentioned in PM report no.1445/16 dt.04.10.2016 at point A, which is Ex. PW24/A. He further deposed that as per internal examination conducted by him, he noticed that in neck, on-dissection, bruising of bilateral carotid sheath and neck muscles was present. Other organs were congested.

He opined that time since death was about 2 days. Cause of death as asphyxia as a result of ante mortem ligature strangulation. He preserved the Viscera, Clothes, both hands nail FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 14 of 61 clips and neck strapping of the dead body.

The said articles were sealed and handed over to police alongwith sample seal. He had put his initials on 21 inquest papers. Viscera report was still awaited as per charge-sheet. No subsequent opinion regarding material used for strangulation was sought by the IO as far as he remember and same was not on file.

During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he found internal injury over brain and scalp tissue. It was ante mortem injury. The said injury was recent injury i.e. within 12 to 24 hours. No mark of struggle or assault was noticed over the body.

PW24 was recalled post receipt of subsequent opinion on 15.11.2018. PW24 had deposed further after going through the subsequent opinion dated 24-12-2016 Ex. PW26/E and FSL report dated 28-09-2017 Ex. PW25/C and Viscera report dated 31- 01-2017 Ex. PW25/A on file. He claimed that an application moved by I.O Inspector Ravinder Malik to provide subsequent opinion in this case was marked to him by his department. One sealed Parcel containing ligature material duly sealed with the seal of A.K was also received by the department and the same was forwarded to him for examination to provide subsequent opinion on 24-12-2016. On the same day, he opened the aforesaid sealed parcel which was found containing two pieces of one violet colour Saree with white, yellow, green and black prints. The dimension of the pieces have been diagrammatically mentioned by him on the back page of subsequent opinion Ex. PW24/B. PW24 testified that he had given subsequent opinion that the ligature mark as mentioned in P.M report Ex. PW24/A was FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 15 of 61 possible with the ligature material (pieces of a saree) examined by him vide Ex. PW26/E. He had also gone through the viscera report as well as FSL report and after going through the same, he came to the conclusion that the cause of the death will remain same as mentioned earlier in P.M Report. He had sealed ligature material with the seal of JSV after examining it and handed over the subsequent opinion with sealed parcel to concerned official of their department to deliver the same to the concerned IO.

After seeing the photograph Ex. PW9/A-8 on file, PW27 deposed that same was depicting the same saree which was examined by him to provide subsequent opinion. Saree was exhibited as Ex. PW24/P-1 through photographs.

The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

During the course of final arguments, it was brought to the notice of this court that further investigation in this case is pending with regard to procuring CDRs of mobile no. of accused. An inquiry for that purpose was conducted which culminated in filing of supplementary chargesheet on 04.03.2024. Copy thereof was supplied to the accused. As such, witnesses stated in supplementary chargesheet were summoned and examined.

(iv) PW-27 Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. got examined. He identified his signature on letter no. Nodal/ Del/DP/43947 dated 01-03-2024 Ex. PW27/A; certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to mobile no. 9599129896 for the period 01-10-2016 to 01-11-2016 Ex. PW27/B; CAF pertaining to mobile no. 9599129896 issued in the name of Vashist Mishra along with photocopy of Aadhar card as Ex. PW27/C; location chart/Cell ID pertaining to mobile no. 9599129896 as Ex. PW27/D; CDR pertaining to mobile no. 9599129896 for the period 01-10-2016 to 01-11-2016 as Ex.

FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 16 of 61

PW27/F. He was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

(III) INVESTIGATING OFFICIALS

(i) PW-3 Rajesh Dhawal was the Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest proceedings. He deposed that on 04.10.2016, he was present in his office at Karawal Nagar. On that day at about 11:15 A.M., SI Abodh Kumar had produced Smt. Nanka, mother of deceased and Sh. Vashisht Mishra, brother of deceased in his office. He further deposed that he recorded their statements one by one whatsoever they told to him and same were recorded in their statements vide Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW1/C respectively..As per statements of aforesaid witnesses, there was no allegations of dowry death in this matter. He further deposed that he had directed police officials to ascertain the cause of death. He further deposed that he made endorsement at encircled portion Ex.PW3/B under the statement of Vashisht Mishra.

He further deposed that he had received call of SDM to deal the aforesaid matter and it came into his notice from SI Abodh that dead body of deceased namely Kiran had already been preserved in the mortuary for the purpose of postmortem examination and on the same day, he visited mortuary and completed inquest proceedings with the assistance of SI Abodh. Dead body was identified by mother of deceased and brother of deceased vide their statements Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/A respectively. He further deposed that he had also inspected the dead body and whatsoever he noticed over the dead body, same was mentioned in inquest form and the same is Ex.PW3/C . He further deposed that he had noticed ligature mark on the neck of FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 17 of 61 the deceased and he got filled up request for postmortem examination and same is Ex.PW3/D. He further deposed that he had directed SI Abodh to handover the dead body after postmortem examination, he made endorsement to this effect on the aforesaid request for postmortem examination. Aforesaid inquest papers along with copy of DD no.26B Mark PW3/1 and other relevant documents were sent to autopsy surgeon for the purpose of postmortem examination. He deposed that he had met the autopsy surgeon there and requested him to take nail clipping of deceased in this matter as it was thought proper by him on seeing ligature mark on the neck of deceased. and he left the mortuary giving direction to SI Abodh to handover the dead body after postmortem examination to legal heirs..He had also made endorsement under the statement of Smt. Nanka that there was no allegations leveled by mother and father was not present, but IO was directed to proceed with the matter as per law and the cause of death be ascertained through postmortem examination.. The endorsement made by him is Ex.PW3/E. He further submitted that there was no other visible injury marks over the dead body except ligature mark on the neck when he had seen the dead body during inquest proceedings.

During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he stated that there was no other visible injury marks over the dead body except ligature mark and he had seen the dead body during inquest proceedings.

(ii) PW-4 Ct. Deepak deposed that on 24-12-2016, the IO handed over him request letter for providing subsequent opinion and directed to produce the same before HOD, Forensic Department of GTB hospital. IO had taken out one sealed parcel containing saree from the custody of MHCM and MHCM had handed over the said parcel to him with forwarding letter no.

FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 18 of 61

167/21/16 and he deposited the same with HOD, Forensic Department of GTB vide RC Ex. PW4/A. The copy of request letter is Mark PW4/1.

The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

(iii) PW-5 W/HC Christa brought daily diary register B pertaining to DD no. 26 dated 02-10-2016 of PS Karawal Nagar. She deposed that on 02-10-2016, she was working as DD Writer at PS Karawal Nagar, at about 2:29 pm, Wireless Operator came to him and informed that wife of caller committed suicide at her house in Gali no. 4, near Prahlad Model School, Toll Tax, SBS Colony, Karawal Nagar. He recorded DD no. 26B Ex. PW5/A which was assigned to SI Abodh.

She was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

(iv) PW6 SI Jagbir Singh deposed that on 02.10.2016, he was on duty as Incharge of Crime Team North East District. He further deposed that he received information to reach at spot of present case from Control Room at about 2:40 P.M and thereafter he alongwith photographer HC Mahavir reached at spot i.e. First Floor of H.No. 135, Gali No.4, SBS Colony, Karawal N agar, Delhi where SI Abodh alongwith staff met them. He further deposed that he had noticed one lady hanging with the ceiling fan and she was got down after cutting the printed chunni.. He inspected the dead body.. Prior to cutting the chunni, photographer had taken 12 photographs. At that stage, photographs Mark PW6/1 to PW6/12 were shown to witness. On seeing the same, he further deposed that that these are depicting FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 19 of 61 the spot and deceased of this case. He had stayed at spot till 4 P.M. He further deposed that he advised SI Abodh to get conducted postmortem to ascertain the cause of death, one mobile phone touch screen was lying on the floor of the room in question. He further deposed that he also advised to take into possession the mobile phone and both the parts of printed chunni which had been used for hanging. SOC(Scene of crime) report was prepared by him at the spot vide Ex.PW6/A. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that SOC report was prepared by him in his own handwriting. He reached at spot at about 3:30 P.M. He deposed that he did not remember the names of Constables who were present alongwith SI Abodh at spot. IO had not seized the mobile phone in his presence. He further deposed that he had advised IO to take into possession the mobile phone. Photographs had been taken by photographer HC Mahavir. He deposed that he had not noticed any visible injury mark on the body of deceased except ligature mark on the neck.

(v) PW8 HC Sumdev was the Duty Officer posted at PS Karawal Nagar at the relevant time. He has proved the factum of registration of present FIR. He deposed that on 11-10-2016, he was performing his duty at PS Karawal Nagar and at about 5:25 pm, rukka Ex. 8/A recorded by SI Abodh Kumar was presented before him and he made endorsement Ex. PW8/B. He recorded DD no. 16A and recorded FIR Ex. PW8/C. Certificate regarding correctness of FIR and proper maintenance of computer system was issued by him vide Ex. PW8/D. The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 20 of 61

(vi) PW9 ASI Mahavir Singh deposed that on 02.10.2016, he along with crime Team Incharge SI Jagbir Singh reached at spot i.e. first floor room of H.No.125, Gali No.4, SBS Colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi at about 3:30 PM on receiving information from Control Room and remained there till 4 P.M. SI Abodh alongwith other police officials were present at spot. He deposed that they had noticed one female dead body lying on the floor of room, two parts of chunni were also lying near the dead body and one scissor was also lying there. The Incharge inspected the dead body and he took 12 photographs of the dead body and room where dead body and household articles were lying.

He has identified the all 11 photographs Ex. PW9/A-1 to Ex.PW9/A-11 as depicting the dead body of deceased of present case and place where dead body was lying. He deposed that one photograph bearing no. allotted by IO as 11 has no concern with the present case and aforesaid photographs were clicked by Govt. Digital camera. He further deposed that he had brought certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act for proper maintenance and care of aforesaid digital camera and its memory card etc and certificate is Ex.PW9/B. During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he affirmed that he had noticed mark (hanging mark) on the neck of deceased but he could not say whether any quarrel had taken place at the spot or not. He deposed that husband of deceased was present there when they reached there.

(vii) PW-12 Ct. Harsh deposed that on 19-10-2016, on the directions of IO, he collected PCR form Ex. PW2/B, its certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW2/A and one CD containing voice of caller from PHQ which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A. He was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 21 of 61

(viii) PW-15 Inspector Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 15- 12-2016, he was called by the IO/ Inspector Ravinder Malik at PS and from there he took him to spot i.e. room at first floor of H. No. 135, Gali no. 4, SBS Colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. He took rough notes and measurements to prepare scaled site plan on the pointing of SI Abodh Kumar in presence of Inspector Ravinder Malik. He left the spot and prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW15/A in their office on the basis of rough notes and measurements on 22-12-2016. On 22-12-2016, the scaled site plan was collected by the IO.

The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite having given the opportunity.

(ix) PW-17 HC Yogesh Kumar deposed that on 02.10.2016, he was on duty as MHC(M) at P.S Karawal Nagar. He brought register no. 19 and RC book containing entries of present case. He proved the relevant record as Ex. PW17/A to Ex. PW17/N. The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

(x) PW-18 Ct. Kailash deposed that on 21-10-2016, he reached Tihar Jail and took custody of accused Jag Prasad and took him to FSL Rohini to take his voice sample. IO met them there. Experts had taken voice sample of accused in CD/ cassette which was seized by the IO on being produced by expert vide seizure memo Ex. PW18/A. On the same day, one seizure memo Ex. PW18/B was also prepared by the IO and he sealed the CD containing voice sample of accused in a parcel. He left the aforesaid accused at Tihar Jail as directed by IO.

The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 22 of 61

(xi) PW20 Ct. Sachin Rana deposed that on 13-12-2016, he had taken one sealed parcel containing viscera and one sealed envelope containing PM Report and sample seal from custody of MHCM on the request of IO to FSL along with forwarding letter vide RC no. 148/21/16. On the same day, he had also taken three sealed parcels containing exhibits and sample seal with forwarding letter etc. to FSL Rohini vide RC no. 149/21/16 and deposited the same to the dealing clerk of FSL. Copy of exhibits is Ex. PW17/F and Ex. PW17/I. He had received acknowledgment Ex. PW17/G and Ex. PW17/J. Both were returned back to MHCM at PS. The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

(xii) PW-21 HC Arvind Kumar, deposed that on 12.10.16 accused was taken on PC for one day and IO took the accused to his house bearing no.135, gali no.4, SBS colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi by gypsy. He further deposed that at the house, accused pointed out one room in his presence saying that it is the same room where he had seen his wife with some other person in suspicious circumstances on 02.10.2012 and further told that he in angry mood hit the head of his wife with wall of the room as a result of which, his wife became unconscious. He further disclosed that thereafter, he strangulated his wife by nylon rope and killed her. Accused further disclosed that the nylon rope was thrown by him in a drain(nala), Khajuri Pusta Road, near Toll Tax picket. Thereafter, he led them there and despite efforts made to trace out the nylon rope, same could not be recovered from nala. Thereafter, accused was taken to JPC for medical examination. He further deposed that his blood sample was taken by the doctor which was received by him in sealed condition FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 23 of 61 from the doctor and was handed over to IO. He proved the seizure memo of blood sample i.e. Ex.PW21/A. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and he denied that after the arrest of accused, IO interrogated him and recorded his disclosure statement on 11.10.2016, but on showing, he admits his signature upon the disclosure statement i.e. Ex.PW21/E. He admitted that on 12.10.2016, accused Jag Prasad led them to his house in pursuance of disclosure statement to point out the place of incident and for recovery of nylon rope. He further deposed that accused led them at his room which was situated on the first floor of his house and that he pointed out place of incident and IO prepared pointing out memo at the instance of accused. He further deposed that after the blood sample was taken by the doctor, doctor handed over him the blood sample in sealed condition with MLC to him and he handed over the same to IO after return at PS. In his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW-21 deposed that he does not remember the colour of wall on which the accused had hit the head of his wife. He further deposed that they remained at the house of accused for about ½ or 1 hour and nothing was taken into possession from that room by the IO in his presence. He further deposed that he does not remember the name of those persons, who had made search of nylon rope in nala and that he was not aware whether IO had recorded statement of aforesaid persons or not.

(xiii) PW-22 is SI Anil Kumar, who deposed that on 02.10.2016, he was on patrolling duty on motorcycle from 08 am to 08 pm as Checking Officer in the area of PS. He received information from control room on his wireless set that one lady FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 24 of 61 committed suicide at H. No. 135, Gali no.4, SBS colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi and thereafter, he reached at the aforesaid house. He further deposed that PCR officials were already present there. He had seen one lady lying on the floor of the room of first floor of the house. He further deposed that her husband was also present there. PW-22 deposed that the husband of the deceased lady told that he had got down the hanging dead body by cutting the saree with scissor and also told that his wife committed suicide with the help of saree by hanging. He further deposed that in the meantime, SI Abodh Kumar alongwith one constable came at the spot. He called Crime Team officials through phone and thereafter crime team officials came and inspected the dead body and also taken the photographs of the deceased. Thereafter, dead body was got preserved for 72 hours through constable.

(xiv) PW-23 is HC Pawan Kumar, investigating police official, who had joined the investigation of present case alongwith first IO SI Abodh Sharma. He deposed on the same lines on which SI Abodh Sharma i.e. PW-27 has deposed with regard to all the proceedings conducted on 02.10.2016. He further deposed that on 13.10.16, he had brought 5 sealed parcels containing exhibits of present case from the Incharge of Mortuary, GTB hospital and same were delivered to the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/C. He further deposed that so long as the aforesaid sealed parcels remained with him, no body tampered with the same.

In his cross examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he deposed that his statement was recorded in this case on 13.10.2016. He further submitted that one mobile phone FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 25 of 61 belonging to deceased make VIVO white colour having sim of Aircel was lying at the spot and same was taken into possession by the IO after converting it in a parcel vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/D. He admitted that one steel drum and one plastic parti of pink colour were also seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/E. He further deposed that he had seen one seizure lying at the spot and same had been used to cut the saree/chunni to take down the hanging dead body and same was taken into possession by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/F. He identified the incriminating articles seized from the spot i.e. one drum as Ex.P1, patri as Ex.P2, scissor as Ex.P3, mobile phone as Ex.P4.

In his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW-23 deposed that no other injury marks were noticed by him on the dead body. They had not noticed blood stains either on the floor or on the walls of the room. He further deposed that when he left the spot, accused remained with SI Abodh and that accused was taken to PS on the same day by SI Abodh. He further deposed that the dead body was released in favour of legal heirs at about 02:30 pm on 04.10.2016. PW-23 deposed that it was told by public persons present in the gali that one lady had committed suicide and it was also told by them that accused had come in his house at about 01:30 pm to take lunch from his work place.

((xv) PW-25 Inspector Sanjeev Chahar deposed that on 07- 01-2017, he was on duty as SHO at PS Karawal Nagar. Further investigation of case was taken by previous IO Inspector Ravinder Malik as he got transferred. He collected case file. Major part of investigation was already done by previous IO SI FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 26 of 61 Abodh and Inspector Ravinder Malik. Accused was in JC at that time. He completed investigation and submitted chargesheet against accused for offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC. During course of trial, expert opinion dated 31-01-2017 Ex. PW25/A with forwarding letter Ex. PW25/A-1 and other expert opinion dated 29-03-2017 Ex. PW25/B and other expert opinion dated 28-09-2017 Ex. PW25/C with forwarding letter Ex. PW25/C-1 were placed by Inspector Narender Kumar on 16-01-2018. He identified signatures of Inspector Narender Kumar in official capacity. Application to submit expert opinion was exhibited as Ex. PW25/D. He was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(xvi) PW-26 Inspector Ravinder Malik, is the second Investigating officer/IO of the present case. He deposed that on 11.10.2016, he was posted as ATO at PS Karawal Nagar. On that day, further investigation of present case was assigned to him by the oral order of senior police officer. Rukka Ex. PW-8/A and copy of FIR Ex. PW-8/C were delivered to him for investigation by duty officer HC Sum Dev at about 06:10 PM. He met SI Abodh who had dealt with the present matter in pursuance of DD No. 26B dated 02.10.2016. During investigation SI Abdoh Kumar had delivered inquest papers and other documents of this case which had been prepared by him in between 02.10.2016 to 10.10.2016. It came into his notice after going through the documents prepared by SI Abdoh that FIR in the present case was got registered on receiving PM report of deceased Kiran.

On the same day, he visited the spot of present case i.e. room of first floor of house no. 135, gali no.4, SBS colony, FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 27 of 61 Karawal Nagar, Delhi in the presence of SI Abdoh and Ct. Arvind. He prepared rough site plan on the pointing out of SI Adbod kumar vide Ex. PW-26/A. Thereafter, they made search of accused Jag Prasad in the nearby area. During search of accused they reached near Pusta at some distance of gali no. 4 at about 08:00 PM. On the pointing out of SI Abdoh, accused Jag Prasad was apprehended and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-21/C and personal search memo Ex. PW-21/D was prepared. One mobile phone and Rs. 100/- were found from his personal search. He interrogated accused, whatsoever accused told to them about the incident of present case, same was recorded in disclosure statement Ex. PW-21/ E. It was disclosed by accused that he can get recovered weapon of offense ie. plastic rope from vacant plot in gali no. 4. In pursuance of disclosure statement, accused led them in a vacant plot in gali. 4, which was at some distance from his residence. Search of plastic rope was made at the instance of accused but recovery of the same could not be effected. Thereafter, they returned to PS and accused was put in lock up. On next date ie. 12.10.2016, accused was produced before Court after medical examination from there he was taken on PC for one day for the purpose of recovery of weapon of offense i.e. plastic rope. He was brought at PS. During course of interrogation, accused further disclosed that he had given false statement for the recovery of plastic rope. He again disclosed before them that he can get recovered plastic rope from nala near toll tax pusta, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. He recorded supplementary disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW-21/G. In pursuance of disclosure statement, accused again led them at Nala near toll tax pusta road for recovery. They reached there at about 06:00 PM.

FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 28 of 61

Search of plastic rope at the instance of accused was made but in vain as drain was deep and fast water flows there. Accused led them at the place of incident i.e. room where he was residing with his wife and he had committed crime. He prepared pointing out memo at the instance of accused vide Ex. PW-21/F. Accused was sent to Jag Parvesh Hospital in custody of Ct. Arvind Kumar for the purpose of taking his blood as sample. PW26 had given a written request addressing to doctor to take blood of accused as sample. Ct. Arvind had taken the accused to Jag Parvesh Hospital. On that day, he returned after some hours and he produced accused before him and he also delivered MLC of accused Ex. PW-19/A. He had also produced one sealed parcel containing blood of accused as sample and sample seal to him. He prepared seizure memo to this effect vide Ex. PW-21/A. He deposited the aforesaid sealed parcel and sample seal to MHCM in intact condition. He recorded statement of Ct. Arvind on the next day. Accused was produced before the Court and he was sent to JC on written request.

PW26 further testified that on 13.10.2016 Ct. Pawan was sent to Mortuary of GTB and from there he brought five sealed parcel containing viscera of deceased Kiran, cloth of deceased, nail clipping of both the hands of deceased, neck strapping and PM report which were delivered to him and he seized the same vide memo Ex. PW-21/C. On 19.10.2016, Ct. Harsh was sent to PHQ to collect the copy of PCR form and its certificate. He had directed him to bring the audio cassette containing voice of caller as caller (accused Jag Prasad) had made first call at 100 number saying that 'caller ki wife ne fasi laga li hai'. Ct. Harsh brought the PCR form which was filled up in connection of first FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 29 of 61 information vide Ex. PW- 2/B. Certificate u/s 65 B for aforesaid PCR Form and CD containing first information were exhibited as Ex. PW-2/A and PW-2/C respectively. Ct. Harsh had produced CD containing first information made by caller before him which was seized by him vide memo Ex. PW-12/A. Same was kept on file in safe custody.

PW26 claimed that on 17.10.2016, he had moved an application before concerned court for taking voice sample of accused Jag Prasad for the comparison of voice material as accused Jag Prasad had made call at 100 number about the incident vide carbon copy of application as Ex. PW 26/B. Same was allowed with direction that accused would be produced before officials of FSL by the 3 rd battalion for the purpose of taking his voice as sample on 21.10.2016.On 21.10.2016, he along with staff reached in the office of FSL after arranging two audio fresh cassettes and one CD containing first information passed by accused to control room which had been prepared from the original CD. Accused Jag Prasad was brought from J/C by the police of 3rd battalion in the office of FSL. He was produced before concerned officials of FSL. He had also presented carbon copy of application Ex.PW 26/B before concerned officials of FSL to take the voice sample of accused. He had also produced two fresh audio CD and one CD prepared from the original CD which was containing first information passed on by the accused to control room. He discussed the matter with the FSL officials. Thereafter, voice sample was taken by the FSL officials in one CD and they prepared copy of the same in another CD. Both CDs containing voice sample of accused were given mark as 'O' and 'C'. Same were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW18/A FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 30 of 61 which bears signatures of Ct. Kailash at point A who had produced the accused from Jail. He had seized the aforesaid CDs after putting in a CD cover and converting in a envelope which were sealed with the seal of RK. They returned to PS and accused was taken to jail by the same police official from the office of FSL itself. He deposited two sealed parcels containing sample voice and other cassette containing copy material of first information to MHC(M) in intact condition. So long as aforesaid CDs remained in his custody, nobody tampered them. He had recorded statement of Ct. Kailash in the office of FSL during his stay there on 21.10.2016.

PW26 further claimed that on 14.12.2016, one sealed parcel containing voice sample of accused mark 'O' and one other sealed parcel containing CD, which was collected from the PHQ, which was containing first information passed on by the accused about the incident were sent to FSL alongwith forwarding letter etc. vide R/C bearing no. 154/21/16 through Ct. Sachin after taking out the same from the custody of MHC(M). On the same day, aforesaid sealed parcels were deposited with the concerned officials of FSL by Ct.Sachin Rana. Photocopy of R/C bearing no.154/21/16 was exhibited as Ex.PW 26/C and acknowledgment as Ex. PW 26/D respectively PW26 further testified that on 15.12.2016, he called Inspector Mahesh, Draftsman who visited the spot and took rough notes and measurements at the instance of SI Abodh in his presence. Later on, he prepared the scaled site plan in his office vide Ex.15/A. He had recorded statement of aforesaid Inspector during course of investigation.

PW26 claimed that on 24.12.2016, one sealed parcel FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 31 of 61 containing Saree (dhoti) was sent to Forensic Department of GTB to get subsequent opinion after taking the same from custody of MHC(M) with written request vide R/C no.167/21/16. Copy of FIR, Copy of PM report and copy of seizure memo of Saree was also sent alongwith written request. Copy of written request to get subsequent opinion is Ex.PW17/L and copy of R/C is Ex.PW17/M. Ct. Deepak was sent to Forensic Department by him with original request letter for subsequent opinion and other documents and sealed parcel. He deposited the same to the dealing clerk of Forensic Department of GTB. PW26 recorded statement of Ct.Deepak and MHC(M) HC Yogesh Kumar to this effect on that day. PW26 deposed that later on, officials of PS Karawal Nagar had submitted subsequent opinion prepared by Dr. B.J. Singh vide Ex. PW26/E. He was not aware by whom the aforesaid subsequent opinion and concerned sealed parcel containing exhibits was collected from the Forensic Department of GTB Hospital, however subsequent opinion as aforesaid and others FSL expert opinions were submitted before the court during the Trial by Insp. Narender on 16.01.2018 vide written request Ex. PW25/D. PW26 further testified that vide sample report dated 29.03.2017 Ex. PW25/D, it was revealed that first information call was made by the accused as by voice sample and CD containing recording of first information are of the same person. He recorded statement of PW Vashishth Mishra, Aarti, Sulachna Mishra, Ajay Mishra, Prashant Mishra, Shivanand Pandey and other police officials and their names are mentioned in the list of PWs, time to time during the course of investigation. He completed investigation and prepared chargesheet after collecting FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 32 of 61 relevant DD entries and other documents against accused Jag Prasad which were placed on file for the offence u/s 302 IPC which was sent to the Prosecution Branch by some other police officials and later on charge-sheet was submitted before the court by Inspector Sanjeev Chahar for trial. He correctly identified the accused Jag Pravesh present in court that day.

Photocopy of statement of witnesses recorded by PW26 of Sh. Ajay Mishra dated 11.10.16 (Ex. PW26/F1), Salochna Mishra dt. 11.10.16 (Ex. PW14/A), Arti dt.11.10.16 (Ex. PW13/A), Vashisht Mishra (Ex.PW 1/D) and Paras Nath Mishra (Ex. PW 16/A) were shown to the witness and on seeing the same he submitted that he had recorded statement of aforesaid witnesses correctly and whatsoever they had told him, same was recorded in their statements. Portion A to A, B to B and C to C were also read over to the witness to which witness submitted that these facts were told to him by the concerned witnesses during course of interrogation.

PW26 also identified the case property i.e. one CD make Writex Ex. PW26/P-1 which was played on laptop arranged by the IO. After hearing the voice material in the CD, PW26 submitted that it contained the conversation of PCR officials and first informant (accused Jag Prasad) and it also contains first information i.e "meri biwi ne phansi Laga Li Hai " passed on by the accused Jag Prasad to control room at 100 number; one audio cassette in cover as Ex. PW26/P-2 containing voice sample of accused Jag Prasad and this cassette was marked as 'C' as it was prepared from original CD by the FSL officials; one audio cassette in cover Ex. PW26/P-3 containing voice sample of accused Jag Prasad and this cassette was marked as 'O' as it was FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 33 of 61 prepared by the FSL officials. PW26 further deposed that both the aforesaid audio cassettes with cover were arranged by him to take voice sample of accused.

During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he denied the suggestion that nothing was deposited in the Malkhana or that no proper norms were adopted while taking voice sample of accused. He denied that no voice sample was sent to FSL. He denied that he has not properly investigated the matter or that he was deposing falsely.

(xvii) PW-27 SI Abodh Sharma was the first Investigating officer/IO of the present case. He deposed that on 02.10.2016, he was on day emergency duty at PS Karawal Nagar. At about 2.30 p.m., copy of DD no.26B Ex. PW 5/A was assigned to him by the DO to take action in the matter which was in connection with commission of suicide by the wife of the informant in a room of first floor of H. No. 135, Gali no. 4, SBS Colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. He along with Ct. Pawan reached at the spot and found one female dead body lying on the floor of the aforesaid room. PCR officials were also present there. Husband of deceased was present at the spot, who had made call at 100 number. It was told to them by the caller that his wife Smt. Kiran had committed suicide. He informed about the incident to senior police officials as well as crime team officials. It also came into his notice from the caller that the incident took place within 7 years of marriage of the deceased. Hence, he informed SDM about the incident and called him at the spot, but SDM had not come at the spot despite information given to him over phone.

ACP and SHO along with their staff came at the spot and inspected the dead body and scene of crime. Caller namely Jag FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 34 of 61 Prasad had told them that he had cut the saree to bring down the dead body from the ceiling fan. Both the parts of saree were lying on the floor as one was removed from the neck and another was removed from ceiling fan by the caller. Crime team officials namely, SI Jagbir Singh and HC Mahavir Singh came at the spot at 3 p.m. Photographer HC Mahavir Singh had taken 11 photographs of deceased and place where incident took place.

11 photographs Ex. PW9/A-1 to Ex.PW 9/A-11 were shown to the witness, who submitted that these photographs were depicting the deceased Smt. Kiran and room where incident took place. Photograph Ex. PW9/A-6 also depicted the steel drum and plastic stool (patri) which was used by the deceased to commit suicide as told to them by the caller. The said photographs are also depicting the other household articles and both pieces of saree lying in the room.

Crime team Incharge SI Jagbir Singh advised to take into possession the mobile phone touch screen which was lying on floor of the room in question. He also advised to seize both the parts of printed saree. He had further advised to send the dead body for postmortem examination to ascertain the cause of death. After about one hour, crime team officials left the spot. They had noticed ligature mark on the neck of deceased. As per directions of senior police officials, PW27 completed necessary formalities and sent the dead body to mortuary through Ct. Pawan to get preserved the same for the purpose of postmortem examination against written request Ex.PW 23/B. Prior to sending the dead body to mortuary, he had given information about incident to parents of deceased after arranging phone number from the caller Jag Prasad. Senior police officials left the spot.

FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 35 of 61

PW27 further testified that he took into possession one mobile phone from the spot belonging to deceased, both the pieces of saree used by deceased to commit suicide, one steel drum and stool (patri) used for committing suicide, one scissor used by accused Jag Prasad for cutting the saree vide separate 4 seizure memos Ex. PW23/D, Ex.PW23/A, Ex.PW23/E and Ex.PW23/F respectively after converting the said parcels and sealing with the seal of 'AK. He made inquiry in the nearby area and recorded statement of neighbours, namely, Vijay Laxmi, Amar Nath Mishra, Priyag Dutt Mishra, Lalta Prasad (elder brother of accused) vide Ex. PW27/A to Ex. PW 27/D. It came into his notice from above-said statement that deceased alongwith her husband was residing as tenant and nothing incriminating against anyone could come on record from aforesaid statements. Room in question was locked by him and on completion of necessary formalities at the spot, they both police officials came at PS. He deposited four sealed parcels containing exhibits lifted from spot to MHC(M) in intact condition. He narrated aforesaid facts to SHO and recorded relevant DD entries in Roznamcha.

PW27 further deposed that on next day i.e. 03.10.2016 at about 7.00 p.m., mother and brother of deceased came at PS. He passed on information about the arrival of aforesaid person to SDM on phone. He was directed by SDM to produce aforesaid person on next day in his office.On 04.10.2016, mother and brother of deceased came at PS as per directions given by him to them. PW27 had produced them before SDM in his office. Executive Magistrate recorded statement of mother of deceased namely, Nanka Devi and brother of deceased namely Vashisht FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 36 of 61 Mishra one by one in the office of Executive Magistrate which were delivered to him by the Executive Magistrate with direction to present the same before SHO to take action as per law. Same are Ex. PW3/A and Ex.PW1/C respectively. He reached at mortuary, GTB hospital where Executive Magistrate had come and he completed inquest proceedings and he had assisted him. He had also prepared documents during inquest proceedings on the directions and dictation of Executive Magistrate. Dead body of deceased Smt. Kiran was identified during inquest proceedings by Smt. Nanka and Vashisht Mishra vide their statements Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PWI/A respectively. Thereafter, inquest form was filled up vide Ex.PW3/C. Whatsoever was noticed over the dead body, same was mentioned in the inquest form. Request for postmortem examination was filled up by Executive Magistrate vide Ex. PW3/D. Inquest papers alongwith copy of DD no. 26B mark PW3/1 were sent to Autopsy Surgeon for the purpose of postmortem examination. Thereafter, Executive Magistrate made endorsement on request for postmortem to hand over the dead body to legal heirs/relatives after postmortem examination and he left the mortuary. Postmortem examination was conducted vide PM report Ex. PW 24/A. Doctor concerned had told him(PW26) that he preserved viscera, cloth, nail clipping of both the hands, neck strapping of deceased. PW26 handed over dead body after PM to legal heirs i.e. brother of deceased against receipt. He along with Ct.Pawan came to PS and narrated the facts to SHO. Nothing incriminating has come on record from the statement of Smt. Nanka and Vashisht Mishra recorded by Executive Magistrate to take action against anyone. DD entry was kept pending till receiving of PM report.

FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 37 of 61

PW27 further claimed that on 10.10.16, he received PM report Ex. PW24/A and it came into his notice that cause of death was opined as ' asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem ligature strangulation'. He discussed the PM finding and other material with SHO and on next day, case was discussed with ACP also.On 11.10.16 at about 5.00 p.m., as per directions of senior police officials, he made endorsement Ex. PW8/A to get registered FIR for offence u/s 302 IPC on the basis of DD no. 26B Ex. PW5/A. He presented rukka Ex. PW8/A before DO at about 5.25 p.m. for registration of FIR. He had also made request in the rukka to hand over the investigation to Inspector Ravinder Malik. HC Sumdev registered FIR of present case Ex. PW8/C. He completed necessary formalities regarding registration of case. Thereafter, rukka Ex. PW8/A and copy of FIR Ex.PW8/C were delivered to Inspector Ravinder Malik for investigation. He joined investigation with IO Inspector Ravinder Malik. They reached at the spot. IO prepared site plan Ex.PW 26/A on his pointing out. They both police officials came to the conclusion that husband of deceased namely Jag Prasad is responsible for the murder of his wife. On the day of incident at the spot, accused had given false statement before him that his wife has committed suicide by hanging with ceiling fan. He made search of accused Jag Prasad here and there. He was not present at his home when site plan was prepared. IO interrogated neighbouring persons to find out the presence of accused Jag Prasad and also made efforts to trace him. During search at about 9.30 p.m., accused Jag Prasad met them in gali no.4, SBS colony, Delhi. IO arrested him on his pointing out vide arrest memo.

PW27 further testified that on 11.10.2016 at about 9.30 FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 38 of 61 pm, accused Jag Parsad was arrested by IO in his presence as well as in presence of Const. Arvind vide arrest memo Ex.PW21/C and personal search memo Ex.PW21/D. One mobile phone make I-Tel M having SIM no.9599229896, a sum of Rs.100/- was found from personal search. IO interrogated aforesaid accused and whatsoever he told to them about the incident, same was recorded by the IO in his disclosure statement Ex.PW21/E. It was disclosed by the accused that he can get recovered rope (rassi) which had been used in crime, from the nearby vacant plot. IO made search of aforesaid weapon but in vain. IO had also disclosed that he can point out place of incident where he committed crime. They left the aforesaid area after making local inquiries and reached at PS. Accused was put in lockup.

On 15.12.2016, PW27 was called by the IO and was taken to spot alongwith draftsman, there rough note and measurement were taken by draftsman Insp. Mahesh Kumar at spot to prepare scaled site plan and he had pointed out the place of incident to him on that day. Thereafter, they returned to PS. He identified the photographs Ex. P9/A-1 to A-11 depicting the spot of this case, deceased, steel drum, patri, two pieces of sari, scissor etc. He also identified the case property one mobile phone make Vivo of white colour as Ex. P-4 belonging to the deceased; one scissor Ex. P-4 which was used to cut the sari to bring down the dead body of deceased; two pieces of sari of white and purple colour as PW24/P-1 (coll) and submitted that he had seized the same after lifting from the floor of room where incident had taken place; one plastic sack tied with sutli as Ex. P-1 ; one black mobile phone make I-Tel as Ex. PW27/P-1 which was seized FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 39 of 61 from the personal search of accused.

During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he affirmed that till the investigation remained with him, no public person had disclosed that accused had committed murder of his wife. He affirmed that no witness told him that accused was having extramarital affairs with some other girl. He denied the suggestion that Aarti never made any statement in his presence. He denied that he had not conducted fair investigation. He denied that accused has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of presumption.

(xviii) PW-28 SI Mandeep Kukana deposed that on 01-03- 2024, he was posted as SI at PS Karawal Nagar. On that day, he had sent a notice to Bharti Airtel to procure certified copies of CDR, CAF, Location Chart and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to phone no. 9599129896. On the same day, he obtained the aforesaid documents from Bharti Airtel and he prepared supplementary chargesheet and filed before the court.

The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating facts were put to the accused, which were denied by him. Accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that he and his late wife Kiran shared a healthy relationship and have two children. There was never any demand of dowry as alleged by his mother-in-law. He had no difference with his wife. He did not opt to lead defence FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 40 of 61 evidence.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

6. This court has heard the arguments from Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Defence counsel and have perused the record.

Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC. Despite the fact that PW13 Smt. Aarti and PW14 Smt. Sulochna Mishra have not supported the case of the Prosecution, nevertheless, the case of the Prosecution stands on strong footing. There is categorical Postmortem report Ex. PW24/A wherein the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem ligature strangulation, and subsequent opinion Ex. PW26/A whereby the ligature mark in the PM report is opined to be compatible with seized ligature material i.e. piece of saree. Despite being aware of the findings of the autopsy surgeon in the PM report, the accused did not offer any explanation in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to circumstances leading to the death of his wife which has taken place in his own tenanted premises.

On the other hand, it is submitted by Shri Dhruv Shukla, Ld. Defense counsel on behalf of accused that accused is falsely implicated in the present case. No eyewitness got examined by the prosecution to prove the incident of alleged murder. The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Complete chain of evidence has not been established by the prosecution, which would lead to hypothesis of guilt. No witness got examined by the prosecution, has claimed to have seen the accused in the company of deceased on the date of incident.

FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 41 of 61

Only piece of evidence being relied upon by the prosecution is the PM report exhibit PW24/A . Close scrutiny of the said report would show that that the deceased has committed suicide and it is not a case of homicide. There is no mention of struggle marks; there is no fracture of thyroid cartilage; there is no swelling of tongue; there is no bleeding on any body part, which is must in the case of strangulation. Further, PW9 ASI Mahavir Singh has stated in his cross examination that he had noticed hanging mark on the body of the deceased. As per inquest report Ex. PW3/C, column number 2, pertaining to circumstances to show that deceased killed herself, the response of the investigating team is in affirmative. Even PW6 SI Jagbir, the in-charge of the crime team, had deposed that he had noticed one lady hanging by the fan when he inspected the place of incident which is contrary to the claim of prosecution that the deceased has been murdered. It is further submitted that there are serious lapses in the investigation of the present case. Disclosure statements of the accused are nothing but figment of imagination of IO. As per these disclosure statements, the accused has strangulated his wife with the help of a rope. No such rope was recovered during investigation. Nor any pointing out memo/site plan was prepared of the place where the said rope was allegedly thrown by the accused. There is considerable delay in registration of present FIR for reasons best known to the investigating agency. As per the testimony of autopsy surgeon, the postmortem was concluded on 04/10/2016 itself whereas as per the prosecution case the FIR was registered on 11/10/2016. There is no explanation as to why the investigating officer has collected the postmortem report on 10/10/2016 i.e. after six days from the date of preparation FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 42 of 61 thereof.

FINDINGS OF THIS COURT

7. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some provisions of law and citations of Superior courts, which are found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.

300. Murder--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or -

Secondly--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--

Thirdly--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--

Fourthly--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that is must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

302. Punishment for murder-Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

08. Perusal of the record would show that this case is totally based upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence against the accused that he committed murder of his wife Kiran. Before deciding this case, it is necessary to ascertain legal parameters of proving such a case based upon the circumstantial evidence. The first leading case setting down the principles of circumstantial evidence is titled Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, in which, it is held that the onus to prove the circumstances is on the FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 43 of 61 prosecution and the complete chain of circumstances must be proved beyond doubt. In a recent judgment titled Gargi v. State of Haryana, (2019) 9 SCC 738, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the law of circumstantial evidence as under:

"18. It remains trite that in judicial proceedings, proof is made by means of production of evidence, which may be either oral or documentary. As regards its nature, the evidence is either direct or circumstantial. The direct evidence proves the existence of a particular fact that emanates from a document or an object and/or what has been observed by the witness. The circumstantial evidence is the one whereby other facts are proved from which the existence of fact in issue may either be logically inferred, or at least rendered more probable. [A Text Book of Jurisprudence by G.W. Paton, 4th Edn., p. 598.] 18.1. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has explained the essentials before a particular fact could be held proved by way of the proof of other fact or facts; and has expounded on the principles as to how circumstantial evidence need to be approached in a criminal case. We need not multiply on the case law on the subject; only a brief reference to the relevant decisions would suffice.

18.2. In Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan [Chandmal v State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 621 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 120], this Court said : (SCC p. 625, para 14) "14. It is well settled that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests. Firstly, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. Secondly, these circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

Thirdly, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. That is to say, the circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt." 18.3. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487], The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down the golden principles of standard of proof required in a case sought to be established on circumstantial evidence with reference to several past decisions, including that in Hanumant v. State of M.P. [Hanumant v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] , in the following : (SCC p. 185, paras 153-54) "153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

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

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 44 of 61 be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033] where the observations were made : [SCC p. 807, para 19 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] '19. ... Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.' (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." 18.4. In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in Sonvir [Sonvir v State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 8 SCC 24 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 486] , this Court, after taking note of the other cited decisions, pointed out the principles as under : (SCC p. 52, para 82) "82. ... Law of conviction based on circumstantial evidence is well settled. It is sufficient to refer to the judgment of this Court in Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan [Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 3 SCC 685 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 54] where in para 17 the following has been held : (SCC p. 693) '17. Before we proceed with the matter, it has to be borne in mind that this case depends upon circumstantial evidence and, as such, as per the settled law, every circumstance would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and further the chain of circumstances should be so complete and perfect that the only inference of the guilt of the accused should emanate therefrom. At the same time, there should be no possibility whatsoever of the defence version being true.'"

18.5. Thus, circumstantial evidence, in the context of a crime, essentially means such facts and surrounding factors which do point towards the complicity of the charged accused; and then, chain of circumstances means such unquestionable linking of the facts and the surrounding factors that they establish only the guilt of the charged accused beyond reasonable doubt, while ruling out any other theory or possibility or hypothesis. 18.6. Incidental to the principles aforesaid, which are neither of any doubt nor of any dispute, profitable it would be to keep in view the caveat entered by G.W. Paton [A Text Book of Jurisprudence by G.W. Paton, 4th Edn., p.

598.] as regards circumstantial evidence thus:

"On the other hand, circumstances may mislead or false clues may have been laid by the wrongdoer to cast suspicion on another." [ This has been stated with reference to 514 in Criminal Law by C.S. Kenny wherein, it is cautioned that: though 'circumstances cannot lie', they can mislead. They may even have been brought about for the very purpose of misleading, as FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 45 of 61 when Joseph's silver cup was placed in Benjamin's sack, or when Lady Macbeth 'smeared the sleeping grooms with blood'.]"

09. Now the case in hand has to be adjudicated in light of the above-stated guidelines. As per case of the prosecution, on 02/10/2016, at about 02:29 PM, accused Jag Prasad had made a 100 no. call stating that his wife had committed suicide at his house situated near Prahlad Model School, Gali no. 4. The information was reduced into writing vide DD no. 26B( Ex. PW5/A), and the same was marked to SI Abodh. Thereafter, SI Abodh along with Ct. Pawan reached at the spot and found one female dead body lying on the floor in a room situated at first floor of the house no. 135, Gali no. 4, SBS colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. The husband of the deceased i.e. accused Jag Prasad was also found present there, who informed that his wife Smt. Kiran had committed suicide. Brother and mother of the deceased were intimated. SDM concerned was intimated and Inquest proceedings started. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted. Brother and mother of the deceased did not raise any suspicion and therefore, till that time,the investigating team believed the claim of accused Jag Prasad to be true and as such didn't initiate any action nor they registered FIR. Call recording of 100 no. call was obtained, voice sample of the accused was taken. On 10.10.2016, postmortem report Ex. PW24/A was received wherein the cause of death was opined as "asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem ligature strangulation". On 11.10.2016 at about 5 PM, after discussing the matter with senior police officials, the investigating police officials came to the conclusion that accused Jag Prasad had given false statement that his wife had committed suicide by hanging with ceiling fan. These were FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 46 of 61 the circumstances which led to registration of present FIR for an offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and arrest of accused Jag Prasad. During the trial, PW10 Smt. Nanka, the mother of the deceased Kiran had made significant improvement from statement recorded during investigation. In her deposition dated 21-07-2017, she had categorical deposed that her daughter had not committed suicide, she was killed by her husband (accused). She had seen injury on her head and blood was oozing out from her nose. She has also deposed about the reason for not revealing the correct facts before the SDM concerned and the reason was that the accused had extended threat at the point of knife to the elder daughter of PW10.

10. It is argued that besides the ligature mark, no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased, thereby raising a question mark over the testimony of PW10 Smt. Nanka that her daughter had not committed suicide, she was killed by her husband and she had seen injury on her head and blood was oozing out from her nose. There is no mention of struggle marks on the dead body and there is no fracture of thyroid cartilage in the PM report Ex.PW24/A and therefore, it is a case of suicide and not homicidal killing.

11. It is pertinent to note that with regard to strangulation and hanging the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javed Abdul Rajjaq Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 10 SCC 778 has made the following observations:

"28. The differences between hanging and strangulation have been highlighted by Modi on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 25th Edn., as follows:

FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 47 of 61

                  Hanging                                  Strangulation

1.   Mostly suicidal.                   1.    Mostly Homicidal.


2.   Face Usual pale and petechiae 2.         2. Face Congested, livid and
     rare.                                    marked with petechice.

3.   Saliva-Dribbling out of mouth 3.             Saliva-No such dribbling.
     down on the chin and chest.

4.   Neck Stretched elongated in 4.           Neck - Not so.
     fresh bodies.
5.   External signs of asphyxia 5.            External signs of asphyxia,
     usually not well marked.                 very well marked (minimal if
                                              death due to vasovagal and
                                              carotid sinus effect).


6.   6 Ligature mark-Oblique, non- 6.
     continuous placed high up in             Ligature mark Horizontal or
     the neck between the chin and            transverse continuous, round
     the larynx, the base of the              the neck, low down in the neck
     groove or furrow being hard,             below the thyroid, the base of
     yellow and parchment-like.               the groove or furrow being soft
                                              and reddish

7.   Abrasions and ecchymoses 7.              Abrasions and ecchymoses
     around about the edges of the            round about the edges of the
     ligature mark, rare.                     ligature mark, common.


8.   Subcutaneous tissues Under the 8.        Subcutaneous tissues Under
     mark-White,      hard     and            the mark-Ecchymosed
     glistening


9.   Injury to the muscles of neck - 9.       Injury to the muscles of neck -
     Rare                                     common

10. Carotid arteries, internal coats 10. Carotid arteries, internal coats ruptured in ordinarily ruptured

11. Fracture of the laynx and 11. Fracture of the laynx, trachea trachea-Very rare and may be and hyoid bone found that too in judicial hanging FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 48 of 61

12. Fracture-dislocation of the 12. Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrae-Common in cervical vertebrae-Rare judicial hanging

13. Scratches, abrasions and bruises 13. Scratches, abrasions fingernail on the face, neck and other marks and bruises on the face, parts of the body-Usually not neck and other parts of the present body-Usually present

14. No evidence of sexual assault 14. No evidence of sexual assault

15. Emphysematous bullae on 15. Emphysematous bullae on surface of the lungs-Not present surface of the lungs-May be present

29. As to what is the distinction between strangulation and throttling is also dealt within the selfsame work:

"Definition. Strangulation is defined as the compression of the neck by a force other than hanging. Weight of the body has nothing to do with strangulation.

Ligature strangulation is a violent form of death, which results from constricting the neck by means of a ligature or by any other means without suspending the body.

When constriction is produced by the pressure of the fingers and palms upon the throat, it is called as throttling. When strangulation is brought about by compressing the throat with a foot, knee, bend of elbow, or some other solid substances, it is known as mugging (strangle hold).

A form of strangulation, known as bansdola, is sometimes practised in northern India. In this form, a strong bamboo or lathi (wooden club) is placed across the throat and another across the back of the neck. These are strongly fastened at one end. A rope is passed round the other end, which is bound together, and the unfortunate victim is squeezed to death. The throat is also pressed by placing a lathi or bamboo across the front of the neck and standing with a foot on each end of lathi or bamboo.

Garrotting is another method that was used by thugs around 1862 in India.... A rope or a loincloth is suddenly thrown over the head and quickly tightened around the neck. Due to sudden loss of consciousness, there is no struggle. The assailant is then able to tie the ligature."

FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 49 of 61

30. It is necessary in this case to look at the post-mortem and also the evidence of the medical officer, PW 24. In the light of the differences between hanging and strangulation, in a case of hanging, saliva will dribble down the mouth down on the chin and the chest whereas in a case of strangulation, there will be no such dribbling. In the case of hanging, the neck will be stretched, elongated in fresh bodies while it is not so in the case of strangulation. PW1 has stated that he has not noticed that the the neck was stretched and elongated in the case of the deceased.

33. Injury to the muscles of the neck is stated to be common.in case of strangulation whereas in a case of hanging injury to the muscles of the neck is rare. In this connection it is to be noticed that in pare 20 of the post- mortem, it is stated that both sternomastoid muscle crushed and severe haemorrhage present beneath it. In this connection, it is relevant to understand what is sternomastoid muscle and where it is located. The sternocleidomastoid muscle is also known as sternomastoid muscle. It is one of the largest and most superficial cervical muscle located in the superficial layer on the side of the neck. It has its origin from the middle portion of the clavicle and the manubrium sternix. Manubrium sternix is uppermost portion of the sternum bone. The post-mortem finding in this case is to the effect that sternomastoid muscle is crushed and there is severe haemorrhage present beneath it. This feature is compatible with the case being one of strangulation as injury to the muscle of the neck is rare in hanging, Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrae is common in judicial hanging whereas it is rare in the case of strangulation. The post- mortem result does not show that there is fracture or dislocation of cervical vertebrae. The cervical vertebrae are the vertebrae of the neck immediately below the skull. Neither in the post-mortem nor in the deposition of PW 1 is anything brought out to show that there is either fracture or dislocation of the cervical vertebrae. The absence of the same also probabilises clearly the case of prosecution that this is a case of strangulation or rather throttling.

34. It is no doubt true that in the case of hanging, fracture of the larynx and trochea is very rare and that too it may be found in judicial hanging. On the other hand, fracture on the larynx. trachea and hyoid bone indicates strangulation. PW I doctor states in cross-examination thus say that it is true that the deceased had not faced fracture to the larynx, trachea or hyoid bone. PW 1 in the re-examination explains the absence of fracture to larynx, FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 50 of 61 trachea and hyoid bone in the following terms:

In case of strangulation by hand fracture of that larynx and trachea is not necessary to be occurred and the distinction between hanging and strangulation and the general tendencies of hanging and strangulation are given, . He further states that according to him, in the case of strangulation by hand fracture of that larynx and trachea is not necessary to be occurred and the distinction between hanging and strangulation and the general tendencies of hanging and strangulation and the general tendencies of hanging and strangulation are given.

35. He further states that according to him, in the case of throttling by hand, fracture of the larynx and trachea cannot occur. It occurs in strangulation. He deposed that by using hand and blunt object like stone and stick, if strangulation is caused, in that case fracture of the larynx, trachea and hyoid bone has been found also. We have noticed that throttling is constriction produced by pressure of fingers and palm upon throat. In ligature strangulation it can be either by leg or by any other means. Mugging is when strangulation is brought about with the foot, knee, bend of elbow or some other solid substances. The deposition of the medical officer is not inconsistent with the distinction between throttling and strangulation. In this case the choice is between finding death by hanging or by throttling. We have noticed that among the injuries. Injury.

3. in para. 20. is thyroid cartilage crushed laterally on both sides on left side. The further injury which is noted is cricoid cartilage and it is also crushed on both sides. PW 1 doctor has deposed that Injuries 2 and 3 in para 20, namely, both sternomastoid muscle being crushed and severe haemorrhage being present beneath it and Injury 3 thyroid cartilage being crushed literally on both sides on left side are only noticed in the case of homicidal death. He has further deposed that these are marks of violence and they cannot be noticed in the case of hanging and suicidal death, We have already noticed that injury to the muscle of the neck, is only rarely found in the case of hanging whereas injury to the muscle of the neck is common in strangulation and that the sternomastoid muscle is indeed a muscle of the neck."

12. With reference to the postmortem report Ex. PW24/A of the deceased, seen in the light of the above-said literature contained in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence (Supra) which are also discussed in the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 51 of 61 Court, following characteristics of death due to strangulation are mentioned in the postmortem report Ex. PW24/A and point towards the fact that the cause of death in the present case was ligature strangulation:

1) There is no mention of dribbling of saliva.

2) As per the general observation noted in the PM report, the face of the deceased was congested and there is subconjunctinal hemorrhage in both eyes.

3) The ligature mark was complete and horizontal around the neck over thyroid cartilage.

4) There is no finding of stretching of neck, which is must in the case of suicide by hanging. Rather, it is reported that there was injury to the muscles of neck in the form of bruising of bilateral carotid sheath and neck muscles present with extravasation in surrounding tissues.

5) Apart from the ligature mark, injury on the scalp is also reported in the form of extravasation over bilateral occipital and right parietal region.

13. In similar context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made the following observations in Gargi v. State of Haryana, (2019) 9 SCC 738:

"23.1. We have closely examined the testimony of PW 1 Dr Usha Bansal, who was one of the members of the board that had conducted post-mortem. We have also taken into account the features noticeable from the site plan, the inquest report and the photographs placed on record. Having examined the relevant material, we find nothing of infirmity in the findings of the trial court and the High Court that it had been a case of strangulation, as could be seen from the post-mortem report that the dead body carried "well-defined depressed ligature mark measuring 3 cm wide seen encircling the neck around thyroid cartilage with a knot present on left side of neck and this ligature mark was ante-mortem in nature". The other ligature mark was on the left side of the neck FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 52 of 61 measuring 1.5 cm wide and that was post-mortem in nature. The board had undoubtedly been of the opinion that the cause of death was "asphyxia due to strangulation". With such categorical medical opinion coupled with all the relevant features surrounding the suspended dead body in the room in question. it is difficult to say that it had been a case of suicide merely because hyoid bone was not broken or because the marks of resistance like abrasions/scratches were not reported.........."

14. In the Gargi case (supra) ligature mark was encircling the neck around thyroid cartilage and this ligature mark was ante- mortem in nature. However the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is difficult to say that it had been a case of suicide merely because hyoid bone was not broken which is a characteristic of strangulation. In the present case, ligature mark is present completely and horizontally around neck over thyroid cartilage. Hence, it cannot be contended that since there is no mention of fracture of thyroid cartilage and therefore it is a case of suicide by hanging and therefore, the said contention of Ld. Counsel for accused persons is devoid of merit. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved on record that deceased Kiran died a homicidal death due to ligature strangulation.

15. In the present case the prosecution has established prima facie case that deceased Kiran passed away on 02.10.2016 in the confines of the house no. 135, Gali No. 4, first floor, SBS colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi as per the opinion expressed in PM report Ex. PW24/A. Accused Jag Prasad was the only adult person present in the said house who had reported about the incident by making call at 100 No.. No explanation has been forthcoming from accused Jag Prasad as to the circumstances in which deceased Kiran passed away despite having been aware of the FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 53 of 61 fact that as per the opinion of autopsy surgeon , the deceased has died by way of strangulation( and not hanging).

16. In Rajender v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2019 10 SCC 623, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in cases resting upon circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him under section 106 Indian Evidence Act, such failure by itself can provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. When the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are especially within his / her knowledge, the court can consider his failure to adduce an explanation as an additional link which completes the chain of incriminating circumstances.

17. In State of Rajasthan v Thakur Singh, (2014) 12 SCC 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the law regarding section 106 Indian Evidence Act and burden of proof upon the prosecution and the accused and made the following observations:

"16. Way back in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer[2] this Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and held that the section is not intended to shift the burden of proof (in respect of a crime) on the accused but to take care of a situation where a fact is known only to the accused and it is well nigh impossible or extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove that fact. It was said:

"This [Section 101] lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 54 of 61 prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not."

17. In a specific instance in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra[3] this Court held that when the wife is injured in the dwelling home where the husband ordinarily resides, and the husband offers no explanation for the injuries to his wife, then the circumstances would indicate that the husband is responsible for the injuries. It was said: "Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime."

18. Reliance was placed by this Court on Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra[4] in which case the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife inside his house. Since the death had occurred in his custody, it was held that the appellant was under an obligation to give an explanation for the cause of death in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant was a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. 19. Similarly, in Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra[5] this Court observed that since the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home and the appellant had not set up a case that the offence was committed by somebody else or that there was a possibility of an outsider committing the offence, it was for the husband to explain the grounds for the unnatural death of his wife.

20.In Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh[6] this Court observed as follows:

"It bears repetition that the appellant and the deceased family members were the only occupants of the room and it was therefore incumbent on the appellant to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to his guilt."

21. More recently, in Gian Chand v. State of Haryana[7] a large number of decisions of this Court were referred to and the interpretation given to Section 106 of the Evidence Act in Shambhu Nath Mehra was reiterated. One of the decisions cited in Gian Chand is that ofState of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar[8] which gives a rather telling example explaining the principle behind Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the following FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 55 of 61 words: "During arguments we put a question to learned Senior Counsel for the respondents based on a hypothetical illustration. If a boy is kidnapped from the lawful custody of his guardian in the sight of his people and the kidnappers disappeared with the prey, what would be the normal inference if the mangled dead body of the boy is recovered within a couple of hours from elsewhere. The query was made whether upon proof of the above facts an inference could be drawn that the kidnappers would have killed the boy. Learned Senior Counsel finally conceded that in such a case the inference is reasonably certain that the boy was killed by the kidnappers unless they explain otherwise."

22. The law, therefore, is quite well settled that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused is on the prosecution, but there may be certain facts pertaining to a crime that can be known only to the accused, or are virtually impossible for the prosecution to prove. These facts need to be explained by the accused and if he does not do so, then it is a strong circumstance pointing to his guilt based on those facts."

18. Applying this principle to the facts of the case, since deceased Kiran died an unnatural death in the room occupied by her and her husband accused Jag Prasad, the cause of the unnatural death was known to accused. As per the scaled site plan, Ex. PW15/A, there was only one bedroom on the first floor of the matrimonial house of deceased Kiran, which belonged to accused Jag Prasad and deceased Kiran. As per the CDR Ex. PW27/E and cell ID cart Ex. PW27/D, the accused was present at one place from 11:26 AM till 3:30 PM on 02.10.2016 within the range of mobile tower situated at Maa Mahendri Devi Niwas, H.NO-262, 30 foota road, new Sabhapur Gujran, Dew Delhi. The place where he was working was also situated in close vicinity. As per photographs Ex. P9/A-1 to A-11, the blades of ceiling fan doesn't appear to be twisted/tilted. The stool and drum, which as per the story put forth by the accused, has been used by the deceased to reach the ceiling Fan did not appear to be lying FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 56 of 61 beneath the ceiling fan. Accused Jag Prasad has not taken the defence that he was not present in the vicinity when the incident occurred nor did he set up any defence that some other person entered his tenanted house and caused the unnatural death of his wife nor did he set up the defence that he was not using mobile no. 9599129896 at the relevant time. The first onus was upon him to give an explanation regarding the probable circumstances leading to the death of his wife. The facts relevant to the cause of Kiran's death being known only to accused Jag Prasad, yet he chose not to disclose them or to explain them. Despite being aware of the cause of death of his wife as expressed in PM report and subsequent opinion report Ex. PW26/E, he again concocted a false story of suicide by his wife in reply to question no. 75 of his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., and that too in the presence of his counsel. No defence evidence has been led by the accused despite having given opportunity. The principle laid down in Section 106 of the Evidence Act is clearly applicable to the facts of the case and there is, therefore, a very strong link that deceased Kiran was murdered by accused Jag Prasad.

19. It is argued that since the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, the motive for committing the alleged offence is required to be proved by the Prosecution. However, the Prosecution has not led any evidence to prove the motive of the accused in committing the alleged murder of his wife. It is noted that the only witness to prove the motive in the commission of alleged murder got examined by the Prosecution is PW10 Nanka who had deposed that her daughter telephonically told her that her husband is demanding motorcycle and gold chain as the cousin of accused had got motorcycle, gold FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 57 of 61 chain etc. from his in-laws in his marriage.

20. As regards the weight to be attached to the motive in deciding as to whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against an accused, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar,1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 held as under:

"Sometimes motive plays an important role and become a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is motive, it affords added support to the finding of the Court that the accused was guilty for the offence charged with. But the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless becomes untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to adopt a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime."

21. In Amitava Banerjee vs. State of W.B., (2011) 12 SCC 554, it was observed as under:

"41. Motive for the commission of an offence no doubt assumes greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of the offence is available. And yet failure to prove motive in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself. All that the absence of motive for the commission of the offence results in is that the court shall have to be more careful and circumspect in scrutinizing the evidence to ensure that suspicion does not take the place of proof while finding the accused guilty.

42. Absence of motive in a case depending entirely on circumstantial evidence is a factor that shall no doubt weigh in favour of the accused, but what the Courts need to remember is that motive is a matter which is FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 58 of 61 primarily known to the accused and which the prosecution may at times find difficult to explain or establish by substantive evidence.

43. Human nature being what it is, it is often difficult to fathom the real motivation behind the commission of a crime. And yet experience about human nature, human conduct and the frailties of human mind has shown that inducements to crime have veered around to what Wills has in his book "Circumstantial Evidence" said:

"The common inducements to crime are the desires of revenging some real or fancied wrong; of getting rid of rival or an obnoxious connection; of escaping from the pressure of pecuniary or other obligation or burden of obtaining plunder or other coveted object; or preserving reputation, either that of general character or the conventional reputation or profession or sex; or gratifying some other selfish or malignant passion."

In Tarsem Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, 1995 Cri.L.J.470, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had repeatedly pointed out that where the case of prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of material produced before the Court, motive losses its importance but in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance. It was further emphasised that if each of the circumstances proved on behalf of prosecution is accepted by the Court for the purpose of recording a finding that it was the accused who committed the crime in question even in absence of any proof of a motive for commission of such crime, the accused can be convicted."

22. As regards the importance to be assigned to proof of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mulakh Raj Etc vs Satish Kumar And Others, 1992 AIR 1175, observed as under :

"Undoubtedly in cases of circumstantial evidences motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused and some time it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non-

FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 59 of 61

existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a mater of law. Proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case."

In light of law discussed above, though in a case of circumstantial evidence motive assumes importance, however, failure to prove motive does not signify its nonexistence.

23. It is contended that prosecution witness namely PW6 SI Jagbir Singh has supported the claim of accused that his wife had committed suicide. Attention of the court was drawn towards testimony dated 03.05.2017 of PW6 SI Jagdeep Singh wherein he had deposed that his team had noticed one lady was hanging with the ceiling fan, she was got down after cutting the printed Chunni. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that PW6 SI Jagbir Singh has also identified his signature on scene of crime report prepared by him, which is exhibit PW6/A. No such observation of hanging of deceased with the ceiling fan has been reported therein. Nor there is any photograph placed on record depicting the deceased hanging with ceiling fan. Thus, the above stated contention regarding discrepancy in the version of PW6 SI Jagbir Singh fails to inspire the confidence of this court.

24. It is further argued that there is considerable unexplained delay in registration of present FIR as the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 04.10.2016 and the IO was very well aware of the opinion of the autopsy surgeon regarding the cause of death of deceased on 04.10.2016 itself. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that date of handing over of report is mentioned as 10.10.2016 in PM report exhibit PW24/A. Nor the autopsy surgeon i.e. PW24 Dr Vishwajeet Singh was cross-examined on FIR No. 422/11 State Vs. Jag Prasad Page 60 of 61 the aspect of date of preparation of PM report or on the aspect of date of handing over of PM report. IO/SI Abodh has also claimed that he has received the PM report on 10.10.2016. From the very beginning, the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, as such there is no possibility of cooking up any false story. Thus, the contention regarding delay in registration of present FIR also fails to inspire the confidence of this court.

DECISION OF THE COURT

25. In the opinion of this court, the testimony of prosecution witnesses comes out to be clear, convincing, trustworthy and inspires confidence of this court. Nothing material came out in their respective cross-examination. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of prosecution witnesses. All the ingredients of section 302 IPC are satisfied. The prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 02-10-2016 at about 1 pm at H. No. 135, First Floor, Gali no. 4, SBS Colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi he committed murder of his wife Kiran by strangulation. Accordingly, accused Jag Prasad is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence and grant of compensation on the next date of hearing.


ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
On 03-06-2024               PANKAJ                 Digitally signed by PANKAJ
                                                   ARORA

                                          ARORA    Date: 2024.06.03 16:26:05
                                                   +0530


                               (PANKAJ ARORA)
                 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
                            KARKARDOOMA/ 03-06-2024.




FIR No. 422/11           State Vs. Jag Prasad                   Page 61 of 61

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs Jag Prasad on 3 June, 2024