Delhi District Court
The State vs Fudur Bhagat on 25 June, 2014
FIR no. 423/13
D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela
u/s 302/201 IPC
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL:
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE -5 (NORTH),
ROHINI , DELHI
SESSION CASE NO. : 116/14
UID NO . : 02404R0268732013
FIR no : 423/2013
P. S : Narela
u/s 302/201 IPC
The State versus Fudur Bhagat
S/O Sh Bhade
R/O Village Gahma, P.S
Ghanshyampur,
Distt Darbhanga, Bihar.
Date of committal to session court : 17.09.2013
Date of argument : 25.06.2014
Date of order : 25.06.2014
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.6.2013 , on receipt of DD no.13 A regarding missing of one girl namely Seeta (deceased), S.I Sudeep, Ist IO, alongwith constable Pradeep reached at the spot i.e fields of one Sukhbir Singh, village Ghoga, Delhi and there met one Ramni Devi mother of the deceased Seeta. Smt Ramni Devi made a SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 1 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC statement to S.I Sudeep Kumar about the missing of her daughter. On the basis of the said statement, tehrir for the offence u/s 363 IPC was prepared and an FIR for the said offence was registered at P.S Narela. Smt Ramni Devi mother of the deceased Seeta and one Sita Ram Brother of the deceased Seeta found the dead body of the girl Seeta in the bushes near the field of Sukhbir and identified the same. They disclosed that accused Fudur Bhagat, who is the father of the deceased Seeta, has killed her.
2. As per the story of the prosecution, deceased Seeta was not mentally fit and she used to leave home frequently without telling anyone and due to this reason accused Fudur Bhagat,father of the deceased, tried to make her understand but she could not understand due to the mental disability and she never gave attention to the work. It is alleged that accused used to beat her on that account and on one day he said that he would kill Seeta as he is fed up with her conduct.
3. It is alleged that on the intervening night of 23/24.6.2013, accused Fudur Bhagat and Seeta were sleeping outside the room on separate cots whereas Smt Ramni Devi and Sita Ram , mother and brother of the deceased, were sleeping SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 2 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC upstair on the roof. It is further alleged that on that day accused Fudur Bhagat killed Seeta by strangulation and took her body on his shoulder and threw it in the bushes in near by fields.
4. The dead body of Seeta was recovered and it was sent to BJRM hospital where Dr. Bhim Singh conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased Seeta on 24.6.2013 and opined that the death was due to asphyxia consequent upon compression of neck by ligature pressure. On the same day i.e on 24.6.2013, accused Fudur Bhagat was arrested from the bus stand of Ghoga Village. His personal search was carried out and his disclosure statement was recorded. According to the prosecution, accused Fudur Bhagat got recovered the rope which was used by him for strangulating Seeta. The said rope alongwith pieces of the thread/rope lifted from near the dead body were also sent to the CFSL for examination . After completion of investigation, accused Fudur Bhagat was chargesheeted for offence u/s 302/201 IPC.
5. Vide order dated 17.9.2013, Ld MM took the cognizance of the offence and subsequently, since the offence u/s 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 3 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC therefore case was committed to the court of sessions on the same day.
6. Vide order dated 6.12.2013, ld predecessor of this court decided the charge and accordingly, accused was charged for the offence u/s 302/201 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In support of its case prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses.
8. PW1 Smt Ramni Devi is the mother of the deceased Seeta and wife of the accused Fudur Bhagat. She turned hostile. She has said nothing against the accused. She was cross examined at length by ld Additional PP for the state.
9. PW2 Sita Ram is the brother of the deceased and son of the accused. He has also said nothing against the accused as he completely turned hostile. According to the prosecution he was the eye witness and before him accused had made extra judicial confession about committing murder of his daughter.
SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 4 of 18 )
FIR no. 423/13
D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela
u/s 302/201 IPC
10. PW3 Constable Pradeep is the formal witness who visited the spot alongwith S.I Sudeep after receipt of DD no. 13 A on 24.6.2013 and he was with the IO during the initial investigation.
11. PW4 Rajbir Singh is the public witness in whose fields accused Fudur Bhagat used to work as a labour. He has also said nothing against the accused. He turned hostile and was cross examined by ld Additional PP for the State.
12. PW5 Sukhbir Singh is another public witness and owner of the field(father of Rajbir Singh PW4) where accused used to work as a labour. He was also cross examined by the ld APP for the state as he was resiling from his previous statement. He has also said nothing against the accused.
13. PW6 Inspector Mahesh Kumar is drafts man who visited the spot at the request of the Iind IO Inspector Naresh Kumar (PW12) and prepared scaled site plan ExPW6/A.
14. PW7 ASI Ajeet Singh was posted as Incharge Crime Team, outer district. On 24.6.2013, he visited the spot and after inspection he prepared the report ExPW7/A. SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 5 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC
15. PW8 S.I Sudeep is the Ist IO who on receipt of DD no.13 A , on 24.6.2013 visited the spot i.e field of Sukhbir Singh, village Ghoga and is shown to have met Ramni Devi (PW1) mother of the deceased and recorded her statement ExPW1/X1. He deposed that after recovery of the dead body of deceased Seeta from the bushes, the investigation was entrusted to Inspector Naresh Kumar.
16. PW9 HC Vir Singh was posted as MHC (M) at P.S Narela on 24.6.2013 with whom case properties were deposited.
17. PW10 Constable Sandeep is the photographer who had visited the spot alongwith the Crime Team on 24.6.2013 and took the photographs ExPW10/B1 to ExPW10/B24 and negatives are ExPW10/A1 to ExPW10/A24.
18. PW11 constable Sandeep Kumar is formal witness who took the sealed parcel containing case property to the FSL.
19. PW12 Inspector Naresh Kumar is the II nd and last IO .
He deposed that on 24.6.2013, on receipt of DD No.13 A ExPX4, S.I Sudeep reached at the spot and recorded the statement of SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 6 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC complainant Ramni Devi (ExPW1/X1) and on the basis of which FIR no. 423/2013 u/s 363 IPC ExPW8/A was recorded. He further deposed that when the dead body of Seeta was found, she was having strangulation mark on her neck. He called the crime team on the spot who inspected the spot and prepared the report ExPW7/A. The photographs ExPW10/B1 to ExPW10/B24 were also taken. He deposed that he prepared the site plan ExPW12/A. He further deposed that he lifted the white colour rope measuring about 4 feet and it was kept in a plastic container and was seized vide seizure memo ExPW8/B after sealing the same with the seal of NK. He deposed that another piece of white colour rope measuring 3 feet and 7 inch and one piece of rope measuring 3 feet and 8 inch were also lifted from the spot and were sealed with the seal of NK and were seized vide seizure memo ExPW8/C.
20. PW12 Inspector Naresh Kumar further deposed that he made request for postmortem on the body of the deceased and the postmortem was conducted by Dr. Bhim Singh. Dr. Bhim Singh gave subsequent opinion ExPX6 regarding ligature mark on the body of the deceased Seeta. IO Inspector Naresh Kumar handed over the dead body after postmortem to her mother and thereafter arrested accused Fudur Bhagat from the SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 7 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC Ghogha village Bus stand vide memo ExPW8/E. His personal search was carried out vide memo ExPW8/F and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo ExPW8/G.
21. PW12 Inspector Naresh Kumar further deposed that accused led the police party to the spot and pointed out the spot vide pointing out memo ExPW8/H . He also pointed out the room in the field of Sukhbir where he had committed the murder of his daughter and the said pointing out memo was proved as ExPW8/I. PW12 deposed that accused got recovered rope measuring around 24 feet and 8 inchs which was having the knot on one side and it was sealed with the seal of NK and seized vide seizure memo ExPW8/J. He further deposed that accused also produced one Gucha/bunch of rope lying near the corner of that courtyard which was sealed with the seal of NK and was seized vide seizure memo ExPW8/K. The aforesaid case property were sent to the FSL for examination and he received the FSL result ExPX1, ExPW12/G and ExPW12/H. PW12 also identified the aforesaid case properties i.e the rope and pieces of rope/thread lifted from the spot. PW12 was cross examined by the ld counsel for the accused.
22. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed and SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 8 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded. Accused denied all the allegations made against him. He did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence.
23. I have heard the ld Addll P.P for the state and Ld counsel for the accused. I have also perused the record very carefully.
24. The case of the prosecution rested mainly on the following circumstances:
i) The death of Seeta was homicidal in nature;
ii) Last Seen witness or Extra Judicial confession or eye witness.
iii) Recovery of rope at the instance of the accused which was used for strangulation.
THE DEATH OF Seeta WAS HOMICIDAL IN NATURE
25. The postmortem on the body of the deceased Seeta was conducted by Dr. Bhim Singh on 24.6.2013 and postmortem report given by Dr. Bhim Singh is ExPX5. During the trial ld counsel for the accused as well as accused has admitted the postmortem report SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 9 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC given by Dr. Bhim Singh and in this regard statement of the ld counsel for the accused as well as accused was recorded on 27.3.2014 whereby the postmortem report no. 512/13 given by Dr. Bhim Singh was admitted as ExPX5.
26. As per the postmortem report the cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon compression of neck by ligature pressure. Ligature mark was Ante- mortem, fresh in duration and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. This has also not been disputed by the accused.
27. As per the subsequent opinion( Ex.PX6) , the ligature mark present around the neck of the deceased Seeta d/o Fudur Bhagat, as mentioned in the PM report (ExPX5) could be possible by examined rope. Accused has not disputed the medical evidence. Accepting the medical evidence, it is clear that Seeta suffered a homicidal death.
Last Seen witness or Extra Judicial confession or eye witness.
SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 10 of 18 )
FIR no. 423/13
D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela
u/s 302/201 IPC
28. In order to prove the same, prosecution has examined basically two witnesses i.e PW1 Ramni Devi and PW2 Sita Ram, wife and son of accused Fudur Bhagat. From the chargesheet and the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses recorded u/s 161 CrPC, it appears that they were cited as prosecution witness on the ground that the deceased Seeta and accused Fudur Bhagat, on the fateful day were sleeping on separate cots and PW1 Ramni Devi and PW2 Sita Ram were sleeping upstairs in the same premises. It is also the case of the prosecution that after committing the crime, accused Fudur Bhagat made confession before them admitting the fact that he has committed the murder of Seeta. It is the further case of prosecution that PW2 Sita Ram has seen the accused Fudur Bhagat committing the offence and taking the dead body of Seeta on his shoulder.
29. On all these counts both these witnesses i.e PW1 and PW2 completely turned hostile. Both these witnesses who are the wife and son of the accused have categorically stated that Seeta was physically and mentally fit and she was murdered by some unknown SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 11 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC person and the accused has not murdered his daughter. They deposed that the accused never gave beatings to his daughter. PW1 even denied of having made any missing report to the police on the basis of which the present case was registered.
30. Both these witnesses were cross examined at length by ld Additional PP for state but even during their cross examination nothing could be brought from their mouth which can be read against the accused.
31. PW4 Rajbir Singh is the son of the PW5 Sukhbir Singh . PW 4 and PW5 Sukhbir Singh are stated to be owner of fields where accused used to work for them in their fields. However, these two witnesses have also said nothing against the accused . They also turned hostile and they were cross examined by ld Additional PP for State . They only stated that accused was working with them in their field and was residing with his family which consisted of his wife Ramni Devi(PW1), son Sita Ram(PW2) and daughter Seeta(deceased). They further deposed that daughter of the accused Fudur Bhagat was perfectly right and she never left the house and accused SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 12 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC Fudur Bhagat never gave beatings to his daughter Seeta. It was also deposed that accused Fudur Bhagat was never disturbed with the conduct of his daughter.
32. All the aforesaid public witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.
Recovery of rope at the instance of the accsued which was used for strangulation.
33. One of the circumstance which prosecution tried to prove was that the rope ExP1 which was used for strangulation was recovered at the instance of the accused Fudur Bhagat from the courtyard and it was sealed with the seal of NK and was seized vide seizure memo ExPW8/J.
34. PW8 S.I Sudeep Kumar Ist IO and PW12 Inspector Naresh Kumar II nd and last IO , are the witnesses to the said recovery. PW12 Inspector Naresh Kumar deposed that accused pointed out the room in the field of Sukhbir(PW5) where he committed the murder of his daughter Seeta and the said pointing out memo is ExPW8/I. He also deposed that the accused got SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 13 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC recovered from the courtyard in front of the said room one plastic rope measuring around 24 feet & 8 inches which was having knot on one side. It was sealed with the seal of NK and was seized vide seizure memo ExPW8/J.
35. PW12 Inspector Naresh Kumar deposed that some piece of thread and rope were also found on the spot. He lifted the piece of white colour rope measuring about four feet which was sealed in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of NK and was seized vide seizure memo ExPW8/B and another piece of white colour rope measuring three feet and seven inch and one piece of rope measuring three feet and eight inch were also lifted by him and same were sealed with the seal of NK and was seized vide seizure memo ExPW8/C.
36. PW8 S.I Sudeep Kumar has deposed more or less on the lines of PW12 in this regard. Both these witnesses were cross examined by ld counsel for the accused. During cross examination, PW8 denied the suggestion that accused never got recovered the rope in question or bunch of rope either from the courtyard or SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 14 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC from the room. During the cross examination PW12 Inspector Naresh Kumar replied that the court yard from where the said rope was recovered, was having the roof but from the front side it was open place. He further admitted that it was isolated and open place and was not having any door and it was not locked and anybody can have access to the same. He admitted that rope and gucha(bunch of rope) which was allegedly recovered is easily available in the open market.
37. That being so, the possibility of access to that place, from where the rope was recovered at the instance of the accused Fudur Bhagat, by general public cannot be ruled out completely. It is not the case of the prosecution that said place was not visible to public at large. In these circumstances, the possibility of interference with the place of recovery during that period cannot be ruled out.
38. The aforesaid rope and the pieces of rope/thread lifted from near the dead body were sent to the CFSL. As per CFSL report ExPX1, the said rope was examined physically under microscope, using various SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 15 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC tests and it was found that these were similar in respect of their colour, texture, twist of rope, twist of strands, appearance under U.V Light, microscopic appearance, burning behaviour and their solubility.
39. This is merely an opinion and not a conclusive proof to hold that the said rope was the only weapon of offence which was used to commit the murder of Seeta by strangulation. Even as per the subsequent report ExPX6 given by Dr. Bhim Singh, the ligature mark found around the neck of deceased Seeta would be possible by the rope in question. It is well settled law that medical or expert evidence is only an evidence of opinion and is hardly decisive . It is not a substantive piece of evidence . Such an opinion can be used to lend corroboration to other evidence adduced by the prosecution but in the present case there is no other evidence against the accused.
40. Now, the question arises whether only on the basis of this sole circumstance i.e recovery of a possible weapon of offence i.e the rope at the instance of the accused Fudur Bhagat , can accused be convicted for SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 16 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC the offence of murder. The simple answer is' NO. In this regard , help can be taken from the decision of a case reported as Deepak Chaddha vs State of Delhi, 2012 (1) JCC 540 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that " We do not propose to deal with the purity of the evidence relating to the two recoveries i.e the recovery of the shirt and the knife at the instance of the appellant, for the reason, in the decisions reported as Kallo Passi Vs State, 2009(2) vs Chhatrasing & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1753; Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 110; Deva Singh Vs State of Rajasthan , 1999 CriLJ 265 , & Prabhoo vs State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1113 the Supreme Court held that in the absence of other incriminating evidence, the circumstances of seizure of blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused as also the recovery of a possible weapon of offence at the instance of the accused are wholly in sufficient to sustain the charge of murder against the accused".
41. In the present case, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. Thus, I am left with no option but to acquit the accused . Accused Fudur Bhagat therefore stands acquitted from the charge u/s 302 /201 IPC .
42. Accused be released immediately if not SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 17 of 18 ) FIR no. 423/13 D.O.D 25.06.2014 P.S Narela u/s 302/201 IPC wanted in any other case.
43. In terms of section 437(A) CrPC, accused Fudur Bhagat is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
44. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Rajesh Kumar Goel) Court today i.e 25.6.2014 ASJ-5, North Rohini Court SC No. 116/14 State vs Fudur Bhagat (Page 18 of 18 )