Delhi District Court
2006(2) Rcr Crl. 462 Titled As Rama Reddy ... vs Nandan Singh on 11 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 43/1
Unique Identification No. 02404R0231132009
State
Versus
1. Nandan Singh
son of Sudama Singh
R/o A150, Pratap Vihar,
PartI, Sultanpuri, Delhi
Permanent address: Village Talli Behadi,
District Almoda, Utharakhand.
2. Sushila
Wife of Nandan Singh
R/o A150, Pratap Vihar,
PartI, Sultanpuri, Delhi
Permanent address: Village Talli Behadi,
District Almoda, Utharakhand.
3. Virender (since proclaimed offender)
Son of Raje Singh
R/o A150 Pratap Vihar
Part1, Sultanpuri, Delhi
permanent address: Village dhandhasu
Police post Mautrej,
District Almoda, Utharakhand.
SC No. 43/1 1/45
FIR No. 615/07
PS - Sultan Puri
U/s. 302/201/34 of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 13/07/2007
Arguments heard on: 04/05/2012
Date of reservation of order: 04/05/2012
Date of Decision: 11/05/2012
JUDGMENT
The case started with the lodging of missing report vide DD no.30A allegedly dated 18/04/07 of PS Sultanpuri. According to this DD, accused Nandan Singh informed the police about the missing of his daughter Lalita, who had left her house on 16/04/2007 at about 8.30 am and neither she reached at her office nor she came back to her house. He searched for his daughter and further has mentioned the description and clothes of Lalita and this DD was handed over to SI Seva Singh for necessary action. According to DD no. 63B dated 18/04/2007 at about 6.12 pm, information was received from one Rajender Gupta, who had informed the police that one head of lady was lying near halwai shop, Pratap Vihar, PartI near mandir in the drain and body was not visible. This DD was handed over to Ct Pradeep to further hand over the same to SI Girish Chand for necessary action, who reached at the spot. The head was identified by one Kavita daughter of Nandan Singh, as of Lalita. After conducting certain proceedings, SI Girish Chander got registered this case u/s 302/201 of IPC, on the said DD.
Site plan of the place of drain was prepared. Seizure memo of the head SC No. 43/1 2/45 was prepared. Photographs of the head were taken. Head was sent to SGM hospital for preservation.
Accused Nandan Singh and Sushila were arrested on 19/04/2007 at about 1.00 am and 6.30 am. Their personal searches were conducted . Both accused persons also made their disclosure statement. Hands and legs of dead body were also got recovered. Rough site plan of which was prepared. Torso of dead body was also got recovered, site plan was also prepared. Site plan of place of occurrence was also prepared. One knife and aari blade were recovered in this case allegedly used as weapon of offence. Blood sample on cycle was taken. Blood sample of accused Sushila was also taken. These were sealed by preparing the memo. Bori, taat, knife and aari were seized by preparing memos. Diwan and cycle were also seized. Legs and hands alongwith torso also seized, by preparing seizure memo.
Accused Nandan Singh also pointed out the place from where the head of deceased Lalita was recovered. He also pointed out the place of occurrence. Brief facts of the case were prepared. MLC of Lalita was collected. Death report was prepared. Dead body identification statements of Kavita and Nandan Singh were recorded. Postmortem report was obtained. Opinion regarding the weapon of offence was also obtained. Crime team report was obtained. PCR form was collected. Positives of the photographs of dead body parts were also collected. Scaled site plan were got prepared and after the postmortem, certain exhibits were also collected from the hospital. Exhibits were sent to FSL and reports of FSL and DNA were filed later on.
On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against both the SC No. 43/1 3/45 accused persons Nandan Singh and Sushila u/s 302/201/34 of IPC. It was committed to the Court of Sessions on 27/07/07 and was received on 10/08/2007. On 25/08/2007, charge u/s 302/34 of IPC and 201/34 of IPC were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW24 in all. On completion of investigation, statement of both the accused persons were recorded. Both the accused have denied the case of prosecution. Accused Nandan Singh and accused Sushila have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the police so that the case could be solved and IO had already implicated them for the reasons best known to him. Deceased Lalita had gone to her duty on 16/04/2007 and did not return back in evening. She was murdered at some unknown place by some unknown person. Later on they were falsely implicated in this case and they are still in illegal detention.
In defence, accused persons have examined DW1 Dr Lakhvinder Kaur and DW2 Ct Om Parkash.
I have heard Ld APP for State and Ld defence counsel and have gone through the material placed on record and evidence adduced.
According to missing report i.e. DD no.30A allegedly dated 18/04/07, deceased Lalita was missing from 16/04/2007, who had left the house at about 8.30 am for her work place and neither she reached there nor she came back to her house. In this respect, no investigation has been conducted at the work place of the deceased Lalita nor SI Seva Singh has been cited as witness, in this case as to what action was taken on the missing report.
Ld defence counsel has contended that missing report was actually SC No. 43/1 4/45 given on 17/04/07, which has been altered to 18/04/2007 because on 18/04/07 itself, DD no.63B was recorded regarding the lying of head of dead body as per information received at 6.12 pm. Ld defence counsel has further contended that this alteration of date on Ex.PW24/N itself shows that the investigation has not been conducted fairly and accused persons have been falsely implicated, in this case. Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to the cross examination of PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh, he has stated that missing report is not in his handwriting and according to him there is no over writing on the date of 17/04/2007, which has been converted into 18/04/12007, is false as altercation can be seen with naked eyes. Ld defence counsel has further contended that no investigation has been conducted by PW24 about this missing report, in any manner and just to solve the case, accused both have been falsely implicated in this case.
Motive According to the case of prosecution, accused both being the family members were having motive to commit murder of Lalita, who was from the first wife of accused Nandan Singh and to prove the motive, prosecution examined PW1 Hari Singh, who has not supported the case of prosecution and has been cross examined by Ld APP, wherein he has denied that accused Sushila used to torture and harass his nephew and nieces i.e. Laxami, Lalita, Kavita and Vineet. PW1 has also denied that he has stated to the police that his brother i.e. accused Nandan Singh used to support his wife for torturing the children of his first wife and due to this reason the children of his first wife used to reside on the first floor of same house. PW1 has also denied that accused Nandan Singh has SC No. 43/1 5/45 told him on 16/04/2007 that Lalita was missing from the house but he has admitted that head of Lalita was found at ganda nala Partap Vihar.
PW1 has further admitted that he had identified the dead body of Lalita in SGM hospital and his statement was recorded in this regard which is Ex.PW1/A. After the postmortem, the dead body of Lalita was handed over to him vide Ex.PW1/A. PW1 has not supported the case of prosecution and from his deposition, prosecution has not been able to prove that accused both were having motive to commit murder of Lalita due to family circumstances.
As per the case of prosecution, PW2 Kavita daughter of Nandan Singh, has also not supported the case of prosecution in this respect and has stated that her step mother i.e. accused Sushila used to reside alongwith her all sisters and brother and on the day of incident, she went to School and her sister Lalita had gone to her job. Her sister Lalita did not return home till late night. She thought that she might have gone to her mama (maternal uncle's) house. After one day, the head of her elder sister Lalita was found near the nala on back side of her house. She identified the head of her sister and informed her uncle Hari Singh. Some one informed the police and police made enquiries from her and she told that it was the head of her elder sister Lalita.
In the cross examination conducted by Ld APP, PW2 has not supported the case of prosecution to the extent that her father accused Nandan Singh made false report regarding the missing of Lalita and further that police had made enquiries from her father in her presence and he had confessed his guilt and further told that he had strangulated Lalita. PW2 has also not supported the case of prosecution that in her presence accused Nandan Singh had SC No. 43/1 6/45 confessed on 16/04/2012, he alongwith nephew of step mother namely Virender had cut out the head, hands and legs of Lalita and had thrown the same at different places.
PW2 has further stated that her signatures were obtained on blank papers and has also denied that her father i.e. accused Nandan Singh led the police party and got recovered one bag, which belonged to them. Photographs of the same were taken and it was checked and on checking, it was found containing one plastic bag, which was found containing hands and legs of her sister Lalita. PW2 Kavita has also denied that there were bangles of green colour in one hand of her sister and in left hand, there was plastic kara and legs of her sister were having green colour pajami. PW2 has further told that her sister never used to wear plastic bangles and kara and she further told that pieces of hands and legs were taken into possession by police. PW2 has further stated that she identified the bangles, kara, pajami belonging to her sister . PW2 has also denied that her father led the police party to Kirari village near Shiv Mandir near the Johar and got recovered one gunny bag and on checking the same, torso of her sister Lalita having brown colour panty was found or that police took the photographs of the same and on checking another bag was also found in the gunny bag, which was found containing pieces of pajami of her sister Lalita, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/E. PW2 has also denied that she had identified the torso of her sister and her father accused Nandan Singh led the police party to Ganda Nala near PSM School Partap Vihar and got recovered one knife and Hexa blade and blood stained clothes with which her father and Sushila had cleaned the place where SC No. 43/1 7/45 the body was cut. PW2 has also denied that measurements of knife and Hexa blade were taken and they were converted into pullanda and police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW2/F . PW2 has admitted that her father had pointed out the diwan but has denied that her father had stated that body was placed inside the box of Diwan after committing murder of Lalita. PW2 has also admitted that diwan was taken into possession vide Ex. PW2/G and cycle vide memo Ex.PW2/H. PW2 has denied that she has told to the police that her father had told that he had used the cycle in disposing off the body parts of Lalita and further denied that her father had pointed out the room, where he alongwith his wife Sushila had committed murder of her sister Lalita.
PW2 has stated that she does not identify the bori, tat, kitchen knife, iron blade, bed, cycle etc as the same were not seized by the police in her presence and she has further denied that she has been won over by her father and deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons and PW2 has further stated that her signatures were obtained on blank papers. So, she has not supported the case of prosecution regarding the recovery of dead body parts of Lalita on the pointing out of her father Nandan Singh, that the proceedings about the recovery of dead body parts of deceased Lalita and weapon of offence were conducted in her presence.
Further in cross examination, PW2 has not identified the clothes of deceased Lalita as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, P6, P7, knife Ex.P8, iron made blade P9, two bangles and one plastic kara P10, P11 and P12, one jute bag, two cloth pieces P13, Ex.P14 and P15.
SC No. 43/1 8/45
In the cross examination conducted by Ld defence counsel, PW2 has stated that photographs Ex.P1 to P22 are not taken by the police in her presence and further Ex.PW2/B to Ex.PW2/O were not prepared in her presence by the police and she has signed on the blank papers at the instance of the IO. In further cross examination, PW2 has stated that on 16/04/2007, her father had left the house, when she was going to school at about 7.30 am and had come back in the house in her presence at about 9.00 pm. She returned from the school at about 1.30 noon. Her mausi Sushila had prepared lunch for her on that day and after taking lunch, she went to study room in which bed/diwan was lying and between lunch to till 5.30 pm, she remained present in that room . She has further stated that she and her brother Bobby were present in the aforesaid room and her brother left the room at about 3.00 pm for tuition. Nobody had disturbed her during this period in that room. PW2 has further stated that she did not see SI Nisha at her house between 18/04/2007 to 19/04/2007 and told that till today no household article including the knife meant for cutting vegetable etc had misplaced from her house or kitchen and articles such like iron blade/aari used for cutting saria etc is not available in her house.
Ld defence counsel has contended that from the deposition of PW2, who is the witness of recovery of the body party of deceased Lalita and also of weapon of offence, has not supported the case of prosecution, in any manner, hence the witness examined by prosecution regarding these facts, cannot be relied upon, as the contradiction is material and goes to the root of the case.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW2 has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner that accused both were having any motive SC No. 43/1 9/45 to commit murder of deceased Lalita rather she has stated that the accused Nandan Singh had gone to his work on that day on 16/04/2007 and had come back at about 9.00 pm, which shows that he was not present in the house till 9.00 pm. Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to the disclosure statement of accused Nandan Singh, he had taken leave on that day to commit murder of Lalita but during the course of investigation, it has not been inquired by the IO as to where accused Nandan Singh was working and whether he was on duty on 16/04/2007 and till what time he remained on his duty. Ld defence counsel has further contented that in such circumstances from the deposition of PW1 and PW2 neither prosecution has been able to prove the fact beyond reasonable doubts that both accused were having any motive to commit murder of Lalita nor the recovery of body parts of deceased Lalita and weapon of offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubts as according to PW2, sister of deceased Lalita, these recoveries were not made in her presence and her signatures were obtained on some blank papers , which creates doubt on the case of prosecution as to whether these recoveries were made in presence of Kavita and further whether the writing work was done at the spot or was later on fabricated against the accused persons. So at the threshold, prosecution has not been able to start the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused persons.
PW6 Sh Rajender Singh has stated that accused Nandan Singh had married again after the death of his first wife Tulsi Devi. Out of the said marriage, there were four children namely Laxmi, Lalita, Kavita and Vineet. All the children were residing with Nandan Singh and his second wife Sushila Devi. This witness has also not supported the case of prosecution, so he has been cross examined by SC No. 43/1 10/45 Ld APP, wherein he has admitted that there was dispute between the four children and the second wife of the accused Nandan Singh and he has also admitted that sometimes he heard the noise of "tutu, mai mai" from the house of accused Nandan Singh. He has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW6/A, but even then he has not supported the case of prosecution. ' In the cross examination, PW6 Sh. Rajender Singh has stated that he does not know anything about the said "tutu, main main" and the dispute between the family and further stated that all the family members of Nandan Singh were residing happily with accused Sushila alongwith the children of first wife and further stated that there use to be "tutu mai mai" between the children.
In view of the deposition of PW6 Rajender Singh, no inference can be drawn out about the motive to commit murder of Lalita by accused Nandan Singh and Sushila, more so, merely on the basis of "tu tu mai mai" between children and first wife, it could not be said that it was a strong motive to commit murder of Lalita only.
In support of his contention, Ld defence counsel has relied upon 2006(2) RCR Crl. 462 titled as Rama Reddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy & Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held that "if the case is based on circumstantial evidence than to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, how ever grave may be, cannot be substitute for a proof and the courts SC No. 43/1 11/45 shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence."
Ld defence counsel has further contended that merely the recovery of head of body of Lalita near the place of alleged occurrence i.e house of accused Nandan Singh does not mean that accused Nandan Singh and Sushila have committed the murder of Lalita and had thrown the different body parts at various places after cutting them with the alleged weapon of offence.
Ld defence counsel has further relied upon 2011 (9) LRC 52 (SC) tilted as Dandu Jaggaraju Vs State of A.P., wherein it has been held that "in a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive is often very strong circumstance, which has to be proved by prosecution and it is this circumstances which often forms fulcrum of prosecution story."
Ld defence counsel has further contended that in this case prosecution has been miserably failed to prove motive of the accused persons to commit murder of Lalita, as alleged.
In support of his contention, Ld defence counsel has further relied upon 2011 (6) LRC 141 (Del) (DB) titled as Bhupender singh & Anr Vs State, wherein it has been held that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of accused must be accepted."
It has been further held that "while appreciating circumstantial evidence, the court has to adopt a very cautious approach and should record a conviction only if all links in chain are complete and pointing guilty of accused."
Ld defence counsel has further contended that from the deposition of SC No. 43/1 12/45 PW1 and PW2 it is clear that these witness have not supported the case of prosecution and from the beginning prosecution has not been able to link the chain of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons in committing murder of Lalita, hence the police witnesses cannot be relied upon in view of the material contradictions in comparison to the statements of PW1 and PW2. Recovery of body parts of deceased PW4 Shri Rajender Gupta has deposed that on 18/04/2007, at about 6.00 pm, he saw a woman near nala at Pratap vihar, accordingly he called the PCR at 100 number through his mobile no. 203163333 and on 07/07/07, IO of PS Sultanpuri had recorded his statement under section 161 of Cr.PC in this regard. This witness has not been cross examined, in any manner.
PW14 HC Munde Gyanova has stated that on 18/04/2007, he was posted at PS Sultanpuri and was performing duties as DD writer from 4.00 pm to 12.00 midnight and on that day, at about 6.12 pm, wireless operator came to him and informed that he was informed by Rajender Gupta that head of a lady was lying near Mandir, Pratap Vihar and body of the lady could not be seen near the head. This information was recorded as DD no.63B, copy of the same as Ex.PW7/A. PW14 has also produced the original DD register, copy of same which was sent through Ct Pradeep. PW14 also informed the SHO about this information.
PW7 HC Pradeep Kumar has stated that on 18/04/2007, he was posted at PS Sultanpuri and on that day, at about 6/15 pm, copy of DD no.63B was assigned to SI Girish Chand and he had taken the same and delivered the same to SI Girish Chand in the area of PS Pratap Vihar, when he was busy in some other SC No. 43/1 13/45 matter. The aforesaid DD was in connection of lying of the female head in the nala near WZ154, copy of DD entry is Ex.PW7/A. He joined the investigation, with SI Girsish chand. Private photographer was called at the spot through CT Sunil and IO got photographed the head of female body , which was lying on the patri of nala near the shop of one halwai. Photographs of head are mark T1 to T5. One beat constable Joseph Kutty came at the spot and IO got sent the head to SGM hospital after putting in a cloth piece through Ct Joseph Kutty, PW7 has further deposed the same facts as of other witnesses regarding the registration of the case and identification of head by Kavita before sending the same to SGM hospital and she disclosed the name of deceased as Lalita. PW7 has further deposed on the similar line as of other witnesses regarding the recovery of legs and arms of the deceased with torso and also that he got deposited the parts of the body in the mortuary of the SGM hospital in presence of Ct Joseph Kutty, for the purpose of postmortem examination and thereafter he went to PS. Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW7 HC Pradeep has not signed any memos at the time of recovery of body parts, hence his presence seems to be doubtful at the time of recovery of body parts. Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW7 has not been able to explain as to why he has not signed the documents prepared by the IO, at the time of preparation of documents, so he can not be relied upon.
PW22 SI Girish Chand has stated that on 18/04/2007, he was posted at PS Sultanpuri and on that day, he received DD no.63B at about 6.12 pm, so he alongwith PW15 Ct Sandeep reached near H. No. RZ156, Pratap Vihar, and SC No. 43/1 14/45 there was way towards nala through broken wall. They saw head of a dead body on the bank of nala and it was of female. One Kavita daughter of Nandan Singh r/o A150, Pratap Vihar also reached there and identified the head as that of her sister Lalita. PW22 got photographed the scene of occurrence through a private photographer. He prepared seizure memo of the head Ex.PW2/A and sent the recovered head to mortuary Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital through Ct Joseph Kutti. PW22 SI Girish Chand has further stated that on the basis of scene of occurrence, he prepared rukka Ex.PW22/A and sent Constable Sandeep to PS Sultanpuri for registration of the case.
PW15 Ct Sandeep has also deposed the same facts as of PW22 SI Girish Chand and according to PW3 HC Kuldeep Singh, on 18/04/2007, while he was posted at PS Sultanpuri and was working as Duty Officer from 4.00 pm to 12 of mid night, on that day at about 8.30 pm, he received rukka through Ct Sandeep sent by SI Girish Chand for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he recorded the FIR of this case and also made endorsement Ex.PW3/B on rukka and handed over the copy of FIR Ex. PW3/A and rukka to Ct Sandeep to hand over the same to SI Girish Chand. He also mentioned this fact vide DD no.36A and has produced the original DD register. Accordingly PW15 Ct Sandeep after getting registered the case, again came back and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to IO.
PW9 Ct Dalbir Singh has stated that on 18/04/2007, he was posted at PS Sultanpuri and was on duty as special messenger and on that day, at about 11.00 pm, he had taken envelope containing FIR of present case to deliver to Ld MM at his residence, Joint CP of area at his residence, he delivered the same to them one by one and returned back to PS Sultanpuri and narrated the aforesaid SC No. 43/1 15/45 facts to the Duty Officer.
PW22 SI Girish Chand has further deposed that after registration of the case, investigation was handed over to Addl. SHO, Inspector Ravinder Singh of PS Sultanpuri, who came at the spot alongwith other police staff and PW22 SI Girish Chand handed over copy of seizure memo to him, who prepared site plan of place of occurrence at the instance of PW22. Ct Sandeep had also come with him and one W/ASI Nisha had also reached there. PW22 SI Girish Chand has further deposed that thereafter accused Nandan Singh was interrogated by Inspector Ravinder Singh, who made disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C and he was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW2/N. PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh has also deposed the same facts as of PW22 SI Girish Chand and has stated that he prepared the rough site plan Ex, PW24/A, at the instance of SI Girish Chand of the place of occurrence of recovery of head. At that time, accused Nandan Singh had told that her daughter Lalita was missing and he had lodged missing report at PS Sultanpuri vide DD no.30A dated 18/04/2007 and accused Nandan Singh had told that recovered head was not of his daughter Lalita whereas Kavita and his other daughter was insisting that head was of Lalita. Accused Nandan Singh also admitted that the head was of Lalita and told about the whole occurrence. After interrogation, he was arrested at about 1.00 am on 19/04/2007 vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/H. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/O . His body inspection memo Ex.PW24/B was also prepared by PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh. Accused Nandan Singh also got recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C. Ld defence counsel has contended that from the deposition of PW15 SC No. 43/1 16/45 Ct Sandeep, PW22 SI Girish Chand and PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh, it is not clear how Nandan Singh reached at the spot because all these witnesses have told that Kavita reached there and identified the head of the deceased as of her sister Lalita, her sister. Ld defence counsel has further contended that in such circumstances, PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh had not made any efforts to trace out any photograph from the house of deceased to establish the identity of head as of Lalita. Ld defence counsel has further contended that it is strange that Nandan Singh reached at the spot and told about the whole of occurrence and he was arrested in this case, although none of the witnesses have stated so. Ld defence counsel has further contended that head of deceased Lalita was not got recovered by accused Nandan Singh in furtherance of his disclosure statement, hence it is not know on what basis accused Nandan Singh was arrested, at that time and from where he appeared.
PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh has further deposed that in furtherance of disclosure statement, accused Nandan Singh led the police party towards open fields near Sharma Colony, from where he got recovered one travelling bag of brown colour, which was lying in the bushes and it was found containing one plastic katta which was further found containing another katta and on opening the same, another katta was found, which further was found containing two woman legs and two arms . There were two bangles on the right hand wrist and one plastic kada was on the left hand wrist. Legs were having like green colour pajami. As crime team had also accompanied at the spot, hence prior to opening of bags, photographs were taken of the brown colour bag and further photographer had also taken photographs of legs and arms. PW24 SC No. 43/1 17/45 Inspector Ravinder Singh has further deposed that legs were further wrapped with some white colour cloth and the same were identified by Kavita, sister of deceased. Legs and arms including hands were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. PW24 also filled form no. 25.35 (1)(b) regarding limbs , which is Ex.PW24/C. He also prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery of legs and arms, which is Ex.PW24/D. PW24 has further deposed that thereafter accused Nandan Singh led the police party in the area of Kirari Village near Shiv Mandir and got recovered one jute bag from a small pit leading to the pond. It was checked and was found containing one female torso wrapped in black colour polythene. The lower portion of the torso was found wearing upper portion of light green colour pajami which was resembling to the pajami worn on the recovered legs alongwith brown colour panty. The torso was identified by Kavita. Crime team photographer had also taken photographs of the jute bag prior to its opening and also of torso. The recovered torso was kept in the same position in the jute bag and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/E. PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh also prepared form no.25.35 (1)(b) regarding the recovery of torso, which is Ex.PW24/E. He also prepared the rough site plan of the place of recovery of torso, which is Ex.PW24/F. The recovered torso, arms and legs were sent to mortuary of SGM hospital through Ct Pradeep.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW2 Kavita has not corroborated the facts that in her presence legs, arms and torso of deceased Lalita were recovered, at the instance of accused Nandan Singh, so the contradiction is material, hence this witness cannot be relied upon regarding the SC No. 43/1 18/45 recovery of body parts of deceased Lalita, at the instance of accused Nandan Singh.
PW5 SI Matadin Meena has stated that in the intervening night of 18/19.04.07, he was posted at I/C Crime Team NW and on that day, message was received from control room and he along with photographer Ct Dalbir reached at Pratap Vihar where they met with IO SI Ravinder Singh and other staff with accused Nandan Singh. First of all accused and other staff with IO went to Sharma Enclave at open place. There the accused Nandan Singh pointed out towards one bag of brown colour which was tied with black colour strip. It was opened and found containing parts of body i.e. two hands and two legs. Photographs of the body parts were taken along with the place of recovery and bag. PW5 has further deposed that thereafter accused Nandan Singh led the police party to Catharine Village in the Jhod and from there one tat bag was found. It was found containing one plastic bag, which further found containing torso of female without head, hands and legs. Photographs of place and body part were taken. Accused Nandan Singh also got recovered one knife, one blade (aari) and blood was on the earth. Photographs of the same were also taken as per direction of PW5 SI Matadin. Total 22 photographs were taken, positive are Ex.P1 to P22 and negatives are Ex.P23 to P44. PW5 also prepared a report Ex.PW5/A and handed the same to IO.
Ld defence counsel has contended that police witnesses have stated that there were plastic bangles and plastic kada in the hands of deceased, whereas PW5 has stated that there were steel bangles and plastic bangles found, which is not corroborating with other witnesses, in any manner, hence witnesses cannot be SC No. 43/1 19/45 believed.
PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh has further deposed that thereafter accused Nandan Singh led the police party to ganda nala near PSN School, Pratap Vihar, where on a dry land in the bank of ganda nala, accused got recovered one blood stained jute bag, two blood stained clothes, one knife and one broken piece of iron cutting blade. Photographs of these articles were taken. Thereafter PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh prepared the sketch of the recovered knife and broken piece of iron cutting blade, which is Ex.PW21/A . The length of recovered knife was 19 cm and length of blade of the knife was 10 cm and the length of the handle of the knife was 9 cm. He prepared the pullanda of the jute bag and clothes and of recovered knife and broken piece of iron cutting blade and sealed these pullandas with the seal of RS and took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/F. Seal after use was handed over to SI Nisha.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that according the cross examination of PW5 SI Matadin, Incharge crime team, no measurements of weapon was taken in his presence and according to the case of prosecution, crime team remained with the police till the police party reached at the house of accused Nandan Singh from where diwan and cycle was allegedly taken into possession on the pointing out of accused. Ld defence counsel has further contended that it has come in the deposition of PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh that thereafter police party came to PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana, so it is doubtful that knife and aari blade were recovered on the pointing of accused Nandan Singh.
PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh has further deposed that crime team SC No. 43/1 20/45 was called at the PS and after that he again reached at the place of occurrence. Crime team inspected the spot and prepared its report Ex.PW24/H. Ld defence counsel has contended that PW5 SI Matadin has also told in the cross examination that he had mentioned in his report that due to odd hour, the inspection could not be conducted at the room and it was directed to IO to preserve the same, which shows that the crime team remained with the police party till the alleged weapon of offence was taken into possession by the police, so the contradiction about the measurements of weapon i.e. knife is material, which creates doubts in the case of prosecution as to actually weapon of offence were recovered at the instance of accused Nandan Singh or not.
PW15 Ct Sandeep has stated that head of Lalita, after recovery, was sent to SGM hospital through Ct Joseph Kutty. He has further stated that legs, arms and torso were also got recovered, which were sent for postmortem through Ct Joseph Kutty or some other constable.
Ld defence counsel has contended that according to PW7 HC Pradeep Kumar, he got deposited legs, arms and torso to SGM hospital, where Ct Joseph Kutty was also present, so testimony of PW15 is not inspiring confidence as to through whom the arms, legs and torso of dead body were sent to SGM hospital. Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to PW15 Ct Sandeep, accused got recovered one knife, one aari and one blade from heap of garbage whereas only knife and aari blade were recovered, so PW15 Ct Sandeep cannot be believed in any manner. Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW15 Ct Sandeep has been confronted with so many facts from his statement Ex.PW15/DA, so he cannot be relied upon.
SC No. 43/1 21/45
PW16 HC Mahender has stated that on 19/04/07, he was working as photographer in mobile crime team, North west and he alongwith SI Baljeet Singh, Incharge Crime team reached at A150, Pratap Vihar. There was one bed in the room and it was found opened. He took some photographs of the bed. Thereafter, they reached at SGM hospital and there he took photographs of a head of lady. The positives of the photographs are Ex. 17, 18 and 21 alongwith the other positives mark T1 to T5, which were exhibited as Ex.T1 to T5. PW16 also produced the negatives of these photographs, which is Ex.PW16/A collectively.
PW17 Vijay Kumar has stated that on 18/04/2007, he was called by Inspector of PS Sultanpuri and he reached at Ganda nala, and found a head of dead body. He took the photographs of female head at about 6/6.30 pm. Thereafter, he came back to his house. Again, he was called in the night at about 12/12.30 pm, on the same day. Firstly he reached at Kirari road, where police official Mr. Kutty was present. One gunny bag was lying there, from which chest was coming out. He took the photographs of the gunny bag with the chest of the dead body in the same position. Thereafter he was taken to village Nithari. One bag was lying there. He took the photographs of the bag, thereafter he came back to his house and after getting printed, positives from his digital camera, he handed over the photographs to police official Mr. Kutty. PW17 has also produced the CD of digital photos, which were taken by him and also print out of photographs. The print of photograph of female head is Ex.PW27, containing 9 prints. The print out of bags, hair, gunny bag and room containing 9 photographs is Ex.P28. The third print out showing two photographs of bed and bag is Ex.P29 and CD is Ex.P30. SC No. 43/1 22/45
Ld defence counsel has contended that whole of this deposition is contrary to the deposition of other witnesses as according to the photographer, PW17 Sh Vijay Kumar, he was called in the night at about 12/12.30 pm, by the police, where Mr,. Kutty was present, whereas according to the deposition of other police officials after recovery of head, it was sent to SGM hospital for the purpose of preservation and postmortem and according to PW7 HC Pradeep, he also deposited the remaining body party of dead body and he has admitted that Ct Joseph Kutty was also present in the mortuary guarding the head of the dead body, so it is not known how Ct Joseph Kutty was present at the spot, where body parts were recovered while at the same time he was guarding the part of the dead body.
According to PW18 Ct Dalbir in the intervening night of 18/19/04/2007, he accompanied crime team Incharge SI M.D. Meena and reached at Pratap Vihar, Nithari Village. He took some photographs as per instructions of House no.150A. Positives of the photographs are already
exhibited as Ex.P19, Ex.P20 and Ex.P22. Another positive is Ex.P23. He also took some photographs from inside house no. 150A, which are Ex.PW24 and Ex.P25. PW18 has further deposed that thereafter they reached at Sharma Enclave, Nithari village and there he took photographs of one brown colour bag , which are Ex. P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. The said bag was opened. Two hands and two legs were found lying in the bag, which were taken out. He took some photographs of the same, which are Ex.P9, Ex.P10 and Ex.P11. Thereafter they reached at Ganda Nala in Nithari village with the police. One gunny bag was lying there out of which chest of one female was coming out. He took the SC No. 43/1 23/45 photographs of the same, which are Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P12, Ex.P13, Ex.P14, Ex.P15 and Ex.P16. Thereafter they reached at ganda nala in Nithari village with the police. There he saw one knife and one broken Aari blade. PW18 took some photographs of the same, positives of which are Ex.P6, Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. PW18 has also produced the negatives of these photographs in the Court as Ex.P26 collectively.
PW21 SI Nisha has also deposed the same facts as of other police witnesses. She had reached at house no.150, Pratap Vihar, on being called by the IO in the intervening night of 18/19.04.07. PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh and accused Narender Singh were present there. Accused Narender Singh was interrogated and he made disclosure statement vide Ex.PW2/C and was arrested by the IO vide memo Ex.PW2/H. His personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/O and PW21 SI Nisha signed the memos at the spot.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to PW21 SI Nisha , accused Nandan Singh was arrested from the house, whereas according to the deposition of other witnesses, accused came at a place, where head of dead body was recovered and he was arrested there and Kavita had also reached there, who had identified the head of the body as of her sister Lalita. Ld defence counsel has further contended that in such circumstances, place of arrest of accused Nandan Singh is uncertain, so the contradiction, in this respect is material, which is rendering the witnesses unreliable.
PW21 SI Nisha has further deposed that thereafter accused Nandan Singh took the police party to Sharma Colony, in a lonely place, at that time, one Kavita daughter of accused Nandan Singh was also accompanied them and on SC No. 43/1 24/45 the way to Sharma Colony, the crime team had also joined them and when they reached at the lonely place in Sharma colony, accused Nandan Singh had pointed out towards a travelling bag. It was got photographed and it was opened and one plastic bag was taken from it. The photographs of the same was also taken and on opening the same, two legs and two arms were recovered and Kavita had identified the arms and legs of her sister Lalita. PW21 has further deposed that thereafter accused Nandan Singh got recovered torso of dead body from pond near Shiv Mandir, which was also identified by Kavita as of her sister and accused Nandan Singh further got recovered one Knife and one aari blade, which was seized, in this case, after preparing the sketch of the same Ex.PW21/A and thereafter accused Nandan Singh pointed out the place, where he had thrown the head of the dead body. Then they came back at house of accused Nandan Singh, where accused Sushila met them. She was interrogated and both the accused disclosed that they had committed murder of Lalita in the house underneath the stair case by strangulating her. They also disclosed that after committing the murder of Lalita, they concealed the dead body in a diwan. Pointing out memo, in this regard was prepared vide Ex.PW2/I. Accused Nandan Singh also pointed out one bicycle, which was lying underneath the staircase, on which he had removed the dead body. Bicycle was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/H. Ld defence counsel has contended that PW2 Kavita has not corroborated these facts as deposed by PW21 SI Nisha regarding the recovery of legs, arms and torso of dead body and that these body parts were identified by her at the time of recovery. So the contradiction, in this respect is material hence witnesses are not inspiring any confidence.
SC No. 43/1 25/45
Ld defence counsel has further contended that in the cross examination, PW21 SI Nisha has stated that she does not remember whether she had also told to the IO that Kavita was also with her and she does not remember if IO also collected blood stained soil from the places from where the parts of the body were recovered. She further told that no blood stained earth was lifted from the place where the knife, blade and blood stained jute bag were recovered.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that even the IO PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh has not stated that blood stains soil/earth were also collected from the place of recovery of body parts and from the place of recovery of weapon of offence, so the prosecution has not been able to prove the fact that body parts were recovered from the particular place as deposed by witnesses.
Ld defence counsel has submitted that in such circumstances, the FSL report is also not helpful to connect the weapon of offence with the murder and further according to the deposition of witnesses, blood stained earth from the place of recovery and place of body parts of dead body were not collected, so the prosecution has not been able to prove that the body part of deceased were recovered from the places as deposed by witnesses.
In support of his contention, Ld defence counsel has relied upon 1992 CRI.L.J.2156 titled as Satya Narain Bhagat and another Vs State of Bihar wherein it has been held that "omission on the part of investigating officer to seize blood stained earth from the place of occurrence casts serious doubt on determination of place of occurrence of incident."
Ld defence counsel has further contended that even the recovery of SC No. 43/1 26/45 knife and aari blade are not sufficient to connect the guilt of the accused persons to the extent that the accused had committed murder of Lalita and had cut her body parts with the help of knife and aari blade and in support of his contention he has relied on 2011(6) LRC 85 (SC) titled as S.K. Yusuf Vs State of west Bengal wherein it has held that "if an accused deposes to police officer the fact as a result of which weapon with which crime is committed is discovered and as a result of such disclosure, recovery of weapon is made, no inference can be drawn against accused, if there is no evidence connecting weapon with crime alleged to have been committed by accused."
Ld defence counsel has further contended that seeing the size of knife and aari blade, it seems to be impossible that with the help of these types of small knife and aari blade, body parts of young female of about 18 years could have been separated by the accused persons, after committing her murder.
PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh has further deposed that after pointing out the place from where the dead body was thrown, accused Narender Singh led the police party to his house A150, Pratap Vihar and pointed out the room, in which, he had murdered Lalita and thereafter pointed out the Diwan lying in the room,wherein he had concealed the dead body of Lalita. PW24 prepared the pointing out memo in this regard Ex.PW2/I. Thereafter, diwan was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/G. Accused also pointed out one cycle, which was used in removing the dead body parts of deceased Lalita. Cycle was seized and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/H. PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh has further deposed that accused Sushila was also present in the house. She was interrogated and was arrested vide SC No. 43/1 27/45 memo Ex.PW2/L. Her personal search was conducted by lady SI Nisha vide Ex.PW2/M. Her disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW2/J. PW24 has further deposed that he also prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence and recovery of Diwan, which is Ex.PW24/G. At that time, when accused Nandan Singh was taken upstairs, he pushed the police officers, to come down and during that process, he fell down and sustained some injuries and he was complaining pain, so he was medically examined. Thereafter they came back to PS and he deposited the case property in malkhana. Thereafter, crime team was called at the PS and after that he alongwith members of crime team again reached at the place of occurrence i.e house of accused Nandan Singh. Crime team inspected the place of occurrence and prepared his report, which is Ex.PW24/H. PW19 HC Ramesh Kumar has deposed that on 19/04/2007, he was posted at PS Sultanpuri as MHC(M). On that day, PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh handed over one cycle make Aone, one diwan , blood samples with the blood swab of the accused Sushila , blood swab prepared from the blood on the cycle with the seal of RS and three pullandas with the seal of RS to him for depositing the same in the malkhana. Accordingly, he deposited the same in the malkhana vide entry no. 10942 in register no.19, copy of the same is Ex.PW19/A. PW19 has further deposed that on 20/04/07, Inspector Ravinder singh handed over to him 14 sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of SGMH, mortuary, Mangol Puri and he deposited the same in the malkhana vide entry no10949 in register no.19, copy of which is Ex.PW19/B. PW19 has further deposed that on 22/05/2007, he handed over two sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of RS containing knife and aari blade for SC No. 43/1 28/45 obtaining subsequent opinion to Inspector Ravinder Singh. On the same day, after obtaining subsequent opinion, PW24 Inspector Ravinder singh deposited two sealed pullandas containing knife and aari blade sealed with the seal of SGMH mortuary Mangol Puri and he made entry in front of entry no.10942, copy of which is Ex.PW19/C .
PW19 HC Ramesh has further deposed that on 05/06/2007, as per instructions of the Investigating officer, he handed over 16 pullandas sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary, Mangolpuri, to Constable Sri Bhagwan vide RC No. 99/21/07 for depositing in FSL, Rohini. After depositing the sealed pullandas, Constable Sri Bhagwan handed over to him, receipt on RC. Copy of the RC is Ex. PW19/D. PW19 HC Ramesh has further deposed that on 06/06/2007, as per instructions of the Investigating officer, he handed over five sealed pullandas (plastic jars) with the seal of SGMH Mortuary, Mangolpuri, to Constable Narsingh vide RC No. 101/21/07 for depositing in FSL, Rohini. After depositing the sealed pullandas, Constable Narsingh handed over to him receipt on RC. Copy of the RC is Ex. PW19/E. PW19 HC Ramesh has further deposed that on 13/04/2009, Constable Rakesh Kumar handed over 14 pullandas and one envelope sealed with the seal of FSL to him for depositing in the malkhana and same were deposited by him in the malkhana. An entry was made in this regard in front of serial No. 10942 already exhibited as Ex. PW19/A. On 26/08/2009, Head Constable Sridharan handed over to him five pullandas and one envelope sealed with the seal of FSL, Rohini for depositing in the malkhana. He made entry in respect of the same in front of entry SC No. 43/1 29/45 No. 10942 already exhibited as Ex. PW19/A. On 07/09/2009, Constable Munde handed over handed over to him two pullandas and one envelope sealed with the seal of FSL, Rohini for depositing in the malkhana. He deposited the same in the malkhana. He made entry in respect of the same in front of entry No. 10942 already exhibited as Ex. PW19/A. Nothing came out in the cross examination of this witness to disbelieve his testimony.
PW10 HC Mukesh has stated that on 19/04/2008, he was present at PS Sultanpuri and on that day, Dr. A.K. Shrivastava of FSL came at scene of crime from there blood swab was lifted but no clue came forward. Thereafter, aforesaid official came at the PS and he took blood stained swab from the hand finger of the accused Sushila. One blood stained swab was also taken by him from the carrier of the cycle which was available in PS and involved in present case. Aforesaid, three swab material were handed over to IO Inspector Ravinder Singh and same were converted in three parcels, which were sealed with the seal of RS and seized vide memo Ex.PW10/A. PW19 has also corroborated this fact, who has deposed that on that day, there sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of RS were handed over to him. Nothing came out from the cross examination of this witness to disbelieve his testimony.
PW11 HC Nar Singh has also corroborated with the deposition of PW19 HC Ramesh Kumar and has stated that on 06/06/2007, he was posted at PS Sultanpuri and on that day, he had taken five plastic jar, sample seals, forwarding letter etc to FSL Rohini for analysis (DNA) on the request of IO vide RC no. 101/21/07. He deposited the same and came back to PS and handed over receipt regarding depositing the aforesaid sealed parcels and sample seal to MHC(M). SC No. 43/1 30/45 Nothing came out from the cross examination of this witness to disbelieve his testimony.
Similarly, PW12 Ct Shri Bhagwan has also corroborated with PW19 HC Ramesh, who has stated that he had taken nine sealed envelope of white colour, one sealed plastic jar containing exhibits, three sealed polythene bags, containing exhibits, three cloth sealed parcel containing exhibits alongwith sample seals, forwarding letter, two copy of RC to FSL Rohini for analysis on the request of IO vide RC no. 99/21/07 and after depositing the same, he handed over the same to MHC(M). So prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that case property was deposited with PW19 HC Ramesh, the then MHC(M) on various dates and were sent to FSL by PW11 and PW12 and nothing came out from the cross examination of these witnesses to disbelieve their testimonies, in any manner.
According to PW8 Sh. A.K. Shrivastava Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini, on 18/04/2007, he reached at spot i.e. A/150, Gali no.4 Partap Vihar, Sultanpuri, Delhi, on the request of police officials connected with the present case. On that day, at about 1.00 pm, he reached at PS Sultanpuri, where accused Sushila met him . He took swab from her left and right hand finger and also taken blood stained swab from cycle's carrier. These were converted into parcel and were marked as 1, 2 and 3 and thereafter, aforesaid exhibits were handed over to IO. He left the PS at about 4.00 pm. At about 4.00 pm, he prepared the scene of crime report on 20/04/2007, which is Ex.PW8/A. Ld defence counsel has contended that according to PW10 HC Mukesh, the blood stained swab was taken from the cycle and from the fingers of accused SC No. 43/1 31/45 Sushila on 19/04/2007 in the PS, whereas according to PW8 Sh. A.K. Shrivastava, he visited the spot on 18/04/2007 and inspected the scene of crime, but no clue came forward. Thereafter, he reached at PS Sultanpuri and took swab from the left and right fingers of accused Sushila and also taken blood stained swab from cycle's carrier.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to the case of prosecution, accused Sushila was arrested on 19/04/2007 at about 6.30 am, as per arrest memo Ex.PW2/L, so under no circumstances, accused Sushila could have been present in the PS on 18/04/2007 and if she was then all the writing work has been fabricated.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that none of the police witness has stated that Sh. A.K. Shrivastava was called to inspect the scene of crime on 18/04/2007 at about 1.00 pm and even IO PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh has stated that on 19/04/2007, he had also called FSL crime team on the spot, who inspected the place of occurrence and had collected the blood swab from nails of accused Sushila and handed over the same to IO. He wrapped the same into two separate envelopes and sealed the same with the seal of RS and took the same into possession vide Ex.PW24/I. At that time, FSL team had also examined the cycle, which was used in the disposing body parts and collected blood swab from the carrier of the cycle and handed over the same to him . He put the same in the an envelope and sealed with the seal of RS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW10/A. Ld defence counsel has further contended that from the deposition of PW24, it seems that the sample swab were taken of accused Sushila in the house SC No. 43/1 32/45 at Pratap Vihar and cycle was also examined there, whereas according to PW8 Sh. A.K,. Shrivastava, these proceedings were conducted in the PS and PW10 has also stated that these proceedings were also conducted in the PS, so, it is not certain as to where sample blood swab of Sushila were taken and where sample blood swab were taken from the cycle, which raises doubts ont he case of prosecution.
On the other hand, Ld APP has contended that in the cross examination PW8 has made clear that firstly he went to scene of crime i.e. house of accused alongwith police officials and thereafter he had taken blood swab at PS from the carrier of cycle, so there is no contradiction about this fact as argued by Ld defence counsel and witness can be relied upon, in this respect that blood swab was taken from the finger of accused Sushila and also from the cycle.
PW8 Sh. A.K. Shrivastava, has further stated that on 05/06/2007, 16 sealed parcels and forwarding letter of the police in connection with the present case were marked to him and he examined all the parcels and prepare his biological report on 21/03/2009, which is Ex.pW8/B and forwarding letter of the said report is Ex.PW8/C. He had also prepared his serological report dated 21/03/2009, which is Ex.PW8/D. PW8 has further deposed that on 06/06/2007 and 06/11/2008, forensic samples were received in their office for analysis for biological/DNA. DNA finger priting analysis on the exhibits 1,2,3,4 & 5. He prepared DNA report on 15/06/2009, which is Ex.PW8/E and bears his signatures at point A1 ane A2. Conclusion of DNA is mentioned at encircled portion Y of Ex.PW8/E. PW8 has further deposed that DNA were found on exhibits provided is SC No. 43/1 33/45 sufficient to conclude that Ex.1,2,3,4 & 5 are of some female . Forwarding letter of DNA report is Ex.PW8/F. PW8 has also identified the signatures of Sh. Parshuram Singh, Senior Scientific officer of FSL, Rohini, Delhi on report dated 30/04/2009 on Ex.PW8/G. According to the FSL Report, Ex.PW8/E, body parts, which were sent to FSL for DNA analysis, sealed with the seal of SGMH mortuary, Mangol Puri, Delhi were of some female origin, so it has been proved beyond reasonable doubts that head, arms, legs and torso were of the same female origin.
According to FSL report Ex.PW8/G, Ex.8a chunni, Ex.8b pajami, Ex.8c a piece of cloth, Ex.8d piece of cloth, Ex.9a one panty and Ex.9b one cloth piece i.e. wearing clothes of deceased were examined and according to the report these exhibits i.e. Ex.8b and Ex9b i.e. one panty and piece of cloth were part of one cloth.
According to another FSL Report Ex.PW8/B, blood was detected on , Ex.1blood gauze piece, Ex.2 blood gauze piece of upper limbs, Ex.3 one blood gauze piece of lower limb, Ex.4 blood gauze piece of lower limb, Ex5 blood gauze piece of head, Ex.6 piece of gauze cloth of trunk, Ex.7a one travelling bag, Ex.7b jute bag, Ex.7c plastic bag, Ex.7d plastic bag, Ex.7e another plastic bag, Ex.7f one black polythene, Ex.8a piece of chunni, Ex.8b one pajami, Ex.8c cloth piece, Ex.8d another cloth piece, Ex.11 blood swab, Ex.12 piece of cotton swab, Ex.13 cotton wool swab, Ex.14a one jute bag, Ex.14b cloth piece, Ex.14c another cloth piece and Ex.15 one knife with plastic baigni colour handle and blood could not detected on Ex.9a panty, Ex.9b pajami piece, Ex.10a two bangles, Ex.10b plastic kara, Ex.16 an iron made blade.
SC No. 43/1 34/45
According to the report Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/9, blood could not be detected on iron blade and blood was detected on knife, but according to the serological report, it was found human blood but no group could be ascertained as there was no reaction, so prosecution has not been able to connect the both the weapon of offence with the murder, in any manner.
PW20 SI Manohar Lal has stated that on 15/05/2007, he was called by Inspector Ravinder Singh at PS Sultanpuri, from there he alongwith PW24 Inspector Ravinder Singh reached H. NO. A150, Pratap Vihar, Delhi, where he prepared rough notes and took measurements at the instance of IO. Thereafter, he alongwith IO went to ganda nalla, Pratap Vihar, Delhi, where he prepared rough notes and took measurements of the place from where head of the deceased was recovered at the instance of IO. Thereafter, they went to some open land, near Sharma Colony, Nithari Road, where he prepared rough notes and took measurements from where hands and legs of the deceased were recovered. Thereafter, they went near Shiv Mandir , Kirari and from there also, he prepared rough notes and took measurements on the pointing out of the IO of the place from where torso of the dead body was recovered. PW20 has further deposed that on the basis of rough notes and measurements, he prepared the scaled site plan, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW20/C. He also destroyed the rough notes and measurements after preparation of the scaled site plan and handed over the same to IO.
Cause of Death.
In this respect, PW13 Dr. V.K. Jha, has stated that on 18/04/2007, he was posted as a medical officer in SGM hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. MLC of SC No. 43/1 35/45 Lalita was prepared by Dr. Vijay Kumar, Medical Officer, who had worked with him in casualty and he had seen the writing and signatures of Dr. Vijay Kumar during his course of duties. He has proved detailed report Ex.PW13/A, which bears signatures of Dr. Vijay Kumar at point A. PW13 Dr. V.K. Jha has further deposed that he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Lalita, which was identified by Ct Joseph Kutti and sent by Inspector Ravinder Singh. HE conducted internal and external examination and prepared postmortem report Ex.PW13/B. He opined the cause of death as asphyxia consequent to manual pressure over throat structures Manual pressure was antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Separation of body parts including decaptiation was postmortem in nature. The weapon used for the purpose of postmortem separation was serrated. Blood gauze piece from each amputed parts was preserved which were six in number. Lower jaw, femor, sternum, tibia, ulna bones were preserved for DNA analysis. Time since death was approximately 4 to 5 days. Total number of inquest papers were 12 in number which was returned with the PM report to the IO.
PW13 has further deposed that on 22/05/2007, IO moved an application before him regarding subsequent opinion, he received packets with the seal of RS. On opening the same, it found containing one iron cutting blade piece and another kitchen knife. The detailed diagram was prepared Ex.PW13/D. After examination, he opined that separation of body parts have been caused by weapon of offence examined or similar such weapon. He prepared his detailed opinion vide Ex.PW13/C. SC No. 43/1 36/45 Ld defence counsel has contended that in the cross examination of PW13 Dr. V.K. Jha has stated that when subsequent opinion was given by him on 22/05/2007, part of the dead body were not before him. Ld defence counsel has further contended that it is highly improbable that opinion regarding the use of weapon i.e. kitchen knife and aari blade could have been given regarding the separation of body parts without having the body parts before him. Ld defence counsel has submitted that more so, from the FSL report, both these weapon i.e. kitchen knife and aari blade could not have been connected with the blood group of deceased and mere finding of human blood is not sufficient to prove the fact that with kitchen knife and aari blade, body parts of deceased were separated and that too by accused both.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that according the deposition of PW13 Dr. V.K. Jha time since death was 45 days and if we count four days then it comes to 16/04/2007 at about 3.30 pm or if we count five days then it comes to 15/04/2007 at about 3.30 pm. Ld defence counsel has further contended that the missing report was given by accused Nandan Singh, wherein he himself had stated that Lalita was missing from 16/04/2007 since 8.30 am, neither she reached at her office nor she came back to her house. Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to the disclosure statement of accused persons, they committed murder of Lalita in their house and concealed the dead body in diwan but according to the cross examination of PW2 Kavita, in her presence accused Nandan Singh had left the house when she was going to the school at about 7.30 am and came back at about 9.00 pm. PW2 has also stated in the cross examination that she returned to the home from school at about 1.30 noon on SC No. 43/1 37/45 16/04/2007 and after taking lunch, she went to the study room in which bed/diwan was lying and she remained present there till 5.30 pm. Her brother Bobby was present in the aforesaid room and he left the room at about 3.00 pm for tuition. Ld defence counsel has further contended that it seems to be highly improbable that in presence of children in the house i.e. atleast four children from first wife of accused Nandan Singh, accused could have committed murder by strangulating her daughter.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that from the photographs of diwan, it is clear that there is no impression appearing inside the diwan to show that any dead body was concealed in the diwan. Ld defence counsel has further contended that diwan has not been examined by FSL officials to the extent , as to whether the dead body of Lalita could be concealed in the diwan.
The blood sample was taken from the cycle was sealed with the seal of RS, so this may be Ex.11, Ex.12 or Ex.13 on which blood was detected and according to the serological report, human blood was detected on Ex.13, but it is not known whether Ex.13 i.e. cotton wool swab was taken from the cycle or from the finger of accused Sushila, so prosecution has not been able to connect this aspect also to prove that the body parts of deceased Lalita was removed on the cycle, disclosed by the accused.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to the disclosure statement of accused both, after imputing the body parts of deceased, the blood in the house was wiped out with the help of some piece which may be Ex.14A, Ex. 14B and Ex.14C, on which blood was detected as per FSL report Ex,.PW8/B and all these exhibits were found having human blood of B group and the gauze piece SC No. 43/1 38/45 of blood taken of the deceased in the hospital, at the time of postmortem, was also being found containing human blood of B group and according to the deposition of witnesses, this cloth piece was got recovered by accused Nandan Singh from ganda nala, PSN School, Pratap Vihar alongwith weapon of offence, which is not corroborated by PW2 Kavita, in any manner.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to PW8, Sh. A.K. Shrivastava, many persons may have the same blood group, so it is not conclusively proved that the human blood of B group, which was found on Ex. 14A, 14B and 14C, was of deceased Lalita, hence prosecution has also not been able to connect these articles with the accused persons to the extent that with these exhibits, the blood was wiped out from the house of the accused persons, after amputating the body parts of deceased Lalita.
In defence, Dr. Lakhwinder Kaur was examined as DW1, she has proved MLC of accused Nandan Singh as Ex.DW1/A and has also proved certain documents obtained by the accused under RTI Act and has proved the same as Ex.DW1/B. According to the documents obtained under RTI , leg of accused Nandan Singh was operated. According to the police witness, accused Nandan Singh sustained injuries while he was trying to fled away in the stairs and fell down, whereas the allegation of accused is that he was beaten by the police official. In the deposition of DW1, it has not come whether such injuries could have been sustained due to fall in stairs or it was resulted due to beatings, so the deposition of DW1 is not helpful to the accused, in any manner.
DW2 Ct Om Parkash has proved certain documents obtained under the RTI Act, copies of same is Ex.PW2/A, ExPW2/B and Ex.PW2/C . Ld defence SC No. 43/1 39/45 counsel has contended that according to this record, W/ASI Nisha was not on emergency duty hence, it is doubtful that she had joined the investigation of this case. Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to duty roaster, on 18/04/2007, Ct Joseph Kutty was not on duty, hence his joining of the investigation also seems to be doubtful.
In my view, this witness is also not helpful to the accused persons because W/SI Nisha was on duty on 18/04/2007 and it does not matter in any manner whether she was on emergency duty or not. Police officials remain on duty for 24 hours and they could be asked to join the investigation at any time. Similarly, if Ct Joseph Kutty was not on duty on 18/04/2007, he could also be called to join the investigation and it is not a thumb rule that only the persons, who were on duty could have joined the investigation as it depends upon the availability of police staff in the PS and in case no one is available, other staff could be called to join the investigation.
In view of the above discussion, the contradictions as pointed out by Ld defence counsel are forceful and rendering the witnesses unreliable regarding the recovery of body parts of deceased Lalita on the pointing out of accused Nandan singh in presence of PW2 Kavita. Judgments as relied upon by Ld defence counsel for both the accused persons are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Alteration in date of missing report from 17/04/2007 to 18/04/2007 shows that investigation has not been conducted fairly. The missing report was assigned to SI Seva Singh who has neither been cited as witness nor it is known as to what investigation was conducted on the missing report. SC No. 43/1 40/45
No investigation has been conducted from the office of deceased Lalita where she was working or whether there could be any other person having motive to commit murder of Lalita. Merely that body parts of deceased Lalita had been recovered as deposed by police witnesses from the nearby house of both the accused persons, does not mean that accused both have committed murder of Lalita. This suspicion, howsoever may be strong and grave but cannot substitute as proof, to held guilty the accused persons for committing murder of Lalita.
PW1 Hari Singh and PW6 Sh. Rajender Singh, both have not supported the case of the prosecution regarding the motive to commit murder of Lalita by accused both. PW2 Kavita has also not supported the case of
prosecution regarding the motive to commit murder of Lalita by accused both. Mere quarrels between the children of first wife and second wife of accused could not be motive to commit murder of one child i.e. Lalita and it does not seem to be the strong motive to commit murder of only one child Lalita. Even otherwise, it seems to be highly improbable that in the house having 45 children accused both could have committed murder of Lalita and further could have been able to conceal the dead body in the diwan. No marks have been found in the diwan regarding the concealment of the dead body. It is also not investigated whether the dead body could be concealed in the diwan in any manner.
PW2 Kavita has also not supported the case of the prosecution regarding the fact that accused Nandan Singh had committed murder murder along with accused Sushila of Lalita in the house, because she has stated in the SC No. 43/1 41/45 cross examination that accused Nandan Singh on 16/04/2007 had left at about 7.30 am and he came back at about 9.00 pm. According to the postmortem report, time since death comes to 3.30 pm on 16/04/2012 and PW2 Kavita has stated in this respect that since 1.30 pm till evening, she remained in the house and particularly in the study room where diwan was lying, which demolishes the case of the prosecution in totality that on 16/04/2007, Lalita was murdered in her house by accused both by strangulating and her dead body was kept in diwan.
It also seems to be highly improbable that accused both could have been able to ampute the body parts of Lalita and further putting them in different bags, they had thrown the body parts at various places, in a house having 24 children present. The prosecution has also not been able to connect the knife and aari blade with the amputation of body parts of Lalita, in any manner either from FSL report or otherwise and in view of the deposition of PW2 Kavita, recovery of these weapons on the pointing out of accused Nandan Singh is also doubtful. More so, the size of aari blade is not sufficient to amputate the body parts of young female of 18 years of age. The recovered aari blade could not be used without its handle to amputate the body parts of deceased Lalita and no such aari handle has been recovered from the house of accused persons. Infact this aspect has not been investigated, in any manner.
In view of the deposition of PW2 Kavita, recovery of bori tat, clothes with which the blood was wiped after amputing the body parts of Lalita is also not believable as PW2 Kavita has not supported the case of prosecution as deposed by other witnesses.
SC No. 43/1 42/45
Even it is not investigated as to whether on 16/04/2007, accused Nandan Singh had gone to his work or not or was on leave because according to the postmortem report, time since death comes to 3.30 pm on 16/04/200 and there is no evidence on record to show that accused Nandan Singh was at his house on 16/04/2007 and had committed murder of Lalita alongwith coaccused Sushila, at about 3.30 pm by strangulating her. According to cross of PW2 Kavita, accused Nandan Singh had left the house at about 7.30 am and came back at about 9.00 pm on 16/04/2007. The cross examination of PW2 Kavita cannot be ignored and brush aside.
Time and again, PW2 Kavita has stated that her signatures were obtained on some blank papers, which shows that the documents have been fabricated against the accused persons. Merely that Kavita is daughter of accused Nandan Singh and Sushila does not mean that she cannot be relied upon, in any manner. Even being prosecution witness, she has deposed fairly before the Court, which is corroborating with other evidence brought on record, as no motive has been proved on record as to why Lalita was murdered by the accused persons, out of four children of the first wife.
The recovery of head of deceased Lalita has not been made in furtherance of disclosure statement of accused Nandan Singh as he was arrested in this case after recovery of head of deceased Lalita and later on he made disclosure statement, in this case, so the said recovery of head of Lalita also cannot be considered as one of the circumstance against accused persons to held that the Lalita was murdered by the accused persons.
The contradiction about the presence of PW23 Ct Joseph Kutty is also SC No. 43/1 43/45 doubtful as it has come in the evidence that after the recovery of head, it was sent to mortuary of SGM hospital and he remained there for custody of head of deceased Lalita, whereas according to the witnesses, Ct Joseph Kutty was present at the time of recovery of body parts of Lalita i.e. legs, arms and torso, so the contradiction is material and raise doubt on the deposition of witnesses and they cannot be relied upon.
According to the deposition of police witnesses, blood stained earth was not collected from the place from where body parts of deceased Lalita were recovered, hence prosecution has not been able to connect the recovery of dead body parts from the place as deposed by the witness because the blood stained earth from those places have not been lifted and there is no FSL report to connect the same. It has not been stated by the IO that no such blood stained earth was available at the places from where the body parts were recovered.
PW8 Dr. A.K. Shrivastava and other witnesses have also contradicted about the facts as to where the blood samples from the finger of accused Sushila and from the cycle were taken. According to PW8 Dr. A.K. Shrivastava , on 18/04/2007, he had taken blood sample from the finger of accused Sushial and also from the carrier of cycle in the PS, whereas in the deposition of other witnesses, it is not clear whether these were taken in the PS or at the house of accused persons. More so according to the deposition of witnesses, accused Sushila was arrested in this case on 19/04/2007, which also raises doubt on the deposition of witnesses as to whether accused Sushila was in illegal detention of police since 18/04/2007 and further raise doubt as to from where the blood samples were taken from the fingers of accused Sushila and also from the SC No. 43/1 44/45 carrier of the cycle.
According to the opinion of PW13 Dr. V.K. Jha, regarding use of weapon of offence allegedly recovered,in this case on the pointing out of accused Narender Singh, same could be used in separating the body parts of deceased Lalita but from the cross examination of PW13, it is clear that when the opinion was given, the body parts were not before him, so the contention of Ld defence counsel is forceful to the extent that without body parts before him, PW13 could have been able to opined that the knife and aari blade could be used in separating the body parts of deceased Lalita.
In view of the above discussion, prosecution has not been able to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused persons as contradictions as has appeared in the deposition of witnesses are material and goes to the root of case rendering the witnesses unreliable and untrustworthy, so the prosecution has not been able to prove offence u/s 302/34 of IPC and also offence u/s 201/34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubts against the accused Nandan Singh and Sushila, accordingly both the accused persons are acquitted for the same.
Announced in Open Court on th dated 11 of May, 2012 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Rohini : Delhi SC No. 43/1 45/45