Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunita on 7 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 202/2013
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0368532013
State Vs. Sunita
W/o Late Sh. Niranjan
R/o E291, Gali No.6,
Mangol Puri, Delhi
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 265/2013
Police Station: South Rohini
Under Section: 307 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to session court: 20.12.2013
Date on which orders were reserved: 1.7.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced: 3.7.2014
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations on 14.9.2013 at about 5:00 PM at first floor, House No. D15/41, Sector3, Rohini the accused Sunita attacked Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur with a darant on her neck with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act she caused the death of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur she would be guilty of murder.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 1 BRIEF FACT/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 14.9.2013 at 5:19 PM an information was received at Police Station South Rohini that a lady had been stabbed at D15/40, Sector3, Rohini pursuant to which DD No. 36A was recorded and SI Ravi Kumar along with W/Ct. Balkesh and Ct. Ashok reached the spot where one Smt. Neelam met them who produced the accused Sunita before them. The police came to know that the victim Kamaljeet Kaur has been removed to hospital by neighbour Rita through PCR Van. Thereafter SI Ravi Kumar reached the hospital where he recorded the statement of victim Kamaljeet Kaur wherein she informed the police that Sunita was working as domestic help at her house and on 14.9.2013 she came to her house and asked her for employment. Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur had alleged that thereafter Sunita attacked on her neck with a darant with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act Sunita caused death of Kamaljeet Kaur, she would be guilty of murder. Pursuant to the statement of Kamaljeet Kaur the present case was registered and the accused Sunita was arrested. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against the accused Sunita under Section 307 Indian Penal Code.
CHARGE:
(3) Charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Sunita to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 2 (4) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of Witness Details of witnesses
No.
1. PW1 HC Mahesh Police Witness MHCM
2. PW2 W/HC Kamlesh Police Witness - Duty Officer
3. PW3 Ct. Chhote Khan Police Witness - Chance Print Expert
4. PW4 Ct. Suresh Police Witness who has proved having
deposited the exhibits wit the FSL
5. PW5 SI Anil Kumar Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge
6. PW6 Ct. Manish Police Witness - Crime Team Photographer
7. PW7 Kamaljeet Kaur Public Witness Complainant
8. PW8 W/Ct. Mamta Police Witness who has joined investigations
and proved the pointing out memo
9. PW9 Neelam Public Witness - Neighbour of the
complainant
10. PW10 SI Khushboo Police Witness who has proved the arrest of
the accused Sunita
11. PW11 Rita Public Witness - Neighbour of the
complainant
12. PW12 Shamim Public Witness who had allegedly sharpen
the weapon of offence i.e. Darant
13. PW13 Lady Ct. Balkesh Police Witness who has joined investigations
with Investigating Officer
14. PW14 Ct. Ashok Police Witness who has joined investigations
with Investigating Officer
15. PW15 Dr. Kumar Akhilesh Doctor from BSA Hospital who has proved
the MLC of the accused Sunita
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 3
16. PW16 Dr. Kautuv Kiran Doctor from BSA Hospital who has proved
the MLC of the complainant
17. PW17 Dr. Sudhendu Doctor from BSA Hospital who has proved
the opinion in respect of injuries received by
the complainant
18. PW18 SI Ravi Kumar Investigating Officer of the present case
19. PW19 Ms. Monika Chakravarty FSL Expert
20. PW20 SI Subhash Chander Official Witness Finger Print Expert
21. PW21 Inspector A.P. Verma Official Witness under whose supervision the
Chance Print Reports were prepared
22. PW22 Ct. Vikas Police Witness who had taken the Finger
Prints of the accused Sunita
23. PW23 Dr. Vijay Dhankar Doctor from BSA Hospital who has proved
his subsequent opinion with regard to the
weapon of offence
Defence Witnesses:
24. DW1 Chander Shekhar Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd.
25. DW2 Rajeev Ranjan Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices
List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by
No.
1. PW1/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Mahesh HC Mahesh
2. PW1/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3120/13
3. PW1/B Copy of Reg No. 21 Sr. No. 156/21/13
4. PW1/C Copy of Reg No. 21 Sr. No. 15/21/14
5. PW1/D FSL Receipt
6. PW2/1 Affidavit of evidence of W/HC Kamlesh W HC Kamlesh
7. PW2/A DD No. 36A
8. PW2/B DD No. 42A
9. PW2/C DD No. 43A
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 4
10. PW2/D Copy of FIR
11. PW2/E Endorsement on rukka
12. PW3/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Chotte Khan Ct. Chotte Khan
13. PW4/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Suresh Ct. Suresh
14. PW5/1 Affidavit of evidence of SI Anil Kumar SI Anil Kumar
15. PW5/A Crime Team Report
16. PW6/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Mukesh Ct. Mukesh
17. PW7/A Statement of Smt. Kamljeet Kaur Smt. Kamljeet Kaur
18. PW8/A Pointing out memo W/Ct. Mamta
19. PW8/B Disclosure Statement
20. PW9/A Seizure memo of Darant Neelam
21. PW9/B Seizure memo of Handkerchief
22. PW9/C Seizure memo of Blood
23. PW9/D Seizure memo of bag
24. PW9/E Seizure memo of broken spectacles
25. PW9/F Site plan
26. PW9/G Arrest memo
27. PW9/H Personal search memo
28. PW9/I Supplementary Disclosure Statement of
Sunita
29. PW13/A Seizure memo of Pullanda Lady Ct. Balkesh
30. PW15/A MLC of Sunita Dr. Kumar Akhilesh
31. PW16/A MLC of Kamaljeet Kaur Dr. Kaustuv Kiran
32. PW18/A Rukka SI Ravi Kumar
33. PW18/B Application seeking permission to arrest the
accused
34. PW19/A Biological report Monika Chakravarty
35. PW19/B Serological report
36. PW20/A Finger prints report SI Subhash Chander
37. PW20/B Final report of comparison prints Q1 to Q3 Do
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 5
38. PW20/C Explanation/report of enlargement marking
point
39. PW20/D Photocopies of finger print slip of samples
of accused Sunita
40. PW23/A Opinion/ Report on Darant Dr. Vijay Dhankar
41. PW23/CX1 Photographs of Scene of Crime
to CX4
42. DW1/A Customer Application Form in respect of Chandra Shekhar
mobile No. 9818314054
43. DW1/B Copy of ID Card
44. DW1/C CDR
45. DW1/D Customer Application Form in respect of
mobile No. 9871050978
46. DW1/E Copy of ID Card
47. DW1/F Call Detail Record
48. DW1/G Cell ID Chart
49. DW1/H Certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act
50. DW2/A Customer Application Form in respect of Rajeev Ranjan
mobile No. 9213412147
51. DW2/B Copy of ID Card
52. DW2/C Call Detail Record
53. DW2/D Cell ID Chart
54. DW2/E Certificate U/s 65B
EVIDENCE:
(5) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many
as Twenty Three Witnesses as under:
Public witnesses/ complainant:
(6) PW7 Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur is the complainant/ victim in the
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 6
present case who has deposed that she is working as UDC in Ministry of Women and Child Development, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi. According to the witness, on 14th September 2013 the accused Sunita who was working as Maid in her house about seven years back had come to her house at about 4:00 PM and asked her for employment. She has further deposed that she (Sunita) stayed in her house for about one hour and thereafter she asked her to give her old clothes on which she went on the first floor to bring the old clothes from the almirah. According to the witness Sunita also followed her upto first floor while she was taking out the old clothes from almirah, she was standing behind her and she touched her head and said that her hairs have gone "mere baalo per hath laga kar kaha aapke baal ud gai" and within a second assaulted on her with a "Darant" ( an instrument for cutting the saag) from behind as a result of which she sustained injury on her neck on back side. She was shocked by the attack and when she saved her neck from her hand, she sustained injuries on her left hand also. The witness has testified that Sunita had worked with her earlier about seven years back for about fivesix months and she caught hold of her and took the Darant from her hand and threw the same from the balcony of the first floor. The witness has further deposed that she raised an alarm from the balcony by saying "maar diya, maar diya" and she at once came out from the house on which her neighbor Rita residence of D15/40 came at once, who caught Sunita while she was running away. According to the witness the accused Sunita had attempted to kill her her with Darant and the PCR came to the spot and St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 7 Mrs. Rita took her to Ambedkar Hospital, local police also came to the spot who also accompanied her to the hospital. She has proved that her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW7/A. She has further deposed that her blood stained clothes were taken by the Doctor. The witness has identified the accused Sunita in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one Salwar Suit as the same belonging to her taken by the Doctor in the hospital which are Ex.P1 (collectively); her handkerchief having blood stains as the same as belonging to her taken by the Doctor in the hospital which is Ex.P2; one cotton having blood which was taken by the police which is Ex.P3; one bag as the same pertaining to accused Sunita which is Ex.P4 and transparent container having broken spectacles as the same which belongs to her which is Ex.P5. It has been observed by this Court that the Darant has not been produced in the Court by the MHC(M).
(7) In her cross examination by Ld. DLSA Counsel, the witness has deposed that prior to this incident the accused Sunita had come to her house once i.e. one month before the incident and asked her to keep her on the job but she refused since she had a regular maid. She has further deposed that she never had many interactions for the last many years and during this period of seven years, Sunita had never contacted her nor came to her at any point of time and has voluntarily explained that she herself a cancer patient and staying alone, there is no question of coming to her. St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 8
The witness has denied the suggestion that Sunita had regularly coming to her and was in touch with her through this period of seven years and has voluntarily stated that she had only taken her number one month prior to the incident and also given her number to her. The witness has also stated that till such time Sunita was employed with her she had no problems with her at any point of time and has voluntarily explained that even on the date of the incident she appeared normal and she could not comprehend anything. She has testified that when she told the accused not to come on Saturday as she had to go the Dispensary to take medicine so she would not be at home in the noon time, she did not come on that day. According to the complainant, when she leaves her house normally there is no body at home. The witness has also deposed that she did not show the old clothes, which she had taken out from the Almirah for giving the same to the accused and has voluntarily stated that she was injured at that time and had gone to the hospital. She has further deposed that even after coming from the hospital she did not show the said clothes to the police. She has denied the suggestion that no such clothes were taken out from the almirah to be given to the accused. The witness has further deposed that she did not show the said almirah to the police from which she had allegedly taken out the clothes to give the same to the accused. According to her, she was relieved from the hospital on the same day. She has further denied the suggestion that the injuries are self inflicted for the purpose to falsely implicate the accused and to usurp the said amount which she had given to St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 9 her for the purposes of savings or that when the accused came to her house she came empty handed and was not carrying anything and has voluntarily stated that stated that she was having a bag. She does not recollect whether she had told the police that when the accused had came to her, she was having a bag, however, when confronted with the statement Ex.PW7/A where it is not so recorded. She further stated that she does not know anything what happened to that bag whether the police had taken the same or it remained at her house. She has denied the suggestion that there was no such bag with the accused and that is why there is no reference in the statement made by her to the police. According to the witness, her statement was taken at the first time in the hospital and three four police officials were present there at the time of recording of her statement but she does not recollect if any lady police official was also present there. She has further deposed that all daughters and sons in law and their children were present in the hospital at the time of recording of her statement. The witness has further denied the suggestion that whatever she had told the police was on the tutoring of her family in order to wriggle out the allegations made by Sunita upon her. She has further deposed that she was taken to hospital in PCR Van along with her neighbor Rita and police did not record statement of any other public person in her presence. According to the witness Sunita did not snatch anything from her or had not even taken anything from her almirah. The witness has denied the suggestion that when the accused Sunita came to her house and asked for St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 10 money which she had deposited with her, she refused on which she kept on insisting and there was a verbal altercation and followed by physical altercation when she gave her a beating and has voluntarily added that there is no question of such thing happening as she had never deposited any amount with her. The witness has further denied the suggestion that she raised a hue and cry and also called her neighbors and her friend who at her instance gave a beatings to the accused Sunita or that she received injuries during the hassle which ensued the heated arguments with Sunita or that the darant had been planted upon the accused Sunita in connivance with the local police.
(8) Witness has further denied the suggestion that accused Sunita had worked with her about seven years ago and her salary of six months to the tune of Rs.2000/ per month was still with her and thereafter she was depositing Rs.3000/ per month with her as her savings for about one year or that balance amount of Sunita of about Rupees Fifty thousand was lying with her and when she was asking to her to return the said amount, she refused by saying that as and when her daughter get married she return the same. Witness has further denied the suggestion that when her daughter got married she again asked her for return of the amount but she refused to return the same or that Sunita again asked her to return the amount on 14.09.2013 as her son was not well and she required the same for his treatment as she (Sunita) was also unwell and unable to see properly be her eyes but she refused for the same. Witness has further denied the suggestion St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 11 that accused Sunita threatened her to report the matter to the police on which she attacked her and started beating her and also called her friends, one was a lady and one was a male or that Sunita was then beaten up by the persons in the gali and then handed over to the police. (9) PW9 Smt. Neelam is a neighbour of the victim who has deposed that she is housewife and resides at D15/56, Sector 3, Rohini and Mrs. Kamaljeet is residing at D15/41, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi. According to the witness on 14.09.2013 at about 5:00 PM she was sitting in her drawing room when she heard the shouts from the nearby house as "bachao bachao". She has further deposed that on hearing this she came outside and found that Mrs. Kamaljeet Kaur was making noise from the balcony of first floor of her house and Rita ji resident of D15/40 also came out of her house and found caught hold the accused Sunita. She has also deposed that Rita was also making alarm and saying that "isko pakdo kabu main nahi aa rahi". The witness further deposed that the name of the lady caught hold by Rita was known as Sunita, who was earlier working as maid in the house of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur and some person made a call at 100 number and PCR came at the spot. She has also deposed that Mrs. Rita took Kamaljeet Kaur to hospital and the local police also came at the spot, who also accompanied the PCR to the hospital and one Lady Constable also came at the spot alongwith the local police after which the accused Sunita was handed over to Lady Constable. The witness has further deposed that the police officials came at the spot again and did their writing work. According to her, the St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 12 Crime Team also came to the spot and the police had taken Darant, one handkerchief, one bag, broken spaces and sealed the same and taken into possession. She has proved that the Darant was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A; pullanda containing handkerchief was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B; police had also taken the blood of injured with the help of cotton which was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/C; bag pertaining to accused Sunita was also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/D; broken spectacles were sealed by the Investigating Officer and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/E. Witness has further deposed that the police inspected the spot and prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW9/F. She has also proved that the accused Sunita was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW9/G; her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/H and the accused Sunita made her disclosure statement vide Ex.PW9/I. (10) The witness has identified the accused Sunita in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. handkerchief having blood stains as the same belonging to the victim which is Ex.P2; one cotton having blood which was taken by the police which is Ex.P3; one bag as the same pertaining to accused Sunita which is Ex.P4 and transparent container having broken spectacles as the same which belongs to the victim which is Ex.P5. At the time of examination of the witness, the weapon of offence i.e. Darant was not produced in the Court by the Investigating Officer. St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 13 (11) In her cross examination by the Ld. DLSA Counsel, witness has deposed that she is residing in the area for the last about 18 years and when she came to the area Kamaljeet was already residing there. According to the witness, her house is situated opposite the house of Kamaljeet with whom she has normal relations with Kamaljeet and has voluntarily explained that she is working somewhere and has very little time. The witness further stated that she stays alone and Sunita has never worked in her house. She has also deposed that she is not even aware when she was employed with Kamaljeet and for how much time she worked with her and she never seen Kamaljeet with Sunita on any prior occasion and has voluntarily explained that she had seen her for the first time on the day of the incident. She is unable to tell if Sunita had been depositing any amount with Kamaljeet or had any financial dealing with her previously and has voluntarily explained that she is totally unaware of the same. She has further deposed that when she reached the house of Kamaljeet, Rita was already there and she was the one who had caught hold of Sunita and at that time they were on the ground floor and they were all inside the main gate but in the gallery of the ground floor. The witness has also deposed that at that time Sunita was totally silent and did not exhibit any kind of feeling and has voluntarily explained that she found her behaviour extremely strange and thought she was a mental case because the manner in which she was looking devoid of any feelings of expressions were not normal. The witness has admitted that Sunita was saying the Darant did not belong to her and has St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 14 voluntarily explained that she was saying that it was lying on the almirah and fell down on the head of Kamaljeet. The witness has admitted that since Kamaljeet was raising a hue and cry that she was hit by Sunita that they thought she had been injured by Sunita. She has also admitted that she did not see the actual incident. The witness has further admitted that Sunita did not offer any resistance and was cooperating with the investigations through out and she did not see the incident but she know it had taken place in the room where almirah was kept because she found spects and other things scattered there. According to her, the darant was found lying in the gallery. The witness further admitted that she did not see the darant in the hand of Sunita. The witness denied the suggestion that she has deposed on the tutoring of Kamaljeet who is her good friend and has voluntarily added that she had deposed on the basis of what she had seen at the spot. According to the witness, one document she had signed at the spot and one at the hospital. She has testified that police remained at the spot till about 7:308PM and one lady police officer had come to the spot in her presence. She has also deposed that they had all left by around 8:30 PM and large number of public persons from the neighbors had also gathered there. According to the witness, if ten darant are shown to her and she is asked to identify the daramt which she had seen at the spot and she is not be able to identify the same. The witness further stated that even on the day of her deposition in the court if the said darant is mixed with other darant are shown to her she may be not able to pin out the same.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 15 (12) PW11 Ms. Rita has deposed that she was running a play school in her house and she knew Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur who is residing at D15/41, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi alone. The witness further deposed that on 14.09.2013 at about 5:00 PM she was present in her house on ground floor and heard the cry of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur who was saying "mar diya mar diya" from the balcony of her first floor. The witness further deposed that she at once came out from the house and found that one lady was escaping from the house of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur. According to the witness, she over powered her and found the blood and one Darant having blood stains near the main gate on which she got suspicion and thought that the lady might have assaulted Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur. She has testified that she also raised an alarm, on which one Smt. Neelam resident of D15/56 also came there and the name of the lady caught hold by her was known as Sunita. She has further deposed that her daughter aged about 18 years called the PCR by dialing 100 number on which PCR came at the spot. According to her, Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur sustained injury on the back side of her neck and on the wrist of left hand and the blood was found oozing out and hence the PCR took the injured to the hospital and she also accompanied them. The witness has further deposed that she knew Sunita as she was working with Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur as maid many years ago. She has testified that her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. She has identified the accused Sunita in the Court as the same lady who was overpowered by her at the spot. However, the weapon of offence i.e. Darant has not been St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 16 produced in the Court by the Investigating Officer. (13) In her cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that she is residing at the aforementioned address for the last about 19 years and she is known to her since then. According to the witness, her house is just adjoining the house of complainant Kamaljeet. She has further deposed that she is having good family relations with the complainant Kamaljeet as a mother and daughter and she stays alone in her house. The witness has testified that she is aware that Sunita had worked in the house of Kamaljeet but she had never worked in her house and has voluntarily added that she is aware because one day she stayed in the house of Kamaljeet Kaur to attend to her daughter who had just delivered a baby and Mrs. Kamaljeet Kaur had gone to her office while she remained at her house and got the work done from Sunita. According to her, Smt. Kamaljeet was not having any problem from the accused Sunita till she had worked with Smt. Kamaljeet and she never complained/ told about the same to her. The witness has also deposed that she had never seen Sunita personally when she came to the house of Smt. Kamaljeet after her employment but she was told by Mrs. Kamaljeet that she used to come. The witness has denied the suggestion that accused Sunita had worked with the complainant Kamaljeet about seven years ago and her salary of six months to the tune of Rs.2000/ per month was still with Kamaljeet and thereafter she was depositing Rs.3000/ per month with Kamaljeet as her savings for about one year and has voluntarily added that if she would have done so Mrs. St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 17 Kamaljeet would have told him about it. The witness has denied the suggestion that balance amount of Sunita of about Rupees Fifty thousand was lying with Kamaljeet and when she asked Kamaljeet to return the said amount, Kamaljeet refused by saying that as and when her daughter gets married she would return the same or that when daughter of Sunita got married she again asked Kamaljeet for return of the amount but Kamaljeet refused to return the same or that Sunita again asked Kamaljeet to return the amount on 14.09.2013 as her son was not well and she required the same for his treatment as she (Sunita) was also unwell and unable to see properly be her eyes but Kamaljeet refused for the same. Witness has further denied the suggestion that when accused Sunita threatened Kamaljeet to report the matter to the police, Kamaljeet attacked her and started beating her and also called her and one another male person or that they gave beating to Sunita in the gali and then handed over her to the police.
(14) The witness has also stated that she did not go to the room on the first floor where the almirah is kept on the first floor. She has further stated that her statement was recorded in the hospital and three male police officials were present in the PCR van in which the complainant Mrs. Kamaljeet was taken to the hospital. According to her, the accused was locked in a room and Mrs. Neelam and other neighbors were left there whereas she left the spot along with the complainant in the PCR van for the hospital. According to the witness, her statement was recorded immediately after fiveseven minutes of reaching the hospital and when her statement St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 18 was recorded complainant was not present there as she had gone for her medical treatment. She has further deposed that Sunita was empty handed at the time when she saw her for the first time on the day of incident. The witness has also deposed that Mrs. Kamaljeet did not tell her why Sunita had come to her prior to the incident and after leaving job from her and at that time Sunita was totally normal and has voluntarily added that she was saying that she did not do anything "bharjai ji maine nahi mara". The witness has admitted that Sunita was saying that the Darant did not belong to her and has voluntarily added that she was saying that it was lying on the almirah and fell down on the head of Kamaljeet but when she showed her the bag which was lying there and asked her whose bag it was, she said it belonged to her. The witness has also admitted that since Kamaljeet was raising a hue and cry that she was hit by Sunita hence they thought she had been injured by Sunita and has voluntarily added that she found Sunita coming out of the main gate on the ground floor. The witness has further stated that witness has admitted that she did not see the actual incident. She has admitted that Sunita did not offer any resistance and was cooperating with the investigations throughout. According to her, the darant fell down from the first floor in her presence and it caught her attention when she heard the noise of something falling and at that time Sunita was coming St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 19 down from the staircase and was almost near the gate. The witness has further stated that the darant was found lying in the gallery near the gate. She has admitted that she did not see the darant in the hand of Sunita. She has denied the suggestion that she has deposed on the tutoring of Kamaljeet who is like a mother to her and has voluntarily added that she had deposed on the basis of what she had seen at the spot. The witness has testified that she only signed one document which was at the spot of the incident. According to her, the police remained at the spot till about 8:309PM and has voluntarily added that when she returned from the hospital, police was still there. The witness has further deposed that she only saw one lady police officer at the spot. According to the witness, Sunita had not received any injuries and large number of public persons from the neighbors had also gathered there.
(15) PW12 Sh. Shamim has deposed that he is having a shop of sharping the edge of scissor at Shop No.79, near Kala Mandir Cinema, Mangol Puri, Delhi. He has further deposed that he sit alone at the aforesaid shop and on 14.09.13 one lady came to her for sharping the edge of "Darant". He has further deposed that he did her job and sharpen the edge of Darant and charged Rs.15/ from the said lady. According to him, when she came to him she asked "Dhar acche se lagana meat katna hai". The witness further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 15.09.2013 the police official brought the same lady and shown to him and he had identified her St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 20 correctly as the same lady who came to him on 14.09.13 and got the edge sharpen after which his statement was recorded. He has correctly identified the accused in the Court.
(16) In his cross examination by Ld. DLSA Counsel, the witness has deposed that he is running the shop of sale of scissors under the name of Rehan Sahan house and he has not got his shop registered under the Shop and Establishment Act. The witness has stated that he does not maintain any register regarding the sale of scissors or in respect of the services offered for sharpening the same and has voluntarily added that it is small shop and they do not maintain the details of customers. According to the witness, he did not know Sunita prior to the incident. He has testified that he was never called to the jail for conducting Judicial Test Identification Parade. The witness has also deposed that when the police had brought Sunita to his shop on 15.09.2013 that the darant was shown to him and he identified the same as the one which Sunita had brought to him. He has again clarified that he does not recollect if the darant was shown to him. He is unable to tell whether the said darant was in a pullanda or open condition. The witness stated that if ten darant are shown to him and he is asked to identify the darant which he had sharpened, he would not be able to identify the same and if the said darant is mixed with other darants are shown to him he may be not able to pin out the same and has voluntarily added that they all look alike when sharpened. The witness denied the suggestion that Sunita never came to his shop. According to the witness he did not sign any St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 21 documents with the police brought Sunita to his shop. The witness has also stated that there are four more shops around him shop regarding sale of scissors and sharpening. The witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the local police or that he is a tutored witness of the police and he is identifying Sunita at their instance. Witnesses of Medical Record:
(17) PW15 Dr. Kumar Akhilesh from BSA Hospital has deposed that on 15.09.2013 at about 12:22 AM he examined the patient Sunita W/o Late Sh. Niranjan, aged 36 years, female vide MLC Ex.PW15/A and after examination the patient was referred to Gynae for further examination and management.
(18) In his cross examination by Ld. DLSA Counsel, the witness has deposed that Sunita was brought to the hospital by W/Ct. Balkesh and it was a routine examination and no history was given. He has further stated that he had personally seen W/Ct. Balkesh but he did not obtain the signatures of W/Ct. Balkesh on MLC. According to him, no lady doctor was present in the hospital and Sunita was not produced before a lady doctor for physical examination and has voluntarily added that she was produced before the Gynae. He is unable to tell if the Gynecologist had made any inquiry from Sunita. He has further deposed that he did not make any inquiry from Sunita as to how she received abrasion on her forehead and when Sunita was produced before him she appeared to be normal and did St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 22 not exhibit any signs of aggression. The witness has denied the suggestion that Sunita was never produced in the hospital and that the MLC was prepared in a routine manner on the asking of SHO concerned. (19) PW16 Dr. Kaustuv Kiran from BSA Hospital has deposed that on 14.09.2013 he examined the injured Kamaljeet Kaur W/o Late Sh.
Charanjeet Singh aged about 57 years, female brought by the police with alleged history of physical assault as told by the patient herself vide MLC Ex.PW16/A. He has further deposed that she was found fit for giving the statement and on examination he found two lacerated wounds over dorsal aspect of forearm each measuring approximately 3cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm; small abrasion over occipital region of scalp of approximately 1 cm x .5 cm; one incised wound over right scapular region of upper back of approximately 2 cm x 1 cm x .5 cm and small swelling over occipital region of scalp of approximately 3 cm x 3 cm.
(20) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has denied the suggestion that the report on injury given by him on the asking of the Investigating Officer. He has further stated that only injury No.3 is not possible by fall but other injuries are possible and has voluntarily added and explained that in case if the fall is on sharp object than injury No.3 is also possible by fall.
(21) PW17 Dr. Subhendu from BSA Hospital has deposed that on 14.09.13 the patient Kamaljeet Kaur was referred to SR Surgery and hence St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 23 he examined her and gave his opinion on the MLC Ex.PW16/A containing his observation from point X to X. He has further deposed that as per clinical examination and radiological opinion the nature of injury was simple which opinion he gave on 06.11.13. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. DLSA Counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(22) PW23 Dr. Vijay Dhankar, has deposed that on 19.02.2014 he was working as Jr. Specialist and HOD, Department of Forensic Medicine, Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and on that day he received a sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of MCH FSL DELHI and he opened the sealed parcel, it was found to contain one one steel darant (vegetable cutter). According to the witness, he examined the aforesaid darant and gave his detailed report vide Ex.PW23/A. The witness has deposed that as per his opinion the injuries on the body of the person as mentioned in the MLC report could be caused by the said weapon (darant) examined. He has testified that after examination the weapon was again converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of Department and handed over the same to the police official.
(23) Witness has correctly identified the case property i.e. darant as which was produced before him by the Investigating Officer, which darant is Ex.P6. It has been observed by this Court that the photographs Ex.PW23/CX1, Ex.PW23/CX2, Ex.PW23/CX3 and Ex.PW23/CX4, St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 24 showing the darant lying at the spot resemble the darant Ex.P6 but there is no rust on the said darant produced in the court which is visible in the photograph in the portion encircled X. It is also pointed out by the Defence Counsel that the photographs do not reflect the sharp portion and it is argued that had the darant being freshly sharpened the rust would not be visible in the photographs in the portion encircled X. It is submitted that the existence of rust confirms that the darant was not sharp at the time when the photographs were taken and it was got sharpened later as indicated from the fact that the darant produced in the court do not show the same rust marks extensively, rather the rust is not much visible on both the sides of the darant. On the directions of this Court a sketch of the darant Ex.P6 was prepared by the Reader attached to the Court before returning the same. (24) In his cross examination by Ld. DLSA Counsel, witness has deposed that he has not brought the application of the Investigating Officer requesting for opinion and has voluntarily added that the the original is present in the departmental record of the hospital. Initially witness was unable to tell the time of receipt of this application in the department without going through the same and also if this application was filed in the department on the same day i.e. 19.02.2014 and has voluntarily added that he can only tell the date after checking the departmental diary number but in so far as he recollected the Investigating Officer was carrying the application in his hand on the same day on which he had given his opinion St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 25 though it was dated 15.02.2014. According to the witness the victim/ patient namely Kamaljeet Kaur was never examined by him personally nor she was produced before him before he gave his opinion and has voluntarily added that only MLC was produced before him. The witness has further stated that no photographs of the injured showing the details of the injuries i.e. the shape, size and place where the injuries had been received by the injured was placed before him. He has admitted that the MLC does not specify whether the injuries received was on the right or left forearm nor he is aware of the same. The witness has admitted that the injury i.e. incised wound on the right scapular region on the upper back of approximately 2 cm x 1cm x .5 cm is also possible on account of a fall on a sharp object. The witness has further admitted that the shape of the injury on the forearm has not been specified in the MLC and has voluntarily added that it is only shown to be of 3cm x 1cm x .5cm. According to the witness before giving his opinion, he did not ask the Investigating Officer to produced the injured before him nor he asked him to produced the photographs of the injuries before him and has voluntarily added that Investigating Officer had only put limited query to him which he gave. He has also deposed that he has given his opinion that the injuries could be possible by darant not by him observations relating to the size, shape and place of the injuries but only after noticing that there were two lacerated wounds. He has admitted that two St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 26 simultaneous lacerated wounds of the nature as shown in the MLC which are not very deep are possible on account of accidental fall or by accidentally hitting the hand on a an object which edge like corner of the table or the edge of a wooden bed or the edge of iron almirah etc. and has voluntarily added that it is depending upon the width of the edge. The witness has further deposed that when he saw the darant in so far as he recollect, it appeared to be new. According to the witness, he also did not notice any blood on the darant and has voluntarily added that in case if he would have notice the same, it would have been mentioned in the report. The witness has testified that the Investigating Officer had never told him about the details of the spot of the incident/ scene of crime or the objects present at the spot and hence he could not have a holistic view of the entire episode which took place. He has admitted that the observation and report given by him vide Ex.PW23/A is only on the basis of rough estimation and not a definite or conclusive opinion. (25) A specific question was put to the witness that in case if the scene of crime is a room furnished with a wooden bed, iron almirah and other domestic articles kept in the bed room, could this injuries be possible by any other means, to which the witness replied that all the injuries are present on the back side of the body and the possibility of the injured having received the same on account of a fall on the back cannot be ruled out. Further, when asked if he can say conclusively that the injury caused on the St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 27 scapular and forearm region was on account of the use of this darant, the witness has replied that when he had given the opinion, the details of the injuries were not before him and he thought that this injury could be possible if the patient is hit by the end of the darant, but now after he has seen the darant again in this court and measured the same, its measurement shows that its end is measuring around 4.2 cms. According to the witness he can say that these injuries are UNLIKELY by use of this darant for two reasons and this injury on the scapular region is measuring 2cms whereas the tapering end of the darant is 4.2cms, assuming that the edge of the darant was used than the depth of the injury should have been unequal and L shaped which is not the case. According to the witness the second injury on the dorsal aspect of the forearm is also not L shaped and is measuring hardly 3 cms which is less than the total length of the edge i.e. 4.2 cms and is also not deep (hardly .5cms.). He has further deposed that the measurement of the injuries do not coincide with the measurements of this darant Ex.P6 and hence under these circumstances his opinion stands REVIEWED and he observed that both the injuries i.e. on the dorsal aspect of the arm and on the scapular region are unlikely by this darant Ex.P6 and has voluntarily explained that his earlier opinion was on the basis of incomplete information provided to him by the Investigating Officer. St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 28 According to the witness in case if the force by other party had been used upon the victim/ patient, these injuries would have been deep and not superficial.
(26) A specific Court Question was put to the witness with regard to the nature of injuries, whether they are self inflicted, inflicted by the other party or accidental, to which the witness replied that in his opinion keeping in view the totality of circumstances particularly the size, shape and depth of the injuries, the injuries appeared to be ACCIDENTAL and the nature of the injuries being superficial and on back side of the body RULES OUT the use of force by the second party.
(27) After initial examination of Dr. Vijay Dhankar time was granted to him to produce the application filed by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter the witness was reexamined after he (Dr. Vijay Dhankar) produced the copy of the application filed by the Investigating officer alongwith the copy of the diary/ register which is Ex.PW23/B. (28) On the pointing out of the Ld. DLSA Counsel it has been observed by this Court that the date mentioned in Column No. 1 second line is 15/19022014 and there is an overwriting on the date where the 19 appears to have been made into 15. The original register was directed to be produced in the Court.
(29) In his cross examination by the Ld. DLSA Counsel the witness has admitted that the name of the hospital is not mentioned in the St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 29 application of the Investigating Officer. The witness has admitted that the said "Subsequent Opinion Record Register" is not filled by him and has voluntarily added that the same has been filled up by the technician of the hospital.
(30) The original subsequent opinion record register pertaining to 2014 has been produced in the Court and the subsequent opinion number 05/14 is Ex.PW23/C1 to Ex.PW23/C10. The witness has admitted that there is overwriting on all pages at point A. He has also admitted that on Ex.PW23/C6 in the third column the case property is mentioned as "sealed knife with intact seal of NS" is mentioned and on Ex.PW23/C8 in the third column the case property is mentioned as "sealed knife" is mentioned. The witness has further admitted that he has not mentioned the case property i.e. darant in the relevant column No.3 of the entry of this case i.e. Ex.PW23/C8 as mentioned in the other aforesaid cases. The witness has further admitted that the register does not have any serial number and the said register does not have any column showing the cross check/ counter sign by any senior officer of the hospital. The witness has further admitted that the said register is not maintained by doctors and has voluntarily added that the Technician is maintaining the same and hence he is unable to tell about the interpolations. He has also admitted that the application of the Investigating Officer attached along with Ex.PW23/B is a photocopy and has voluntarily added that the original is in St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 30 the department. The witness has admitted that this application of Investigating Officer has not been diaried in the hospital and no diary number of the hospital is put on the same. He has also admitted that it is the date on the application put by the Investigating Officer and has explained that this application is dated 15.04.2014 and this date is not from the record of the hospital.
Forensic Experts:
(31) PW19 Ms. Monika Chakravarty Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) has deposed that on 15.10.2013 four sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL which were marked to her for examination along with sample seals and the seals on the pullands were tallied with the sample seals and found to be correct and thereafter she opened the various pullandas.
She further deposed that she opened the Parcel No.1 which was found to contain one metallic weapon of offence described as 'darant'; on opening the Parcel No.2 it was found to contain one handkerchief having brown stains; on opening the Parcel No.3 it found to contain cotton wool swab; on opening the Parcel No.4 it found to contain exhibits 4a - lady's shirt having brown stains, 4b - salwar having brown stains, 4c - brassier having brown stains, 4d blood sample and 4e gauze cloth piece. According to the witness after examination the various exhibits she gave the Biological Report which is Ex.PW19/A according to which blood was detected on Ex.1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d and 4e. She further deposed that she also examined the above exhibits St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 31 serologically vide the Serological Report which is Ex.PW19/B according to which human blood of B Group was found on Ex.1 (Darant), 2 (handkerchief), 3 (Cotton wool swab), 4a (Lady shirt), 4b (Salwar), 4c (Brassier) and 4e (Gauze cloth piece). She further deposed that thereafter, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of MCh FSL DELHI. (32) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness denied the suggestion that she has not adopted the standard procedures while examining the various exhibits or that she has given the above reports on the asking of the Investigating Officer.
(33) PW20 SI Subhash Chander is the Finger Print Expert who has deposed that he received the case alongwith chance print marked Q1 to Q3 with their photograph and negatives, scene of crime report, Outer District and specimen prints of accused Sunita W/o Niranjan. He has further deposed that he compared different finger prints of accused on different points report of which is Ex. PW20/A, final report of comparison of chance prints Q1 to Q3 is Ex.PW20/B, the explanation/report of enlargement marking points is Ex. PW20/C and the photocopies of finger print slip of samples of accused Sunita is collectively Ex. PW20/D. The witness has proved having opined that:
1. Chance print mark Q1 & Q2 are identical with right thumb and left thumb impression marked S1 & S2 respectively on the finger impression slip of accused Sunita W/o Niranjan.
2. Chance print mark Q3 are unfit for comparison. St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 32
(34) In his cross examination the witness denied the suggestion that that h he has not adopted the standard procedures while examining the various chance prints or that he has given the above reports on the asking of the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer only provide photocopy of the finger print which was sent online after scanning the original. The witness denied the suggestion that he has given the report on the asking of the Senior Officers. He has however admitted that the chance prints were not lifted in his presence and has voluntarily added that the photocopy of the Crime Team Report alongwith Chance Prints were sent to him. The witness further admitted that the chance prints only contain details of written behind the same but not the signatures and has voluntarily added that he think the signatures are present along with the marking on the photograph of the chance print but he cannot tell the details. He is unable to tell the position/ direction of the thumbs and fingers in Q1 & Q2 nor is he able to tell from which object the above chance prints have been lifted.
(35) PW21 Inspector A.P. Verma has deposed that the comparison of chance prints have been done in his supervision. He has further deposed that he personally checked the report Ex.PW20/A, EX.PW20/B, Ex.PW20/C and Ex.PW20/D and the reports Ex. PW20/A and Ex.PW20/C bear his signatures at point Mark B. (36) In his cross examination by the Ld. DLSA Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that the standard procedures while examining the St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 33 various chance prints have not been adopted or that the above reports have been given on the asking of the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer only provide photocopy of the finger print which was sent online after scanning the originals. The witness has denied the suggestion that the report has been given on the asking of the Senior Officers. The witness has admitted that the chance prints were not lifted in his presence. The witness further admitted that the comparison has not been done in his presence but he has checked all the reports and comparisons after comparing by his subordinates.
Police/ Official Witnesses:
(37) PW1 HC Mahesh is a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 (as per the provisions of section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved entry in register No. 19 vide Mud No. 3120/13, copy of which is Ex.PW1/A (running into five pages); entry in register No. 21 vide RC No.156/21/13 copy of which is Ex.PW1/B; RC No. 15/21/14 copy of which is Ex.PW1/C and copy of FSL receipt which is Ex.PW1/D. The witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. DLSA Counsel wherein he stood by his version. (38) PW2 W/HC Kamlesh is also a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein she has proved the DD No. 36A copy of which is Ex.PW2/A, DD No. 42A copy of which is St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 34 Ex.PW2/B, DD No. 43A copy of which is Ex.PW2/C, copy of FIR which is Ex.PW2/D and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW2/E. The witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. DLSA Counsel wherein she stood by her version.
(39) PW3 Ct. Chotte Khan is also a formal witness being the Chance Print Expert who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 14.09.13 he along with SI Anil Kumar, Ct. Manish No. 1705/OD reached at scene of crime at D15/41, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi and he develop three chance prints from the scene of crime and the crime team inspected the scene from 6:30 PM to 7:25 PM on 14.09.2013 and SI Ravi Kumar recorded his statement on the spot. The witness has been cross examined by the Ld. DLSA Counsel wherein he stood by his version. (40) PW4 Ct. Suresh is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 15.10.2013 he received four sealed parcels from the MHC(M) CP South Rohini related to the present case vide RC No.156/21/13, copy of which is Ex.PW1/B on which he carried the parcels to FSL Rohini and deposited the same there vide FSL receipt copy of which is Ex.PW1/D. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. DLSA Counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 35 (41) PW5 SI Anil Kumar is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the Crime Team Report which is Ex.PW5/A. (42) In his cross examination by the Ld. DLSA Counsel, the witness has deposed that they reached the spot at about 6:30 PM and remained there till 7:25 PM. He is unable to tell what proceedings were conducted by the Investigating Officer at the time when they were present at the spot as they were busy in conducting their proceedings. He is also unable to tell the number of police officials already present at the spot from the police station.
The witness has denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot and his signatures were obtained afterwards.
(43) PW6 Ct. Manish is a formal witness being the Crime Team photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW6/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 14.09.13 he along with SI Anil Kumar, Ct. Chotte Khan reached at scene of crime at D15/41, Sec3, Rohini, Delhi where he took the photographs of the scene of crime and the crime team inspected the scene from 6:30 PM to 7:25 PM on 14.09.2013. According to the witness Investigating officer SI Ravi Kumar recorded his statement on the spot. (44) In his cross examination by the Ld. DLSA Counsel, the witness has admitted that the photographs taken by him are not on record. It has been observed by this Court that despite the photographs being handed over St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 36 to the Investigating officer, he has not bothered to file the supplementary charge sheet in this regard.
(45) PW8 W/Ct. Mamta has deposed that she was posted as Constable in the Police Station South Rohini and joined the investigations in the present case on 15.09.2013 along with SI Ravi Kumar. According to the witness, the accused Sunita who was in the lockup was taken out from the lockup and handed over to her custody after which she was taken to NBlock Market, near Kalamandir Cinema, Mangolpuri where she was taken to one shop and the shopkeeper identified her as the women came to him two days back for getting the darant sharpened. The witness has further deposed that on this SI Ravi prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW8/A and also prepared the dossier of the accused after which she was produced before the court concerned.
(46) Leading questions put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has admitted that before leaving the Police Station for N Block Market, the Investigating Officer SI Ravi Kumar had also interrogated the accused and recorded her disclosure statement which is Ex.PW8/B. (47) In her cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel witness has deposed that the accused was kept in the lock up of Police Station South Rohini and there was no body present from the family of the accused at that time when she was in the lockup of Police Station South Rohini. She has further deposed that there is a separate lady lockup at Police Station South Rohini but she cannot tell who is the Incharge of the same. The witness has St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 37 further stated that the custody of accused Sunita was handed over to her at about 1010:30 AM but she is unable to tell the date of arrest of the accused. The witness has further deposed that the supplementary statement of Sunita was recorded while sitting outside the lockup and nobody from the family of the accused was called in her presence when she was being interrogated. She further stated that in her presence the Investigating Officer also did not call any public person while interrogating her. She does not remember how much time it took for the Investigating Officer to record the supplementary statement of the accused Sunita. She is unable to tell what the accused Sunita had told the Investigating Officer and what he had recorded in the disclosure statement nor she read the disclosure statement of the accused before signing the same. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Sunita did not point out any shop at N Block or that it was the Investigating officer who took her to said shop. According to the witness the accused Sunita was not in muffled face at that time and she signed all the documents i.e. supplementary disclosure, pointing out memo, dossier while sitting in the Police Station and has voluntarily stated that after they return to the Police Station it was then that she signed the same.
(48) PW10 SI Khusboo has deposed that on 14.09.2013 she was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Mangolpuri and on the directions of the SHO she had come to Police Station South Rohini. Witness has further deposed that from there she was sent to spot of the occurrence i.e. House No. D15/41, Sector 3, Rohini, Delhi where she was handed over St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 38 the permission from Duty Magistrate for arresting the accused during the night and hence pursuant to the same she interrogated the accused Sunita who was in the custody of L/Ct. Balkesh. According to the witness during the interrogation the accused Sunita disclosed her involvement in the present case on which she arrested her vide memo Ex.PW9/G, conducted her personal search vide memo Ex.PW9/H and also recorded her disclosure statement vide Ex.PW9/I. The witness further stated that thereafter accused Sunita was handed over to the custody of L/Ct. Balkesh for her medical examination and sent her to BSA hospital while she returned to the Police Station where her statement was recorded. The witness has identified the accused Sunita in the Court. (49) In her cross examination by Ld. DLSA Counsel, the witness has deposed that she went alone on her scooty at the spot at about 8:30 PM and SI Ravi, W/Ct. Balkesh were already present there. The witness further deposed that many public persons had gathered there. She is unable to tell whether anybody from the family of Sunita was also present. According to the witness when Sunita was handed over to her, she was perfectly normal and she did not find her agitated. The witness has also deposed that it took about one hour to complete the proceedings of arrest, personal search and writing down the disclosure and she left the spot at around 11:45 PM. She has testified that she did not call anybody from the family of Sunita. She has admitted that till she remained at the spot, nobody from the family St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 39 of Sunita came at the spot. The witness has also stated that she did not see the darant either with Sunita or with any other person at the spot including the police officials and the public persons. She has testified that during the interrogation, the accused Sunita also broke down and started crying and appeared to be extremely distorted. She has admitted that the accused did not resist and cooperated with the investigations. The witness has denied the suggestion that accused Sunita told her that she had worked with the complainant Kamaljeet about seven years ago and her salary of six months to the tune of Rs.2000/ per month was still with Kamaljeet and thereafter she was depositing Rs.3000/ per month with Kamaljeet as her savings for about one year or that Sunita also told her that her balance amount of about Rs. Fifty thousand was lying with Kamaljeet and when she asked Kamaljeet to return the said amount, Kamaljeet refused by saying that as and when her daughter get married she return the same. Witness has further denied the suggestion that Sunita further told her that when her daughter got married she again asked Kamaljeet for return of the amount but Kamaljeet refused to return the same or that Sunita also told her that she again asked Kamaljeet to return the amount on 14.09.2013 as her son was not well and she required the same for his treatment as she (Sunita) was also unwell and unable to see properly by her eyes but Kamaljeet refused for the same. She has also denied the suggestion that accused Sunita disclosed to her that she threatened Kamaljeet to report the matter to the police on which Kamaljeet attacked her and started beating her and also St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 40 called her friends, one was a lady and one was a male or that Sunita disclosed that she was then beaten up by the persons in the gali and then handed over to the police. The witness has further denied the suggestion that she did not write down the disclosure of the accused Sunita in the manner in which she had disclosed the incident to her but it was written on the dictation of the Investigating officer and the complainant to suit their version or that the disclosure Ex.PW9/I was not made by accused Sunita or that she has recorded the same of her own.
(50) PW13 Lady Ct. Balkesh has deposed that on 14.09.13 she was posted at Police Station South Rohini and on that day on the receipt of DD No.36A she alongwith Ct. Ashok and SI Ravi Kumar reached at D15/41, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi where Smt. Neelam R/o D15/56 and another lady met them who had produced the accused Sunita. The witness has further deposed that the Investigating Officer made inquiries at the spot and came to know that the accused Sunita had assaulted Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur with a "darant". She has also deposed that the injured had already been taken to Ambedkar Hospital and they found an iron darant having blood stains near main gate and on inspection they found the blood stains on the ground floor and the first floor. According to the witness, SI Ravi Kumar called the Crime Team at the spot and left the accused Sunita in her custody whereas he himself went to the hospital and after some time came to the spot again. She has further deposed that the Investigating Officer prepared the rukka and sent the same to the Police Station through Ct. Ashok. She has testified St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 41 that the Investigating Officer had taken the iron darant and sealed the same with the seal of "RK" and the said parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. According to her, one handkerchief was also converted into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B. The witness has also deposed that the Investigating Officer had taken the blood stains from the floor of the house with the help of cotton and the same was also sealed with the same seal and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/C. She has testified that one bag was also lifted from the spot which was converted into pullanda and sealed the same with the same seal and the said pullanda was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/D. According to her, the Investigating Officer also lifted the broken spectacles which were belonging to complainant and he prepared the pullanda and sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure Ex.PW9/E. The witness has further deposed that the accused Sunita was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW9/G, her personal search was conducted by her vide memo Ex.PW9/H and the accused was thoroughly interrogated and her disclosure statement was recorded separately vide Ex.PW9/I. According to the witness the Investigating Officer had also seized the pullanda containing clothes of the injured duly sealed with the seal of hospital vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A and her statement was recorded by the Investigating officer.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 42 (51) The witness has identified the accused Sunita in the Court. However, the case property i.e. Darant was not produced in the Court by the Investigating Officer.
(52) In her cross examination by Ld. DLSA Counsel, the witness stated that she reached at the spot at about 5 5:15 PM and remained there till 1011 PM and the accused was arrested at about 11 PM. According to her, the Rukka was sent by the Investigating Officer at about 77:15 PM. She has further stated that there were ten to fifteen public persons gathered at the spot but the Investigating Officer did not record statements of those public persons in her presence. She has further stated that they reached at the spot in government vehicle but she does not remember whether it was ERV or other vehicle. The witness denied the suggestion that she did not visit at the spot and that is why she is unable to tell about the vehicle in which they went or that her signatures were obtained by the Investigating officer on all the documents/memos later on while sitting in the police station or that she is a planted witness.
(53) She has further stated that she does not remember which of the item amongst the exhibits were sealed first. The witness has denied the suggestion that she is unable to tell the same because she never joined the investigations. She does not remember when Ct. Ashok returned back along with original rukka and copy of the FIR and also does not remember whether all the seizure memos were prepared after going of Ct. Ashok by taking rukka or after his coming back or prior to taking rukka. The witness St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 43 has denied the suggestion that she was not present at the spot and that is why she is unable to tell the above said fact or that no disclosure statement was recorded in her presence. According to her, the accused Sunita was crying and saying that she has not committed any offence. She has further stated that the Investigating Officer did not verify or make inquires from the neighbours of complainant in her presence and nobody was called from the family of accused Sunita at the time of her arrest. The witness has testified that she did not take Sunita to the hospital at any point of time nor she ever went to the hospital. She further stated that she was never handed over the custody of Sunita and has voluntarily added that her custody was handed over to SI Khushboo and she does not know who had put her in the lockup. She has also deposed that she did not go to the Police Station from the spot and she was relieved from the spot itself. She has denied the suggestion that accused Sunita disclosed that she had worked with the complainant Kamaljeet about seven years ago and her salary of six months to the tune of Rs.2000/ per month was still with Kamaljeet and thereafter she was depositing Rs.3000/ per month with Kamaljeet as her savings for about one year or that Sunita also disclosed that her balance amount of about Rupees Fifty Thousand was lying with Kamaljeet and when she asked Kamaljeet to return the said amount, Kamaljeet refused by saying that as and when her daughter gets married she would return the same. The witness has also denied the suggestion that Sunita further disclosed that St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 44 when her daughter got married she again asked Kamaljeet for return of the amount but Kamaljeet refused to return the same or that Sunita also disclosed that she again asked Kamaljeet to return the amount on 14.09.2013 as her son was not well and she required the same for his treatment as she (Sunita) was also unwell and unable to see properly by her eyes but Kamaljeet refused for the same. She has also denied the suggestion that accused Sunita also disclosed that she threatened Kamaljeet to report the matter to the police on which Kamaljeet attacked her and started beating her and also called her friends, one was a lady and one was a male or that Sunita then disclosed that she was then beaten up by the persons in the gali and then handed over to the police. She has further denied the suggestion that she is a planted witness or that she is deposing falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(54) PW14 Ct. Ashok has deposed that on 14.09.2013 he was posted as Police Station South Rohini and on that day he was on duty from 8 AM to 8 PM. He has further deposed that on that day on the receipt of DD No.36A he alongwith W/Ct. Baleshwar and SI Ravi Kumar reached at D15/41, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi where Smt, Neelam R/o D15/56 met them, who had produced the accused Sunita. He has further deposed that the Investigating Officer made enquiries at the spot and came to know that the accused Sunita had assaulted Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur with a " darant" and the injured had already been taken to Ambedkar Hospital by the PCR. According to the witness, they found an iron darant having blood stains near St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 45 main gate and on inspection they found the blood stains on the ground floor and the first floor after which SI Ravi Kumar called the Crime Team at the spot. He has testified that the Investigating Officer left the accused Sunita in the custody of Lady Ct. Balkesh and went to the hospital and after some time came to the spot again after which the Investigating Officer prepared the rukka and sent the same to the Police Station through him. According to the witness, after getting the FIR registered he brought the FIR and original rukka to the spot which he handed over to the Investigating Officer. He has proved that the Investigating Officer had taken the iron darant and sealed the same with the seal of "RK" and the said parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. According to him, one handkerchief was also converted into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B. The witness has further deposed that the Investigating Officer had taken the blood stains from the floor of the house with the help of cotton and the same was also sealed with the same seal and taken in to possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/C. The witness has testified that one bag was also lifted from the spot and converted the same into pullanda and sealed the same with the same seal and the said pullanda was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/D. He has also deposed that the Investigating Officer also lifted the broken spectacles which were belonging to complainant and he prepared the pullanda and sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure Ex.PW9/E. According to the witness the accused St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 46 Sunita was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW9/G by WSI Khushboo who came from the Police Station Mangol Puri and her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/H. He has further deposed that the accused was thoroughly interrogated after which her disclosure statement was recorded separately vide Ex.PW9/I. According to him, the Investigating Officer had also seized the pullanda containing clothes of the injured duly sealed with the seal of hospital vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A after which his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. (55) He has identified the accused Sunita in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. handkerchief having blood stains which is Ex.P2; one cotton having blood which was lifted from the spot which is Ex.P3; one bag as belonging to accused Sunita which is Ex.P4; one transparent container having broken spectacles belonging to the complainant which is Ex.P5. However, the Investigating Officer has not been able to produce the weapon of offence i.e. Darant in the court. (56) In his cross examination by Ld. DLSA Counsel the witness has stated that they reached at the spot at about 5.30 p.m. by government vehicle/ gypsy but he is not aware whether the Investigating Officer made any entry in the logbook regarding the said vehicle or not. He has further deposed that departure entry was made by the Investigating Officer. The witness denied the suggestion that no departure entry was made that is why the same is not on record. He has further stated that there were 15/16 public St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 47 persons gathered at the spot when they reached there and Smt. Neelam was holding the accused Sunita. According to him, the accused Sunita was standing peacefully and was not making any effort to get rid of the situation. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer lifted the darant with a cloth. The witness denied the suggestion that no cloth was used by the Investigating Officer while lifting the darant and that is why the same is not mentioned in the case file. He has further stated that Investigating Officer did not obtain signature of any other public witness or police witness or the seizure memos, personal search memo and arrest memo in his presence nor any public person was inquired/ interrogated by the Investigating Officer among those 15/16 persons who were gathered at the spot, when they reached. He has further deposed that nothing was recovered from the accused in her personal search. He has testified that his statement was recorded at Police Station at about 9 PM by the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that in his presence no police person or public person returned from the hospital and has voluntarily added that only one daughter of the complainant and the husband of the daughter came in his presence to give the clothes. The witness has also deposed that blood was not visible on the darant. He has further deposed that three persons of Crime Team came in his presence at about 7:45 PM and Crime Team remained at the spot for about half an hour. He has also deposed that chance prints were lifted by the Crime Team and photographs of the spot were also taken. The witness has denied the suggestion that no chance prints or photographs were taken St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 48 by the Crime Team. He has further stated that he found the spot of blood on the stairs and on the ground floor. According to him, the Investigating Officer did not record statement of any public witness in his presence and has voluntarily added that though inquiry was made but nobody from public was ready to join the investigation. He has further stated that the Investigating Officer might have put some specific mark on the darant but he is unable to tell what specific mark was put upon the darant by the Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that no specific mark was put upon the darant by the Investigating officer or that the said darant was planted upon the accused by the Investigating officer in connivance with complainant. He has further stated that the handkerchief seized by the Investigating officer may be of white colour. He has further deposed that the Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of darant in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that no sketch was prepared by the Investigating Officer of the said darant and that is why the same is not on record and Investigating Officer did not seize anything else except handkerchief, bag, and darant. The witness has also denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation or never visited the spot in the present case or that that no proceedings took place in his presence or that his signatures were obtained by the Investigating Officer on several memos while sitting in the Police Station or that he is planted witness. According to the witness, he went to Police Station alongwith rukka at about 8.15 PM and came back alongwith FIR at about 8.25 PM. The witness has denied the suggestion that he was St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 49 deposing falsely at the instance of Investigating Officer. (57) PW18 SI Ravi Kumar is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has deposed that on 14.09.2013 he was posted at Police Station South Rohini and on that day he was on emergency duty from 8AM to 8PM. He has further deposed that on that day at about 5:20 PM he received DD No. 36 A which is Ex.PW2/A regarding stabbing caused to a lady and on receipt of this information he along with Ct. Ashok and W/Ct. Balkesh reached at the spot i.e. D15/41, Sector 3, Rohini where they found one lady by the name of Neelam resident of D15/56, Sector 3, Rohini and she along with other neighbors handed over one lady accused to him. According to the witness, he made interrogation from the said lady accused and came to know her name as Sunita W/o Late Sh. Niranjan, R/o Mangolpuri, Delhi. The witness has also deposed that he also found blood scattered on the ground floor and also found one darant at the entrance gate of the premises No. D15/41, Sector 3, Rohini. The witness has testified that he also found blood scattered on the stairs leading towards first floor and there were two rooms on the first floor and blood was found scattered on the floors of both the rooms. According to the witness, he found the almirah opened which was lying in the rear room and one plastic bag, one broken spectacles were also found near almirah and on inquiry he came to know that the injured along with one Rita had gone to the hospital. He has further deposed that he handed over the custody of accused Sunita to L/Ct. Balkesh after which he left Ct. Ashok at the spot for gardening the spot and he himself went to BSA St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 50 Hospital and found the victim Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur under treatment vide MLC No. 9979/13. He has proved having collected the sealed parcel containing blood stained clothes of the victim and sample seal and blood sample duly sealed with the seal of the hospital which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A. He has testified that he recorded the statement of victim in the hospital which is Ex.PW7/A which he duly and came back to the spot where he prepared a rukka Ex.PW18/A. According to the witness, in the meantime he received an information vide DD No. 42 which is Ex.PW2/B regarding admission of injured in the hospital by one Rita. He has further deposed that he called the Crime Team at the spot who inspected the Scene of Crime and took the photographs and lifted the chance prints. He has also deposed that this he sent Ct. Ashok Kumar to the Police Station with rukka for getting the case registered and after some time Ct. Ashok Kumar brought the copy of the FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him. He has further deposed that he took the iron darant and converted the same into pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of RK and took the said parcel into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. According to the witness, he lifted one handkerchief from the entrance point of the house which was having blood stains and converted the same into pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of RK and that the said parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B. He has further deposed that he lifted the blood stains with the help of cotton from the roof of the house and converted the same St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 51 into pullanda and sealed with the seal of the RK which pullanda was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/C. He has also deposed that he found the polythene bag near almirah which was of yellow, blue and green color which was duly identified by accused Sunita and the said bag was converted into pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of RK and the said pullanda was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW9/D. He has testified that one broken spectacles was found at the entrance of the room which was belonging to the victim and he also lifted the same and converted the same into pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of the RK and the said pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/E. The witness has proved having prepared the site plan at the spot which is Ex.PW9/F after which he collected the Crime Team Report from SI Anil Kumar which is Ex.PW5/A and at the same time SI Khushboo came to the spot from the police station. According to him the facts of this case was narrated to her and thereafter she moved an application through SHO before the Ld. Duty MM seeking permission to arrest the accused Sunita being lady and being timed after sun set, which application is Ex.PW18/B on which permission was granted by Ld. Duty MM and thereafter the accused Sunita was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW9/G. He has further deposed that her personal search was conducted through L/Ct. Balkesh vide memo Ex.PW9/H after which the accused was throughly interrogated and her disclosure statement was recorded separately which is Ex.PW9/I. He St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 52 has further deposed that the accused was taken to BSA Hospital through SI Khushboo along with L/Ct. Balkesh and her medical examination was got done vide MLC EX PW 15/A and he deposited the case property with the MHC(M) and he recorded the statements of all relevant witnesses. (58) The witness has further deposed that on 15.09.2013 the accused Sunita was again interrogated wherein she has given her statement regarding sharpening of edge of the weapon of offence, on which he recorded her supplementary disclosure statement which is Ex.PW8/B. He has further deposed that he along with L/Ct. Mamta along with accused Sunita reached at the shop of Shamim where the accused pointed out the shop N79, Mangolpuri near Kalamandir Delhi where she pointed out the shop where she got the edge of weapon of offence sharpen. He has proved having prepared a memo to this effect vide Ex.PW8/A and the shopkeeper Shamim had also identified Sunita as the same person who brought the weapon of offence to him for sharpening the edge. The witness has further deposed that he recorded the statement of Shamim also U/s. 161 Cr.P.C after which the dossier of the accused was got prepared and thereafter the accused was produced before Ld. MM and got her sent to Judicial Custody. He has also deposed that on 15.10.2013 the exhibits of this case were got sent to FSL through Ct. Suresh and he recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. According to the witness, he sent the chance prints which were lifted by the member of the Crime Team to Finger Print Bureau and after necessary investigations, he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court. St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 53 He has further deposed that he received the weapon of offence i.e. darant from FSL on 14.02.2014 and sent the same to the doctor regarding opinion on weapon of offence on 15.02.2014.
(59) Witness has identified the accused Sunita in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. handkerchief which is Ex.P2; one cotton having blood which is Ex.P3; one bag belonging to accused Sunita which is Ex.P4; transparent container having broken spectacles belonging to the complainant which is Ex.P5.
(60) In his cross examination by Ld. DLSA Counsel, witness has deposed that they reached the spot at about 5.45 PM by his private vehicle i.e. car (Beat) and about fiveseven persons were found gathered at the spot when they reached there and one of them Smt. Neelam was cited as a witness in this case. Witness has admitted that he did not make any inquiry from others present at the spot. He states that he did not use any glove/ cloth while lifting the darant. The witness denied the suggestion that the said darant was planted upon the accused and hence deliberately not produced in the court or that no blood belonging to the same group of injured has been found on the darant and that is why the said darant was not sent to DNA or that because the evidence in the case has been fabricated that the alleged weapon of offence and the report of the FSL have been deliberately withheld despite direction of this court dated 22.01.14 to ensure the preparation of filing of the report by 15.02.14 or that the blood was poured on the darant by him to create false evidence against the accused. Witness has further St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 54 denied the suggestion that the disclosure has not been recorded in the manner it was narrated by the accused or that he was in civil clothes when he reached at the spot and also in the Police Station. He has also denied the suggestion that he and other male officials misbehaved with the accused while she was in the custody in the lock up at night or that there was no lady police Constable present at the time when the accused was taken to the hospital from spot and from hospital to Police Station. The witness has further denied the suggestion that no lady police official remained present whole night while the accused Sunita was kept in the lock up. He has admitted that no NGO was informed to ensure the presence of a lady in Police Station when the accused Sunita was kept in the lock up during the night and has voluntarily added that the brother and mother of accused Sunita had visited the Police Station. The witness denied the suggestion that the mother of Sunita was compelled to sign on her arrest papers after which she left the Police Station and she was not permitted to stay in the Police Station during the night. He has further stated that he has not made any inquiry from the mother of accused Sunita with regard to her financial or mental status. The witness has denied the suggestion that he never went to the house of accused Sunita and has voluntarily added that he had gone there only for address verification purpose. According to the witness, he did not find any family member/ children of accused Sunita. The witness denied the suggestion that accused Sunita had repeatedly told him that she was innocent and she had gone to complainant to take her money which she St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 55 had deposited with the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur over last many years and Kamaljeet Kaur was not returning the same to her or that she also told him that Kamaljeet had not given the salary of six months to the tune of Rs. 2000/ per month was still with Kamaljeet and thereafter she was depositing Rs.3000/ per month with Kamaljeet as her savings for about one year. He has also denied the suggestion that Sunita had told him that her balance amount of about Rupees Fifty Thousand was lying with Kamaljeet and when she was asking Kamaljeet to return the said amount Kamaljeet refused by saying that as and when her daughter gets married she would return the same. He has denied that Sunita further disclosed to him that when her daughter got married she again asked Kamaljeet for return of the amount but Kamaljeet refused to return the same. The witness has testified that Sunita further disclosed to him that when she further asked Kamaljeet to return the amount on 14.09.2013 as her son was not well and she required the same for her treatment as she (Sunita) was also unwell and unable to see properly with her eyes but Kamaljeet refused for the same. According to the witness, accused Sunita had disclosed him that when she told Kamaljeet to report the matter to the police on which Kamaljeet attacked her and started beating her and also called her neighbor one of whom was a lady and another male person. Witness has admitted that when Sunita was handed over to them she was having injury on her forehead. He has also admitted that the complainant did not show him any clothes which she was going to give to the accused and has voluntarily added that she just St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 56 informed him about the same in her statement and he made no inquiry in this regard. The witness has denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated by him in connivance with the complainant and her family members to help the complainant to usurp the deposited amount of about Rupees Fifty Thousand belonging to the accused.
(61) PW22 Ct. Vikas has deposed that on 15.09.2013, he was posted in the office of Dossier Cell, Sector1, Avantika, Delhi and on that day accused Sunita was produced in the office in the custody of W/Ct. Mamta and Investigating Officer SI Ravi Kumar was also present there. He has further deposed that W/Ct. Mamta had taken the finger print of accused Sunita in his presence vide Ex.PW20/D. According to the witness the finger prints were sent online to Finger Print Bureau, Kamla Market, Delhi therefore it does not bear his signatures, however, the same bears the signature of Investigating Officer SI Ravi at point A. (62) In his cross examination by Ld. DLSA Counsel the witness has admitted that the finger prints Ex.PW20/D were scanned from Dossier Cell to Finger Print Bureau, Kamla Market, Delhi. According to him, the finger print of the accused were scanned on the Automatic Finger and Palm Inkless scanner system and the said finger prints are original and not photocopy. The witness has denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of taking finger print samples of accused and that is why his signatures are not on the same.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 57 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(63) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused Sunita has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating material was put to her which she has denied. The accused Sunita has stated that Seven years back she was working as part time maid with Kamaljeet Kaur and developed extremely good relations with her and during the period she also assisted her daughter when she delivered a child.
According to her, she started depositing money with Kamaljeet for one year which were approximately Rs.3,000/ per month and her six months salary was also lying with her which she kept with her stating that she could take the same as and when required and a total of Rupees Fifty Thousand were lying with her. According to the accused, her son was unwell and she required money for his treatment and also for her eye treatment as she was unable to see clearly. She has further stated that on 14.9.2013 in the morning she made a telephone call to Kamaljeet and asked for money but she refused stating that she would make her a call and in the evening at about 4:00 PM Kamaljeet made a telephone call to her and asked her to come to her house on which she reached there and found that two more ladies and one gents were present with her. According to the accused, she informed Kamaljeet that her son was ill and she required money on which she scolded her by saying that her son will not die without treatment and started beating her and the other two ladies also started beating her by pulling her hair. She has further stated that thereafter Kamaljeet along with St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 58 the said two ladies and the male person went upstairs whereas she remained on the ground floor itself and after some time the male person went away and Kamaljeet came down crying that she was beaten by her on which both the said ladies also came down and caught hold of her and beaten her. She has also stated that thereafter all the three ladies went outside and she remained sitting inside the gate. According to her, after some time three four police officials came and took her to the police station where she also informed the police about the whole matter but they did not believe her and instead abused her and misbehaved with her in the Police Station where the police officials also molested her. According to the accused, the person who was present in the house of the complainant was found in the Police Station in Police uniform and later on she came to know that he was Investigating Officer SI Ravi Kumar. According to her, she was again taken to the house of the complainant where her hands were forcibly put on various places i.e. walls, almirah, machine etc. She has further stated that she was taken to the hospital by the Investigating Officer and there was no lady police official with her at that time and also during the night hours when she was detained in the Police Station. According to her, the Investigating Officer also took her to her house where he broke her crockery and took phonographs of her children and threatened her to do something with them which she could never think about it, if she does not cooperate with him. She has further stated that her mobile phone was also snatched by the Investigating Officer and kept with him and it has not been returned. The accused has also stated St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 59 that she was misbehaved and molested in the police station by the Investigating Officer and other male police officials, in respect of which he has already made a detailed statement before this Court on 26.2.2014 which may be read as part and parcel of this statement. According to her, she is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant in connivance with the police. She has further stated that she was forced to put her fingers and hand on various objects after she was taken to the house of the complainant in the middle of the night. According to her, despite her protests her hands were forcibly put on the switch box, sewing machine, almirah, walls etc. (64) The accused has examined Two witnesses in her defence. DW1 Sh. Chandra Shekhar Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. has proved that the mobile No. 9818314054 has been issued to Shemey S/o Trilok Chand, R/o 399, DBlock, Mangol Puri vide Customer Application Form Ex.DW1/A and copy of the election ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.DW1/B. He has also proved the call details record of the above mobile number from 14.9.2013 to 15.9.2013 which is Ex.DW1/C. He has further proved that the mobile No. 9871050978 has been allotted to Kamaljeet Kaur W/o Charanjit Singh, R/o D15/41, Pocket D15, Sector3, Rohini vide Customer Application Form Ex.DW1/D and copy of the election ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.DW1/E. He has also proved the call details record of the above mobile number from 14.9.2013 to 15.9.2013 St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 60 is Ex.DW1/F; the relevant Cell ID chart which is Ex.DW1/G and the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.DW1/H. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State despite opportunity being granted to him in this regard. (65) DW2 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices Ltd. has proved that the mobile No. 9213412147 has been issued in the name of Sunita D/o Trilok Chand, R/o 599, DBlock, Mangol Puri vide Customer Application Form Ex.DW2/A and copy of the election ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.DW2/B. He has also proved the call details record of the above mobile number from 14.3.2013 to 15.9.2013 which are Ex.DW2/C (running into 107 pages); the Cell ID chart which is Ex.DW2/D and the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.DW2/E. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State despite opportunity being granted to him in this regard.
FINDINGS:
(66) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl.
PP for the State and the Ld. DLSA Counsel. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 61
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
Public witnesses:
1. Smt. Kamaljeet She is the complainant/ victim in the present case and is
Kaur (PW7) working as UDC in Ministry of Women and Child
Development, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi. She has
deposed on the following aspects:
1. that on 14th September 2013 the accused Sunita who was working as Maid in her house about seven years back had come to her house at about 4:00 PM and asked her for employment.
2. That she (Sunita) stayed in her house for about one hour and thereafter she asked her to give her old clothes on which she (witness) went on the first floor to bring the old clothes from the almirah.
3. That Sunita also followed her upto the first floor and while she (witness) was taking out the old clothes from almirah, she was standing behind her and she (Sunita) touched her (witness's) head and said that her hairs have gone "mere baalo per hath laga kar kaha aapke baal ud gai" and within a second assaulted on her with a "Darant" (an instrument for cutting the saag) from behind as a result of which she also sustained injury on her neck on back side.
4. That she (witness) was shocked by the attack and when she saved her neck from her hand, she also sustained injuries on her left hand.
5. That Sunita had worked with her earlier about seven years back for about fivesix months.
6. That she (witness) caught hold of her (Sunita) and took the Darant from her hand and threw the same from the balcony of the first floor.
7. That she (witness) raised an alarm from the balcony by saying "maar diya, maar diya" and at once came out from the house on which her neighbor Rita residence of D15/40 came at once and caught Sunita while she was running away.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 62
8. That the accused Sunita had attempted to kill her her with the Darant.
9. That the PCR came to the spot and Mrs. Rita took her to Ambedkar Hospital, local police also came to the spot who also accompanied her to the hospital.
10. That her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW7/A.
11. That her blood stained clothes were taken by the Doctor.
2. Smt. Neelam She is a neighbour of the victim who has deposed on the (PW9) following aspects:
1. That she is housewife and resides at D15/56, Sector 3, Rohini and Mrs. Kamaljeet is residing at D15/41, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi.
2. That on 14.09.2013 at about 5:00 PM she was sitting in her drawing room when she heard the shouts from the nearby house as "bachao bachao".
3. That on hearing this she came outside and found that Mrs. Kamaljeet Kaur was raising an alarm from the balcony of first floor of her house and Rita ji resident of D15/40 also came out of her house and caught hold the accused Sunita.
4. That Rita was also raising an alarm, saying that "isko pakdo kabu main nahi aa rahi".
5. That the name of the lady caught hold by Rita was disclosed as Sunita, who was earlier working as maid in the house of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur and some person made a call at 100 number and PCR came at the spot.
6. That Mrs. Rita took Kamaljeet Kaur to hospital and the local police also came at the spot, who accompanied the PCR to the hospital.
7. That one Lady Constable also came at the spot alongwith the local police after which the accused Sunita was handed over to Lady Constable.
8. That the police officials came at the spot again and did their writing work.
9. That the Crime Team also came to the spot and the police had taken Darant, one handkerchief, one bag, St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 63 broken spaces and sealed the same and taken into possession.
10. That the Darant was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A; pullanda containing handkerchief was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B; police had also taken the blood of injured with the help of cotton which was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/C; bag pertaining to accused Sunita was also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/D; broken spectacles were sealed by the Investigating Officer and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/E.
11. That the police inspected the spot and prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW9/F.
12. That the accused Sunita was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW9/G; her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/H and the accused Sunita made her disclosure statement vide Ex.PW9/I.
3. Ms. Rita (PW11) She is also a neighbour of the complainant who has deposed on the following lines:
1. That she was running a play school in her house and she knew Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur who is residing alone at D15/41, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi.
2. That on 14.09.2013 at about 5:00 PM she was present in her house on ground floor and heard the cries of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur who was saying "mar diya mar diya" from the balcony of her first floor.
3. That she at once came out from the house and found that one lady was escaping from the house of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur.
4. That she over powered her and found blood and one Darant having blood stains near the main gate on which she got suspicion and thought that the lady might have assaulted Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur.
5. That she also raised an alarm, on which one Smt. Neelam resident of D15/56 also came there.
6. That the name of the lady caught hold by her was St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 64 known as Sunita.
7. That her daughter aged about 18 years called the PCR by dialing 100 number on which PCR came at the spot.
8. That Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur sustained injury on the back side of her neck and on the wrist of left hand and the blood was found oozing out and hence the PCR took the injured to the hospital and she also accompanied them.
9. That she knew Sunita as she was working with Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur as maid many years ago.
10. That her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
4. Shamim (PW12) This witness is having a shop of sharping the edge of scissor at Shop No.79, near Kala Mandir Cinema, Mangol Puri, Delhi. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 14.09.13 one lady came to her for sharping the edge of "Darant".
2. That he did her job and sharpen the edge of Darant and charged Rs.15/ from the said lady.
3. That when she came to him she asked "Dhar acche se lagana meat katna hai".
4. That on the next day i.e. on 15.09.2013 the police official brought the same lady and shown to him and he had identified her correctly as the same lady who came to him on 14.09.13 and got the edge sharpened after which his statement was recorded.
Witness of Medical Record:
5. Dr. Kumar This witness has proved that on 15.09.2013 at about 12:22 Akhilesh (PW15) AM he examined the patient Sunita W/o Late Sh. Niranjan, aged 36 years, female vide MLC Ex.PW15/A according to which there was an abrasion on the forehead of Sunita and after examination the patient was referred to Gynae for further examination and management.
In his crossexamination the witness has explained that no lady doctor was present in the hospital and Sunita was not produced before a lady doctor for physical examination and was only referred for Gynae examination. He has further St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 65 explained that he did not make any inquiry from Sunita as to how she received Abrasion on her forehead and when Sunita was produced before him she appeared to be normal and did not exhibit any signs of aggression.
6. Dr. Kaustiv Kiran This witness has proved that on 14.09.2013 he examined the (PW16) injured Kamaljeet Kaur W/o Late Sh. Charanjeet Singh aged about 57 years, female brought by the police with alleged history of physical assault as told by the patient herself vide MLC Ex.PW16/A according to which she was found fit for giving the statement and on examination he found two lacerated wounds over dorsal aspect of forearm each measuring approximately 3cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm; small abrasion over occipital region of scalp of approximately 1 cm x .5 cm; one incised wound over right scapular region of upper back of approximately 2 cm x 1 cm x .5 cm and small swelling over occipital region of scalp of approximately 3 cm x 3 cm.
7. Dr. Subhendu This witness has proved that on 14.09.13 the patient (PW17) Kamaljeet Kaur was referred to SR Surgery and he examined her and gave his opinion on the MLC Ex.PW16/A containing his observation from point X to X according to which as per clinical examination and radiological opinion the nature of injury was Simple which opinion he gave on 06.11.13.
8. Dr. Vijay This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
Dhankar (PW23) 1. That on 19.02.2014 he was working as Jr. Specialist and HOD, Department of Forensic Medicine, Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and on that day he received a sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of MCH FSL DELHI and he opened the sealed parcel, it was found to contain one one steel darant (vegetable cutter).
2. That he examined the aforesaid darant and gave his detailed report vide Ex.PW23/A.
3. That initially as per his opinion the injuries on the body of the person as mentioned in the MLC report could be caused by the said weapon (darant) St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 66 examined but later in the Court he reviewed his opinion and state that injuries on the body of the injuries could not be caused by the said weapon (Darant) and were possible due to accidental fall and being Superficial and Simple no force has been used by other party.
4. That after examination the weapon was again converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of Department and handed over the same to the police official.
It has been observed by this Court that the photographs Ex.PW23/CX1, Ex.PW23/CX2, Ex.PW23/CX3 and Ex.PW23/CX4 showing the darant lying at the spot resemble the darant Ex.P6 but there is no rust on the said darant produced in the court which is visible in the photograph in the portion encircled X. Further, the photographs do not reflect the sharp portion and it is argued that had the darant being freshly sharpened the rust would not be visible in the photographs in the portion encircled X. The existence of rust in the photograph confirms that the darant was not sharp at the time when the photographs were taken and it was got sharpened later as indicated from the fact that the darant produced in the court do not show the same rust marks extensively, rather the rust is not much visible on both the sides of the darant. On the directions of this Court a sketch of the darant Ex.P6 was prepared by the Reader attached to the Court before returning the same.
In his crossexamination Dr. Vijay Dhankar has reviewed his earlier opinion and has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That the Investigating Officer was carrying the application for subsequent opinion in his hand on the same day i.e. 19.2.2014 on which he had given his opinion though it was dated 15.02.2014.
2. That the victim/ patient namely Kamaljeet Kaur was never examined by him personally nor she was produced before him before he gave his opinion and has explained that only MLC was produced before St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 67 him.
3. That no photographs of the injured showing the details of the injuries i.e. the shape, size and place where the injuries had been received by the injured was placed before him.
4. That the MLC does not specify whether the injuries received was on the right or left forearm nor he is aware of the same.
5. That the injury i.e. incised wound on the right scapular region on the upper back of approximately 2 cm x 1cm x .5 cm is also possible on account of a fall on a sharp object.
6. That the shape of the injury on the forearm has not been specified in the MLC and has voluntarily added that it is only shown to be of 3cm x 1cm x .5cm.
7. That before giving his opinion, he did not ask the Investigating Officer to produced the injured before him nor he asked him to produced the photographs of the injuries before him as the Investigating Officer had only put limited query to him which he gave.
8. That he has given his opinion that the injuries could be possible by darant only after noticing that there were two lacerated wounds and by examining the size, shape and place of the injuries but.
9. That two simultaneous lacerated wounds of the nature as shown in the MLC which are not very deep are possible on account of accidental fall or by accidentally hitting the hand on an object with an edge like corner of the table or the edge of a wooden bed or the edge of iron almirah etc. and has explained that this would depend upon the width of the edge.
10. That in so far as he recollect, when he saw the darant it appeared to be new.
11. That he also did not notice any blood on the darant and has explained that in case if he would have notice the same, it would have been mentioned in the report.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 68
12. That the Investigating Officer had never told him about the details of the spot of the incident/ scene of crime or the objects present at the spot and hence he could not have a holistic view of the entire episode which took place.
13. That the observation and report given by him vide Ex.PW23/A is only on the basis of rough estimation and not a definite or conclusive opinion.
14. That if the scene of crime is a room furnished with a wooden bed, iron almirah and other domestic articles kept in the bed room, the injuries which are all present on the back side of the body would have been received on account of a fall on the back which possibility cannot be ruled out.
15. Further, when he had given the opinion, the details of the injuries were not before him and he thought that this injury could be possible if the patient is hit by the end of the darant, but now after he has seen the darant again in this court and measured the same, its measurement shows that its end is measuring around 4.2 cms and these injuries are UNLIKELY by use of this darant for two reasons first that this injury on the scapular region is measuring 2cms whereas the tapering end of the darant is 4.2cms and assuming that in case if the edge of the darant was used as claimed than the depth of the injury should have been unequal and L shaped which is not the case and the second injury on the dorsal aspect of the forearm is also not L shaped and is measuring hardly 3 cms which is less than the total length of the edge i.e. 4.2 cms and is also not deep (hardly .5cms.).
16. That the measurement of the injuries do not coincide with the measurements of this darant Ex.P6 and hence under these circumstances his opinion stands REVIEWED and he observed that both the injuries i.e. on the dorsal aspect of the arm and on the scapular region are unlikely by this St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 69 darant Ex.P6 and has explained that his earlier opinion was on the basis of incomplete information provided to him by the Investigating Officer.
17. That in case if the force by other party had been used upon the victim/ patient, these injuries would have been deep and not superficial as is the case.
18. That in his opinion keeping in view the totality of circumstances particularly the size, shape and depth of the injuries, the injuries appeared to be ACCIDENTAL and the nature of the injuries being superficial and on back side of the body RULES OUT THE USE OF FORCE BY THE SECOND PARTY.
19. The application filed by the Investigating Officer was produced in the Court alongwith the copy of the diary/ register which is Ex.PW23/B and it has been observed by this Court that the date mentioned in Column No. 1 second line is 15/19022014 and there is an overwriting on the date where the 19 appears to have been made into 15 and hence the original register was directed to be produced in the Court.
20. That the name of the hospital is not mentioned in the application of the Investigating Officer.
21. That in the said "Subsequent Opinion Record Register" is not filled by him and has explained that the same has been filled up by the technician of the hospital.
22. That the original subsequent opinion record register pertaining to 2014 has been produced in the Court and the subsequent opinion number 05/14 is Ex.PW23/C1 to Ex.PW23/C10.
23. That there is an overwriting on all pages at point A.
24. That on Ex.PW23/C6 in the third column the case property is mentioned as "sealed knife with intact seal of NS" is mentioned and on Ex.PW23/C8 in the third column the case property is mentioned as "sealed knife" is mentioned.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 70
25. That he has not mentioned the case property i.e. darant in the relevant column No.3 of the entry of this case i.e. Ex.PW23/C8 as mentioned in the other aforesaid cases.
26. That the register does not have any serial number and the said register does not have any column showing the cross check/ counter sign by any senior officer of the hospital.
27. That the said register is not maintained by doctors and it is the Technician is maintaining the same and hence he is unable to tell about the interpolations.
28. That this application of Investigating Officer Ex.PW23/B has not been diaried in the hospital and no diary number of the hospital is put on the same.
29. That it is the date on the application of 15.4.2014 has been put by the Investigating Officer and is not the date of the record of the hospital.
FSL Experts
9. Ms. Monika She is the Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) who has proved Chakravarty the Biological Report which is Ex.PW19/A and Serological (PW19) Report which is Ex.PW19/B according to which Human Blood of B Group was found on Ex.1 (Darant), 2 (handkerchief), 3 (Cotton wool swab), 4a (Lady shirt), 4b (Salwar), 4c (Brassier) and 4e (Gauze cloth piece).
10. SI Subhash He is the Finger Print Expert who has deposed on the Chander (PW20) following aspects:
1. That he received the case alongwith chance print marked Q1 to Q3 with their photograph and negatives, scene of crime report, Outer District and specimen prints of accused Sunita W/o Niranjan.
2. That he compared different finger prints of accused on different points report of which is Ex. PW20/A, final report of comparison of chance prints Q1 to Q3 is Ex.PW20/B, the explanation/report of enlargement marking points is Ex.PW20/C and the photocopies of finger print slip of samples of accused Sunita is collectively Ex.PW20/D. St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 71
3. That the Chance print mark Q1 & Q2 are identical with right thumb and left thumb impression marked S1 & S2 respectively on the finger impression slip of accused Sunita W/o Niranjan and Chance print mark Q3 are unfit for comparison.
The measurements/ fingerprints have been taken in gross violation of the procedure prescribed in the Identification of Prisoners Act and no permission from the Magistrate has been taken prior to obtaining these fingerprints.
Even otherwise, the reports do not help prosecution as the accused Sunita does not dispute her presence at the spot.
11. Inspector A.P. This witness has proved that the comparison of chance prints Verma (PW21) have been done in his supervision and the reports have been prepared Ex.PW20/A, EX.PW20/B, Ex.PW20/C and Ex.PW20/D under his supervision.
Police / Official witnesses:
12. HC Mahesh He is a formal witness being the MHCM who proved entry in (PW1) register No. 19 vide Mud No. 3120/13, copy of which is Ex.PW1/A (running into five pages); entry in register No. 21 vide RC No.156/21/13 copy of which is Ex.PW1/B; RC No. 15/21/14 copy of which is Ex.PW1/C and copy of FSL receipt which is Ex.PW1/D.
13. W/HC Kamlesh She is also a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has (PW2) proved the DD No. 36A copy of which is Ex.PW2/A, DD No. 42A copy of which is Ex.PW2/B, DD No. 43A copy of which is Ex.PW2/C, copy of FIR which is Ex.PW2/D and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW2/E.
14. Ct. Chotte Khan He is also a formal witness being the Chance Print Expert (PW3) who deposed that on 14.09.13 he along with SI Anil Kumar, Ct. Manish No. 1705/OD reached at scene of crime at D15/41, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi and he develop three chance prints from the scene of crime and the crime team inspected the scene from 6:30 PM to 7:25 PM on 14.09.2013.
15. Ct. Suresh (PW4) He is a formal witness who has proved that on 15.10.2013 he received four sealed parcels from the MHC(M) CP South Rohini related to the present case vide RC No.156/21/13, St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 72 copy of which is Ex.PW1/B on which he carried the parcels to FSL Rohini and deposited the same there vide FSL receipt copy of which is Ex.PW1/D.
16. SI Anil Kumar He is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who (PW5) has proved the Crime Team Report which is Ex.PW5/A.
17. Ct. Manish (PW6) He is a formal witness being the Crime Team photographer who has proved that on 14.09.13 he along with SI Anil Kumar, Ct. Chotte Khan reached at scene of crime at D15/41, Sec3, Rohini, Delhi where he took the photographs of the scene of crime and the crime team inspected the scene from 6:30 PM to 7:25 PM on 14.09.2013.
18. W/Ct. Mamta This witness has proved the following aspects:
(PW8) 1. That she joined the investigations in the present case on 15.09.2013 along with SI Ravi Kumar.
2. That the accused Sunita who was in the lockup was taken out from the lockup and handed over to her custody after which she was taken to NBlock Market, near Kalamandir Cinema, Mangolpuri where she was taken to one shop and the shopkeeper identified her as the women came to him two days back for getting the darant sharpened.
3. That on this SI Ravi prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW8/A and also prepared the dossier of the accused after which she was produced before the court concerned.
4. That before leaving the Police Station for N Block Market, the Investigating Officer SI Ravi Kumar had also interrogated the accused and recorded her disclosure statement which is Ex.PW8/B.
19. SI Khusboo This witness has proved the following aspects:
(PW10) 1. That on 14.09.2013 she was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Mangolpuri and on the directions of the SHO she had come to Police Station South Rohini.
2. That from there she was sent to spot of the occurrence i.e. House No. D15/41, Sector 3, Rohini, Delhi where she was handed over the St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 73 permission from Duty Magistrate for arresting the accused during the night and hence pursuant to the same she interrogated the accused Sunita who was in the custody of L/Ct. Balkesh.
3. That during the interrogation the accused Sunita disclosed her involvement in the present case on which she arrested her vide memo Ex.PW9/G, conducted her personal search vide memo Ex.PW9/H and also recorded her disclosure statement vide Ex.PW9/I.
4. That thereafter accused Sunita was handed over to the custody of L/Ct. Balkesh for her medical examination and sent her to BSA hospital while she returned to the Police Station where her statement was recorded.
20. Lady Ct. Balkesh This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW13) 1. That on 14.09.13 on the receipt of DD No.36A she alongwith Ct. Ashok and SI Ravi Kumar reached at D15/41, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi where Smt. Neelam R/o D15/56 and another lady met them who had produced the accused Sunita.
2. That the Investigating Officer made inquiries at the spot and came to know that the accused Sunita had assaulted Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur with a "darant".
3. That the injured had already been taken to Ambedkar Hospital and they found an iron darant having blood stains near main gate and on inspection they found the blood stains on the ground floor and the first floor.
4. That SI Ravi Kumar called the Crime Team at the spot and left the accused Sunita in her custody whereas he himself went to the hospital and after some time came to the spot again.
5. That the Investigating Officer prepared the rukka and sent the same to the Police Station through Ct. Ashok.
6. That the Investigating Officer had taken the iron darant and sealed the same with the seal of "RK"
and the said parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 74
7. That one handkerchief was also converted into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B.
8. That the Investigating Officer had taken the blood stains from the floor of the house with the help of cotton and the same was also sealed with the same seal and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/C.
9. That one bag was also lifted from the spot which was converted into pullanda and sealed the same with the same seal and the said pullanda was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/D.
10. That the Investigating Officer also lifted the broken spectacles which were belonging to complainant and he prepared the pullanda and sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure Ex.PW9/E.
11. That the accused Sunita was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW9/G, her personal search was conducted by her vide memo Ex.PW9/H and the accused was thoroughly interrogated and her disclosure statement was recorded separately vide Ex.PW9/I.
12. That the Investigating Officer had also seized the pullanda containing clothes of the injured duly sealed with the seal of hospital vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A.
21. Ct. Ashok (PW14) This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 14.09.2013 on the receipt of DD No.36A he alongwith W/Ct. Baleshwar and SI Ravi Kumar reached at D15/41, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi where Smt, Neelam R/o D15/56 met them, who had produced the accused Sunita.
2. That the Investigating Officer made enquiries at the spot and came to know that the accused Sunita had assaulted Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur with a " darant" and the injured had already been taken to Ambedkar Hospital by the PCR.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 75
3. That they found an iron darant having blood stains near main gate and on inspection they found the blood stains on the ground floor and the first floor after which SI Ravi Kumar called the Crime Team at the spot.
4. That the Investigating Officer left the accused Sunita in the custody of Lady Ct. Balkesh and went to the hospital and after some time came to the spot again after which the Investigating Officer prepared the rukka and sent the same to the Police Station through him.
5. That after getting the FIR registered he brought the FIR and original rukka to the spot which he handed over to the Investigating Officer.
6. That the Investigating Officer had taken the iron darant and sealed the same with the seal of "RK"
and the said parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A.
7. That one handkerchief was also converted into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B.
8. That the Investigating Officer had taken the blood stains from the floor of the house with the help of cotton and the same was also sealed with the same seal and taken in to possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/C.
9. That one bag was also lifted from the spot and converted the same into pullanda and sealed the same with the same seal and the said pullanda was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/D.
10. That the Investigating Officer also lifted the broken spectacles which were belonging to complainant and he prepared the pullanda and sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure Ex.PW9/E.
11. That the accused Sunita was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW9/G by WSI Khushboo who came from the Police Station Mangol Puri and her St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 76 personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/H.
12. That the accused was thoroughly interrogated after which her disclosure statement was recorded separately vide Ex.PW9/I.
13. That the Investigating Officer had also seized the pullanda containing clothes of the injured duly sealed with the seal of hospital vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A.
22. SI Ravi Kumar He is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has (PW18) proved the following proceedings:
Ex.PW2/A DD No. 36A
Ex.PW13/A Seizure memo of clothes of the victim
Ex.PW7/A Statement of the victim
Ex.PW18/A Rukka
Ex.PW2/B DD No. 42
Ex.PW9/A Seizure memo of Darant
Ex.PW9/B Seizure memo of Handkerchief
Ex.PW9/C Seizure memo of blood stains
Ex.PW9/D Seizure memo of bag
Ex.PW9/E Seizure memo of spectacles
Ex.PW9/F Site plan of the spot of incident
Ex.PW18/B Application before the Ld. MM seeking
permission to arrest the accused
Ex.PW9/G Arrest memo of the accused
Ex.PW9/H Personal search memo of the accused
Ex.PW9/I Disclosure statement of the accused
Ex.PW15/A MLC of the accused
Ex.PW8/B Supplementary disclosure statement of the
accused
Ex.PW8/A Pointing out memo of the shop of Shamim
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 77
23. Ct. Vikas (PW22) This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 15.09.2013, he was posted in the office of Dossier Cell, Sector1, Avantika, Delhi and on that day accused Sunita was produced in the office in the custody of W/Ct. Mamta and Investigating Officer SI Ravi Kumar was also present there.
2. That W/Ct. Mamta had taken the finger print of accused Sunita in his presence vide Ex.PW20/D.
3. That the finger prints were sent online to Finger Print Bureau, Kamla Market, Delhi therefore it does not bear his signatures, however, the same bears the signature of Investigating Officer SI Ravi at point A. Defence Witnesses:
1. Sh. Chandra He is the Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. who has Shekhar (DW1) proved the following aspects:
1. That the mobile No. 9818314054 has been issued to Shemey S/o Trilok Chand, R/o 399, DBlock, Mangol Puri vide Customer Application Form Ex.DW1/A and copy of the election ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.DW1/B.
2. That the call details record of the above mobile number from 14.9.2013 to 15.9.2013 which is Ex.DW1/C.
3. That the mobile No. 9871050978 has been allotted to Kamaljeet Kaur W/o Charanjit Singh, R/o D15/41, Pocket D15, Sector3, Rohini vide Customer Application Form Ex.DW1/D and copy of the election ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.DW1/E.
4. That the call details record of the above mobile number from 14.9.2013 to 15.9.2013 is Ex.DW1/F;
the relevant Cell ID chart which is Ex.DW1/G and the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.DW1/H.
2. Rajeev Ranjan He is the Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices Ltd. who has (DW2) proved that the mobile No. 9213412147 has been issued in the name of Sunita D/o Trilok Chand, R/o 599, DBlock, St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 78 Mangol Puri vide Customer Application Form Ex.DW2/A and copy of the election ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.DW2/B. He has also proved the call details record of the above mobile number from 14.3.2013 to 15.9.2013 which are Ex.DW2/C (running into 107 pages); the Cell ID chart which is Ex.DW2/D and the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.DW2/E. (67) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence against the accused.
Identity of the accused Sunita - Not disputed:
(68) In so far as the identity of the accused Sunita is concerned, the same is not disputed. She has been named in the FIR and she was found present at the spot of incident when the police reached there on the call. She was working as a part time maid with the complainant about seven years ago. She has also been identified in the Court by the complainant and her neighbours namely Rita and Neelam. Even otherwise the accused Sunita does not dispute her identity.
Sunita herself injured in the incident How authentic is the Medical Record?
(69) The prosecution in order to prove its case has placed his reliance on the medical record of the complainant and also the accused Sunita. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the testimonies of Dr. Kumar Akhilesh and Dr. Kaustuv Kiran and on the opinion given by Dr. Vijay St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 79 Dhankar as regards the alleged weapon of offence i.e. Darant. (70) Coming first to the testimony of Dr. Kumar Akhilesh (PW15) from BSA Hospital, he has proved the MLC of the accused Sunita which is Ex.PW15/A according to which after examination she was referred for Gynae examination. He has in his crossexamination stated that no lady doctor was present in the hospital and Sunita was not produced before a lady doctor for physical examination and was only referred for Gynae examination. He has further deposed that he did not make any inquiry from Sunita as to how she received Abrasion on her forehead and when Sunita was produced before him she appeared to be normal and did not exhibit any signs of aggression.
(71) The defence of the accused Sunita is that she had gone to the house of the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur to seek return of her money which she has been entrusted with Kamaljeet Kaur as she required the money for her own treatment being virtually blind on account of cataract and also for the treatment of her son who was unwell. During the course of arguments, she also informed the Court that after she was sent to the Judicial Custody the jail authorities confirmed her eye problem and she was even treated for the same and operated in the month of December 2013. Pursuant to the aforesaid the medical record of the accused Sunita was called from the Jail Hospital which confirms that at the time of the incident she was suffering from advance stage of cataract of both the eyes which affected her vision, St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 80 pursuant to which she was operated in the month of December 2013 and remained admitted in the hospital for this treatment during the period 8.10.2013 to 12.10.2013 (for operation of the right eye) and from 21.12.2013 to 24.12.2013 (for operation of left eye).
(72) In so far as Dr. Kaustuv Kiran (PW16) from BSA Hospital is concerned, he has proved the MLC of the injured/ complainant Kamaljeet Kaur W/o Late Sh. Charanjeet Singh which MLC is Ex.PW16/A and on examination he found two lacerated wounds over dorsal aspect of forearm each measuring approximately 3cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm; small abrasion over occipital region of scalp of approximately 1 cm x .5 cm; one incised wound over right scapular region of upper back of approximately 2 cm x 1 cm x .5 cm and small swelling over occipital region of scalp of approximately 3 cm x 3 cm. Dr. Subhendu (PW17) has proved his opinion in respect of nature of injuries of the person of Kamaljeet according to which as per clinical examination and radiological opinion the nature of injury was Simple. (73) It is hence evident from the above that both the accused and complainant Kamaljeet Kaur had sustained injuries in the incident which were Simple in nature while the injury on Sunita was an abrasion on the forehead, two lacerated wounds both of which were Simple and Superficial were found on the back side of her body.
(74) It is further the case of the prosecution that the injuries so caused on the body of Kamaljeet Kaur was caused by Darant which Sunita had brought with her whereas the defence of the accused is that she is St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 81 innocent and has been falsely implicated and Darant has been placed on her. Dr. Vijay Dhankar (PW23) is the expert who had given the opinion on the weapon of offence i.e. Darant. Initially he gave an opinion that the injury on Kamaljeet Kaur could be possible by Darant but in the Court has reviewed his earlier opinion. He has deposed that on 19.02.2014 he examined the weapon of offence i.e. darant and gave his detailed report vide Ex.PW23/A according to which the injuries on the body of the person of Kamaljeet could be caused by the said weapon (darant) examined. Thereafter the weapon of offence i.e. Darant Ex.P6 was produced in the Court, it has been been observed by this Court that the Darant seen in photographs Ex.PW23/CX1, Ex.PW23/CX2, Ex.PW23/CX3 and Ex.PW23/CX4 resembles the darant Ex.P6 but there were no rust on the said darant produced in the court which is visible in the photograph in the portion encircled X. It has also been pointed out by the Defence Counsel that the photographs do not reflect the sharp portion and it is argued that had the darant being freshly sharpened the rust would not be visible in the photographs in the portion encircled X. It has been pointed out the existence of rust confirms that the darant was not sharp at the time when the photographs were taken and it was got sharpened later as indicated from the fact that the darant produced in the court do not show the same rust marks extensively, rather the rust is not much visible on both the sides of the darant when seen in the Court.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 82 (75) When extensively crossexamined by the Ld. DLSA Counsel the witness Dr. Vijay Dhankar Reviewed his opinion with regard to the use of weapon of offence i.e. Darant as given by him earlier. He is unable to tell if the application for giving opinion was filed by the Investigating Officer in the department on the same day i.e. 19.02.2014 and has explained that in so far as he recollects the Investigating Officer was carrying the application in his hand on the same day on which he had given his opinion though it was dated 15.02.2014. He has explained that the victim/ patient namely Kamaljeet Kaur was never examined by him personally nor she was produced before him before he gave his opinion and only the MLC was produced before him. According to him, no photographs of the injured showing the details of the injuries i.e. the shape, size and place where the injuries had been received by the injured was placed before him. He has admitted that the injury incised wound on the right scapular region on the upper back of approximately 2 cm x 1cm x .5 cm is possible on account of a fall on a sharp object. According to the him before giving his opinion, he did not ask the Investigating Officer to produce the injured before him nor he asked him to produced the photographs of the injuries before him and has explained that the Investigating Officer had only put limited query to him which he gave. He has further explained that he has given his opinion that the injuries could be possible by darant which opinion was not based on his observations relating to the size, shape and place of the injuries but St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 83 only after noticing that there were two lacerated wounds. He has admitted that two simultaneous lacerated wounds of the nature as shown in the MLC which are not very deep are possible on account of ACCIDENTAL FALL or by ACCIDENTALLY HITTING THE HAND on an object which edge like corner of the table or the edge of a wooden bed or the edge of iron almirah etc. Dr. Vijay Dhankar has further deposed and explained that when he saw the darant it appeared to be new and he did not notice any blood on the darant. The witness has further explained that the Investigating Officer had never told him about the details of the spot of the incident/ scene of crime or the objects present at the spot and hence he could not have a holistic view of the entire episode which took place. He has also explained that the observation and report given by him vide Ex.PW23/A is only on the basis of ROUGH ESTIMATION and not a DEFINITE OR CONCLUSIVE OPINION.
(76) A specific question was put to the witness that in case if the scene of crime is a room furnished with a wooden bed, iron almirah and other domestic articles kept in the bed room, could the injuries as reflected in the MLC of patient Kamaljeet Kaur be possible by any other means, to which the witness has replied that all the injuries are present on the back side of the body and the possibility of the injured having received the same ON ACCOUNT OF A FALL on the back cannot be ruled out. St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 84 Further, when asked by the Court if he can say conclusively that the injury caused on the scapular and forearm region was on account of the use of this darant, the witness has replied that when he had given the opinion, the details of the injuries were not before him and he thought that this injury could be possible if the patient is hit by the end of the darant, but now after he has seen the darant again in this court and measured the same, its measurement shows that its end is measuring around 4.2 cms and hence now he can say that these injuries were unlikely by use of this darant for two reasons. First that this injury on the scapular region is measuring 2cms whereas the tapering end of the darant is 4.2cms, assuming that the edge of the darant was used than the depth of the injury should have been unequal and L shaped which is not the case and Second that the injury on the dorsal aspect of the forearm is also not L shaped and is hardly measuring 3 cms which is less than the total length of the edge i.e. 4.2 cms and is also not deep (hardly .5cms.). He has further deposed that the measurement of the injuries do not coincide with the measurements of this darant Ex.P6 and hence under these circumstances his opinion stands reviewed and he observed that both the injuries i.e. on the dorsal aspect of the arm and on the scapular region are unlikely by this darant Ex.P6 and has voluntarily explained that his earlier opinion was on the basis of INCOMPLETE INFORMATION provided to him by the Investigating Officer. According to the witness also in case if the force St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 85 by other party had been used upon the victim/ patient, these injuries would have been deep and not superficial.
(77) A specific Court Question was again put to the witness with regard to the nature of injuries, whether they are self inflicted, inflicted by the other party or accidental, to which the witness replied that in his opinion keeping in view the totality of circumstances particularly the size, shape and depth of the injuries, the injuries appeared to be ACCIDENTAL and the nature of the injuries being superficial and on back side of the body RULES OUT the use of force by the second party. (78) After the copy of the application filed by the Investigating Officer and the diary/ register which is Ex.PW23/B was produced in the Court by Dr. Vijay Dhankar it was observed by this Court that the date mentioned in Column No. 1 second line is 15/19022014 and there is an overwriting on the date where the 19 appears to have been made into 15. The witness Dr. Vijay Dhankar has admitted that the "Subsequent Opinion Record Register" has not been filled by him and has explained that the same has been filled up by the technician of the hospital. The original subsequent opinion record register pertaining to 2014 has been produced in the Court whose relevant pages are Ex.PW23/C1 to Ex.PW23/C10. Dr. Dhankar has admitted that there is overwriting on all pages at point A and on Ex.PW23/C6 in the third column the case property is mentioned as "sealed knife with intact seal of NS" is mentioned whereas on Ex.PW23/C8 in the St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 86 third column the case property is mentioned as "sealed knife" is mentioned, whereas in the present case the details of the case property i.e. darant is not mentioned in the relevant column No.3 of the entry of this case i.e. Ex.PW23/C8 as found mentioned in the other aforesaid cases. The witness has further admitted that the register does not have any serial number and the said register does not have any column showing the cross check/ counter sign by any senior officer of the hospital. The witness has further admitted that the said register is not maintained by doctors and has explained that the Technician is maintaining the same and hence he is unable to give any explanation regarding the interpolations present on the same. He has also admitted that the application of the Investigating Officer attached along with Ex.PW23/B is a photocopy and has explained that the original was in the department. The witness has admitted that this application of Investigating Officer has not been diaried in the hospital and no diary number of the hospital is put on the same. He has also admitted that it is the date on the application put by the Investigating Officer that he is stating that this application is dated 15.04.2014 and not from the record of the hospital.
(79) It is writ large from the above that in the Register maintained at BSA Hospital that the date mentioned in Column No. 1 second line is 15/19022014 and there is an overwriting on the date where the 19 appears to have been made into 15. This establishes that the application St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 87 for seeking subsequent opinion was antedated and carried by the Investigating Officer SI Ravi Kumar which he personally handed over to Dr. Vijay Dhankar on 19.2.2014 (i.e. on the same date on which he was examined and crossexamined in the Court) and on the same day Dr. Dhankar had hurriedly given his opinion on the same without even seeing or examining the injuries on the patient or having an opportunity of seeing the nature, shape and seize of injuries or without proper examination of weapon of offence to ascertain if the injuries even compatible to the weapon produced before him and it is apparently for this reason that Dr. Dhankar then reviewed his opinion in the Court on coming to know of the other relevant facts which were not placed before him earlier. This only goes to show how the Investigating Officer had personally obtained this opinion of Dr. Dhankar on 19.2.2014 (after his examination in the Court) and that too by withholding important facts and facts connected with the incident and by placing incomplete material before Dr. Dhankar which material was relevant and necessary to enable him to formulate a clear, specific and conclusive opinion. The possibility that this was done only to fill up the lacunas in the prosecution case and that too after this Court had made specific observations regarding the weapon of offence has not been produced by the Investigating Officer cannot be ruled out.
(80) From a bare reading of the testimony of Dr. Vijay Dhankar the following aspects stand established:
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 88
➢ That the victim Kamaljeet Kaur was never produced before Dr. Vijay Dhankar nor he had any opportunity to examine her injuries. ➢ That no photographs of the injured showing the details of the injuries i.e. the shape, size and place where the injuries had been received by the injured was placed before Dr. Vijay Dhankar. ➢ That Dr. Vijay Dhankar has given his opinion that the injuries could be possible by darant not by his observations relating to the size, shape and place of the injuries but only after noticing that there were two lacerated wounds.
➢ That Dr. Vijay Dhankar has reviewed his opinion and opined that two simultaneous lacerated wounds of the nature as shown in the MLC which are not very deep are possible on account of accidental fall or by accidentally hitting the hand on an object which edge like corner of the table or the edge of a wooden bed or the edge of iron almirah etc. ➢ That the earlier opinion of Dr. Vijay Dhankar was on the basis of incomplete information provided to him by the Investigating Officer. ➢ That the injury incised wound on the right scapular region on the upper back of approximately 2 cm x 1cm x .5 cm is possible on account of a fall on a sharp object.
➢ That when Dr. Vijay Dhankar saw the darant it appeared to be new and he did not notice any blood on the darant.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 89 ➢ That the observation and report given by Dr. Vijay Dhankar vide Ex.PW23/A is only on the basis of Rough Estimation and not a definite or conclusive opinion.
➢ That according to Dr. Vijay Dhankar all the injuries present on the body of the victim are present on the back side of the body and the possibility of the injured having received the same on account of a fall on the back cannot be ruled out.
➢ That when Dr. Vijay Dhankar had given the opinion, the details of the injuries were not before him and he thought that this injury could be possible if the patient is hit by the end of the darant, but after seeing the darant in this court and measured the same, its measurement shows that its end is measuring around 4.2 cms, he opined that these injuries are unlikely by use of this darant for two reasons and this injury on the scapular region is measuring 2cms whereas the tapering end of the darant is 4.2cms, assuming that the edge of the darant was used than the depth of the injury should have been unequal and L shaped which is not the case.
➢ That the second injury on the dorsal aspect of the forearm is also not L shaped and is measuring hardly 3 cms which is less than the total length of the edge i.e. 4.2 cms and is also not deep (hardly .5cms). ➢ That the measurement of the injuries do not coincide with the measurements of this darant Ex.P6 and hence under these circumstances Dr. Vijay Dhankar observed that both the injuries i.e. St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 90 on the dorsal aspect of the arm and on the scapular region are unlikely by darant Ex.P6.
➢ That in case of use of force by the other party upon the victim/ patient, these injuries would have been deep and not superficial as is the case.
➢ That in keeping in view the totality of circumstances particularly the size, shape and depth of the injuries, the injuries appeared to be accidental and the nature of the injuries being superficial and on back side of the body rules out the use of force by the second party. ➢ That application for giving subsequent opinion which is dated 15.2.2014 but was placed before Dr. Dhankar by Investigating Officer SI Ravi Kumar by hand on 19.2.2014 (i.e. after his examination in the Court as witness), has not been diaried and Dr. Dhankar gave his opinion on the same immediately (on 19.2.2014). This application also shows an interpolation in date where 19 appears to have been made into 15.
(81) This being the background, I hereby hold that the Medical Evidence on record does not help the prosecution case in any manner. It not only establishes that even the accused Sunita had received Simple injuries in the incident but also that the Simple and Superficial injuries (two in number) present on the backside of the body of the complainant and could not be caused by the Darant and are possible on account of ACCIDENTAL FALL ruling out use of force be second party. It lends St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 91 credence to the defence version and establishes that the injuries caused are on account of accidental fall and are only superficial and Simple in nature. Forensic Reports, Admissibility and Effect:
(82) In order to prove its case the prosecution has placed its reliance on the Biological/ Serological Reports and the Finger Prints Report.
Biological/ Serological Reports:
(83) Ms. Monika Chakravarty (PW19) Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) has proved the Biological and Serological Reports dated 14.2.2014 which are Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B according to which human blood of B Group was found on Ex.1 (Darant), 2 (handkerchief), 3 (Cotton wool swab), 4a (Lady shirt), 4b (Salwar), 4c (Brassier) and 4e (Gauze cloth piece). The above report only establishes the fact that Kamaljeet Kaur had received injuries which aspect is otherwise not denied by accused.
Finger Print Report:
(84) The prosecution in order to prove its case is placing its reliance on the Finger Prints/ Chance Prints lifted from the spot and in this regard has placed their reliance on the testimony of Ct. Vikas (PW22) from Dossier Cell has proved that on the next of the incident i.e. 15.9.2013 accused Sunita was produced in the office in the custody of W/Ct. Mamta and Investigating Officer SI Ravi Kumar was also present there. He has further deposed that St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 92 W/Ct. Mamta had taken the finger print of accused Sunita in his presence vide Ex.PW20/D. (85) SI Subhash Chander (PW20) is the Finger Print Expert who has deposed that he received the case alongwith chance print marked Q1 to Q3 with their photograph and negatives, scene of crime report, Outer District and specimen prints of accused Sunita W/o Niranjan and compared the different finger prints of accused on different points vide report Ex.PW20/A. He has proved the final report of comparison of chance prints Q1 to Q3 is Ex.PW20/B and the explanation/ report of enlargement marking points which is Ex.PW20/C and the photocopies of finger print slip of samples of accused Sunita which are collectively Ex.PW20/D. He has proved having opined that the chance print mark Q1 & Q2 are identical with right thumb and left thumb impressions marked S1 & S2 respectively on the finger impression slip of accused Sunita W/o Niranjan whereas the Chance Print Mark Q3 are unfit for comparison. In his cross examination the witness has explained that the Investigating Officer only provide photocopy of the finger print which was sent online after scanning the original. He has admitted that the chance prints were not lifted in his presence and has explained that the photocopy of the Crime Team Report alongwith Chance Prints were sent to him. He is unable to tell the position/ direction of the thumbs and fingers in Q1 & Q2 nor is he able to tell from which object the above chance prints have been lifted.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 93 (86) Inspector A.P. Verma (PW21) is a formal witness and has only proved that the reports Ex.PW20/A, EX.PW20/B, Ex.PW20/C and Ex.PW20/D were prepared under his supervision. (87) Ld. DLSA Counsel has vehemently argued that the entire Forensic Evidence has been created and fabricated by the Investigating Officer in the same manner as he has got the medical record fabricated and obtained the opinion. She has submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has been examined on 19.2.2014 till which date neither the report of the Forensic Expert Ms. Monika Chakravarty has been received nor the supplementary charge sheet containing the finger prints reports have been placed on record despite being available with the Investigating Officer which he did deliberately so much so that on 19.2.2014 even the weapon of offence i.e. Darant was not produced in the Court. She further submitted that the entire record has been created and fabricated and the supplementary charge sheet has been filed after the completion of the examination of the witnesses in the main charge sheet only to fillup the lacuna of the prosecution case after the Investigating Officer realized that he was in difficulty on account of the complaint made by the accused Sunita against the Custodial Violence so inflicted upon her when she was detention in the Police Station during the intervening night of 1415.9.2013. (88) I have considered the rival contentions. At the very Outset I may observe that I find merit in the argument of the Ld. DLSA Counsel that no explanation or justification is forthcoming as to why the expert evidence St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 94 including the Serological and Biological Reports dated 14.2.2014 and report of the Chance Print dated 22.1.2014 were withheld by the Investigating Officer and not placed before the Court on 19.2.2014 i.e. the date when the matter was listed for entire prosecution evidence and the Investigating Office himself was examined when he also failed to produce the alleged weapon of offence i.e. Darant Ex.P6 before the Court. (89) Secondly it has been admitted by Dr. Vijay Dhankar that the Darant did not bear any blood stains nor the injuries in question could have been caused by the same. How then could the same test positive for human blood and that too of the same blood group as of the complainant? In the given circumstances, the possibility of the same being planted cannot be ruled out.
(90) Lastly in so far as lifting of chance prints are concerned, I may observe that the Finger Prints of the accused for purposes of evidence can only be taken in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of The Identification Of Prisoners Act, 1920 and that too after prior permission from the Magistrate First Class. The relevant provisions read as under:
5. Power to Magistrate to order a person to be measured or photographed. If a Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (5 of 1898) it is expedient to direct any person to allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, he may make an order to that effect, and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 95 place specified in the order and shall allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, as the case may be, by a police officer:
Provided that no order shall be made directing any person to be photographed except by a Magistrate of the first class:
Provided further, that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding. (91) Further, Section 2 (a) of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 defines 'measurement' include finger impressions and foot print impressions. In the case of Mahmood Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1976 SC 69 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the specimen finger print impressions taken by the investigating officer under Section 4 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, in the absence of a manner prescribed for taking the finger print impressions, was held to be a case of evidence not being admissible with respect to the finger prints obtained and the opinion of the expert thereon. The Supreme Court held that in said situation Section 5 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 ought to have been followed. Similarly, in the case of Shankaria Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1978) 3 SCC 435, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted that the State of Rajasthan had framed the necessary Rules pertaining to the manner in which an investigating officer could obtain the specimen finger prints of a person accused of an offence; there being complete compliance St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 96 with the requirements of Section 4 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, the same being followed, it was held that evidence pertaining to the specimen finger prints was admissible. Similar was the view affirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (1997) 10 SCC 44 Mohd. Aman & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan. But relevant would it be to note that the Supreme Court affirmed so with a caveat, being to dispel any suspicion as to the bonafides of the police and eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence, it being desirable that measurements should be obtained by following the procedure contemplated by Section 5 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920.
(92) Hence it is writ large that finger prints, which are included in "measurements" once the manner is prescribed to take the measurements, alone then can an Investigating Officer, under Section 4 obtain the measurements but strictly as per manner prescribed and but it would be eminently desirable that as per the decision in Mohd. Aman's case (supra) to follow the procedure ordained under Section 5 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920.
(93) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is writ large that no permission of the Ld. Magistrate as contemplated under Section 5 of The Identification Of Prisoners Act, 1920 for taking finger prints [measurements as defined under Section 2(a)] of the accused Sunita had been obtained despite the fact that the St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 97 Investigating Officer knew that these would be used as evidence. It creates a serious doubt in the fairness of the investigations and the evidence in this regard being in violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act is inadmissible in evidence. (94) Even otherwise, assuming that the chance prints so allegedly lifted from the house of the victim belong to the accused Sunita it does not help the prosecution in any manner since the accused Sunita herself does not dispute her presence at the spot but rather admits the same in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Further, in her defence she has also proved by way of Electronic Evidence (as separately discussed) that the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur had made a telephone call to her on her mobile and called her to her (complainant's) house which presence she does not dispute and the evidence on record also confirms that she did not resist or tried to run away and remained at the spot. This only confirms her presence but the fact that there was a dispute or a an altercation between the accused Sunita and the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur, which according to the accused Sunita relates to return of her money which she had entrusted to Kamaljeet Kaur in which incident both Sunita and Kamlajeet Kaur received Simple injuries and Sunita had threatened Kamaljeet of calling the police and reporting the matter to them.
(95) This being the background, I hereby hold that the Forensic Evidence on record does not assist the prosecution in any manner. Rather, it is the accused Sunita who herself does not dispute her presence at the spot St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 98 being called by the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur.
Sunita does not deny her presence at the spot and states complainant called her Electronic Evidence:
(96) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Sunita who has been employed with the complainant about seven years ago had gone to the house of the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur and insisted that she be employed as part time maid and on the refusal of Kamaljeet Kaur, she inflicted injuries on Kamaljeet Kaur with a Darant which she was carrying with her. On the other hand the case as put forth by accused Sunita is that she was working as part time maid with Kamaljeet Kaur about seven years ago and thereafter she developed extremely good relations with Kamaljeet Kaur and used to save some money every month which she entrusted to Kamaljeet Kaur as her savings for use in future at the time of need. According to Sunita, her salary of six months at the rate of Rupees two thousand per month was also due which was an entrustment with Kamaljeet Kaur along with the other amount which she used to save and which had accumulated to Rupees fifty thousand whose return she was wanting as her son was unwell and she also required this money for her own treatment as she was unable to see properly due to cataract in both the eyes (a fact established from her medical record as obtained from Central Jail Tihar - discussed herein above). (97) In her defence Sunita has examined the Nodal Officers from service providers to prove that she was in rgular contact with Kamaljeet St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 99 Kaur and even on the date of incident she had gone to the house of Kamaljeet Kaur after she received a call from the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur calling her (Sunita) at her (Kamaljeet Kaur's) house in the evening. (98) In so far Sh. Chandra Shekhar (DW1) Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. is concerned, he has proved that the mobile No. 9818314054 has been issued to Shemey S/o Trilok Chand (brother of accused Sunita), R/o 399, DBlock, Mangol Puri vide Customer Application Form Ex.DW1/A and copy of the election ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.DW1/B. He has also proved the call details record of the above mobile number from 14.9.2013 to 15.9.2013 which is Ex.DW1/C. This witness Sh.
Chandra Shekhar has also proved that the mobile No. 9871050978 has been allotted to Kamaljeet Kaur W/o Charanjit Singh (victim/ complainant in the present case), R/o D15/41, Pocket D15, Sector3, Rohini vide Customer Application Form Ex.DW1/D and copy of the election ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.DW1/E. He has also proved the call details record of the above mobile number from 14.9.2013 to 15.9.2013 is Ex.DW1/F; the relevant Cell ID chart which is Ex.DW1/G and the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.DW1/H which electronic details establish the call made by above phone of Kamaljeet Kaur to the mobile of Sunita.
(99) The accused Sunita has also examined Sh. Rajeev Ranjan (DW2) Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices Ltd. to prove the calls made by her to St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 100 the complainant and also received by her. Sh. Rajeev Ranjan has proved that the mobile No. 9213412147 has been issued in the name of Sunita D/o Trilok Chand (accused in the present case), R/o 599, DBlock, Mangol Puri vide Customer Application Form Ex.DW2/A and copy of the election ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.DW2/B. He has also proved the call details record of the above mobile number from 14.3.2013 to 15.9.2013 which are Ex.DW2/C (running into 107 pages); the Cell ID chart which is Ex.DW2/D and the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.DW2/E the perusal of which record again confirms the corresponding calls made between Sunita and Kamaljeet Kaur. (100) According to the prosecution case, the accused Sunita went to the house of Kamaljeet Kaur and asked her for job and assaulted her whereas the accused in her defence has stated that she had asked Kamaljeet Kaur for returning her money which she had saved and entrusted with Kamaljeet Kaur but she (Kamaljeet Kaur) refused. According to the accused in the morning she had made two calls to Kamaljeet Kaur, on first occasion the call did not get through and at the second occasion her call did go through but she could not talk to Kamaljeet Kaur but thereafter Kamaljeet Kaur made a return call to her and asked her to come to her house in the evening when she would return the amount. When the victim Kamaljeet Kaur (PW7) was crossexamined on this aspect she denied being in touch with Sunita during this period of seven years or having any interactions with her during this period. The Investigating Officer at his St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 101 part had concealed these Call Detail Records of both Kamaljeet Kaur and Sunita which have now been placed on record by the accused Sunita and falsify the claims of the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur. From the analysis of the Call Detail Records placed on record the following aspects emerge:
➢ That on 14.9.2013 at 11:28:10 the accused Sunita made a call to Kamaljeet Kaur which call lasted for only three seconds meaning thereby that the call did not get through.
➢ That on 14.9.2013 at 11:29:58 the accused Sunita made a call to Kamaljeet Kaur which call lasted for only nineteen seconds. ➢ That on 14.9.2013 at 11:52:43 the victim Kamaljeet Kaur made a call to the accused Sunita which call lasted for One Hundred Ninety Eight seconds showing that there was a long conversation between the two. (This call lends credibility to version of accused Sunita. Complainant Kamaljeet in her testimony has denied being in touch with Sunita prior to the incident anytime during the last seven years which is factually incorrect and the Call Details as aforesaid confirms their calls and the fact that they were in touch with each other). (101) The electronic evidence demolishes the prosecution version that Sunita had come to the house of the victim of her own but confirms the version of the accused that she received a call from Kamaljeet on which she went to the house of the complainant. This electronic evidence which has been brought on record by the accused gives a twist to the prosecution version and totally demolishes the prosecution version and not only St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 102 confirms the presence of Sunita at the spot as admitted by her but also confirms that she and Kamaljeet were in touch with each other on phone and she had received a call on her mobile phone from the mobile phone of Kamaljeet Kaur and had gone to the house of the complainant only thereafter in the evening being called by her.
Complainant is the sole eye witness - Two versions emerge/ What could have happened and Charges established:
(102) The case of the prosecution that the accused Sunita was working as a part time maid in the house of the complainant/ victim Kamaljeet Kaur and on the date of incident i.e. 14.9.2013 the accused went to the house of the victim and asked her for employment but she (Kamaljeet Kaur) refused pursuant to which the accused Sunita assaulted Kamaljeet Kaur with a Darant which she had brought with her with the intention to cause her death thereby resulting into Simple and Superficial injuries on the back of her neck and hand. In order to prove its case the prosecution has placed its reliance on the testimonies of the complainant/ victim Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur (PW7), Neelam (PW9) and Rita (PW11) who are her neighbours and have good relations with her. (103) Since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the testimonies of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur, Neelam and Rita, hence it is necessary for this Court to first determine whether what they have deposed is reliable and truthful. It is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 103 testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court (Courts of Act). It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story;
consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978).
(104) It is a matter of common knowledge that ordinarily witnesses are either not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 104 by Courts for manifold reasons and one of the reasons is that they do not have courage to depose against habitual criminal apprehending threats to their life. A rustic or an illiterate witness may not be able to withstand the test of cross examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful crossexaminer and at times under the stress of crossexamination, certain answers are snatched from him. When such a person is faced with an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, hence minor discrepancies have to be ignored. Instances are not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. (Ref. Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 1965).
(105) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case coming first to the testimony of the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur (PW7) the relevant portion of the same is as under:
"....... I am working as UDC in Ministry of Women and Child Development, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi. On 14th September 2013 the accused Sunita who was working as Maid in my house about 7 years back had come to my house at about 4 p.m. and asked me for employment . She stayed in my house for about 1 hour and thereafter she asked me to give her old clothes. Thereafter I went on the first floor to bring the old clothes from the almirah . She also followed me upto first floor while I was taking out the old clothes from almirah , she was standing behind me . She touched my head and said that St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 105 my hairs have gone "mere baalo per hath laga kar kaha aapke baal ud gai"and within a second assaulted on me with a "Darant" (an instrument for cutting the saag) from behind as a result of which I sustained injury on my neck on back side, I shocked and when I saved my neck from my hand , I sustained injuries my left hand also. She had worked with me earlier about 7 years back for about 5/6 months . I caught hold of her and taken Darant from her hand and threw the same from the balcony of the first floor . I raised an alarm from the balcony by saying "maar diya, maar diya". I at once came out from the house . My neighbour Rita residence of D15/40 came at once, who caught Sunita while she was running away. The accused Sunita had attempted me with Darant to kill me . The PCR came to the spot . Mrs. Rita took me to Ambedkar Hospital, local police also came to the spot who also accompanied me to the hospital. My statement was recorded by the IO which is Ex.PW7/A bearing my signatures at point A. My blood stained clothes were taken by the Doctor....."
(106) In her crossexamination Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur has stated that the accused Sunita was working in her house as Maid about seven years ago and prior to this incident the accused Sunita had come to her house once i.e. one month before the incident. According to her during the period of seven years Sunita had never contacted her at any point time. She has further stated that till the time Sunita was employed with her, she had no problems with her at any point of time. The complainant/ victim Kamaljeet Kaur has admitted that she did not show the old clothes to the St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 106 police which she had taken out from the almirah for giving the same to the accused nor she had shown the almirah to the police. She has further explained that Sunita did not snatch anything from her and had not taken anything from her almirah. According to the victim, her statement was recorded at the first time in the hospital where threefour police officials were present but she does not recollect if any lady police was also present there.
(107) Coming now to the testimony of Smt. Neelam (PW9) the relevant portion of the same is as under:
"........ I am housewife and resides at the aforesaid address. Mrs. Kamaljeet is residing at D15/41, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi.On 14.09.2013 at about 5 p.m. I was sitting in my drawing room I heard a shout from the nearby house as "bachao bachao". On hearing this I came outside and found that Mrs. Kamaljeet Kaur was making noise from the balcony of first floor of her house. Rita ji resident of D15/40 also came out of her house and found caught hold the accused Sunita. Rita was also making alarm and saying that "isko pakdo kabu main nahi aa rahi". The name of the lady caught hold by Rita was known as Sunita, who was earlier working as maid in the house of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur. Some person made a call at 100 number. PCR came at the spot. Mrs. Rita took Kamaljeet Kaur to hospital. The local police also came at the spot, who also accompanied the PCR to the hospital. One lady Ct. also came at the spot alongwith the local police, the accused Sunita was handedover to Lady Ct. The police officials came at the spot again and did their writing work. The crime team also came to the St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 107 spot . The police had taken Darant , one handkerchief, one bag , broken spaces and sealed the same and taken into possession. Darant was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A bearing my signatures at point A. The pullanda containing handkerchief was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B bearing my signatures at point A. The police had also taken the blood of injured with the help of cotton which was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/C bearing my signatures at point A. The bag pertaining to accused Sunita was also taken into possession by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/D bearing my signatures at point A. The broken spectacles were sealed by the IO and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/E. The police inspect the spot and prepared the site plan ExPW9/F bearing my signatures at point A. The accused Sunita was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW9/G bearing my signatures at point A. Her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/H bearing my signatures at point A. The accused Sunita made her disclosure statement Ex.PW9/I bearing my signatures at point A....."
(108) In her crossexamination, Smt. Neelam has stated that when she reached the house of Kamlajeet, Rita was already present there and she was the one who had caught hold of accused Sunita. According to the witness, at that time Sunita was totally silent and did not exhibit any kind of feelings and she found her behaviour very strange and thought that she was a mental case because the manner in which she was looking devoid of any feeling and her expressions were not normal. She has St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 108 further stated that Sunita was saying that the Darant was lying on the almirah and fell down on the head of Kamaljeet. She has admitted that she herself did not see the actual incident and that Sunita did not offer any resistance and was cooperating with the investigations throughout. She has further admitted that she did not see the Darant in the hand of Sunita. She has specifically stated that one lady police officer had come to the spot in her presence and they all had left by around 8:30 PM. (109) Coming next to the testimony of Ms. Rita (PW11) the relevant portion of the same is as under:
"........ I am running a play school in my house . I know Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur as she resides at D15/41, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi alone. On 14.09.2013 at about 5 p.m. I was present in my house on ground floor. I heard the cry of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur, she was saying " mar diya mar diya" from the balcony of her first floor. I at once came out from the house and found that one lady was escaping from the house of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur. I over powered her, I found the blood and one Darant having blood stains was also found near the main gate. I got suspicion and I thought that this is the lady who might have assaulted Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur. I also raised an alarm, on this one Smt. Neelam, R/o D15/56 also came there. The name of the lady caught hold by me was known as Sunita. My daughter aged about 18 years called the PCR by dialing 100 number. PCR came at the spot. Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur sustained injury on the back side of her neck and on the wrist of left hand. The blood was found oozing out. The PCR took the injured to the hospital . I also accompanied them. I knew Sunita as she was St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 109 working with Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur as maid many years ago. My statement was recorded by the IO....."
(110) In her crossexamination the witness Ms. Rita has similarly stated that Sunita was empty handed at the time when she saw her for the first time on the day of incident. According to her, at that time Sunita was saying that she did not do anything (bharjai ji maine nahi mara). She also admits that the Darant was lying on the almirah and fell down on the head of Kamaljeet. She has also admitted that since Kamaljeet was raising a hue and cry that she was hit by Sunita hence they thought she had been injured by Sunita. The witness Ms. Rita has further stated admitted that she did not see the actual incident. She has also stated that Sunita did not offer any resistance and was cooperating with the investigations throughout. According to her, the darant fell down from the first floor in her presence and it caught her attention when she heard the noise of something falling and at that time Sunita was coming down from the staircase and was almost near the gate. The witness has further stated that the darant was found lying in the gallery near the gate. She has admitted that she did not see the darant in the hand of Sunita. (111) A combined reading of testimonies of all the three witnesses would show that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimony of sole witness i.e. the victim Kamlajeet Kaur herself who is the only eye witness whereas all other witnesses are witnesses of hearsay and St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 110 had deposed on the basis of what had been told to them by Kamaljeet Kaur (hearsay). They had also seen Sunita coming out of the house but since Kamaljeet Kaur was raising an alarm and implicating Sunita, they assumed that Sunita had hit Kamaljeet. Both Neelam and Rita have confirmed that the accused Sunita was not aggressive at the time they caught her and was repeatedly telling them that she was innocent and had not done anything and that the Darant which was lying on the top of the iron Almirah had fallen on Kamaljeet Kaur. They both admit that Sunita made no attempt to flee or escape and was totally cooperative. Rather, Neelam has informed the Court that she found Sunita unusually quiet and felt that she was not normal. (112) Allegations have also been made by the accused Sunita that she had been depositing her savings with Kamaljeet which had accumulated upto Rupees Fifty Thousand and she was now wanting a return the same which Kamaljeet Kaur was postponing on one ground or the other. It is her defence that even on the date of incident she had gone to the house of the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur for return of the amount as her son was unwell and she herself required money for her eye treatment i.e. cataract operation being unable to see properly when the alleged incident took place. (113) I have carefully analysed the testimony of Kamaljeet Kaur and the version put forth by her. She is the injured and sole witness to the incident. The case before this Court is now based upon the sole testimony of Kamaljeet Kaur and the version given by her visavis the version given by the accused. In so far as the version given by Kamaljeet Kaur is St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 111 concerned, as already discussed both the medical and forensic evidence does not support her version. Rather, the medical evidence and opinion rules out use of force by second party or that the injury was caused due to Darant the alleged weapon of offence. It further confirms that the injury was possible due to a fall. The electronic record also shakes the credibility of this witness/ victim Kamaljeet Kaur who claims that she knew Sunita because Sunita was employed with her seven years ago and suddenly Sunita came to her on the date of incident and attacked her because she refused employment. The Call Detail Records of Kamaljeet Kaur and Sunita confirm two calls between them and also confirms the version given by the accused Sunita that initially she had made two calls to Kamaljeet Kaur and later Kamaljeet Kaur made a call to her on her mobile phone and called her. What is the reason? Why Kamaljeet Kaur has concealed these facts? It is this conduct of Kamaljeet Kaur which makes me feel that there is much more than meets the eye.
(114) In this background the claims of Kamaljeet Kaur that it was the accused Sunita who had brought a Darant and had hit the same on her head which does not seem probable. The medical evidence does not conclusively establish the injuries to be caused by Darant, rather according to Dr. Vijay Dhankar the said injuries which are Superficial and Simple in nature are possible on account of accidental fall. The circumstantial evidence in the form of testimonies of Ms. Neelam (PW9) and Ms. Rita (PW11) also does not confirm her version. Both Smt. Neelan (PW9) and Ms. Rita (PW11) St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 112 have also stated that hey are not eye witnesses to the incident and have confirmed that it was Kamaljeet Kaur who raised a hue a cry that she was assaulted by Sunita. They have stated that the accused Sunita made no attempts to flee away from the spot and had been repeated telling them that she was innocent but nobody was listening to her. Further, the electronic evidence also does not confirm the version of Kamaljeet, rather if confirms the version given by the accused Sunita. The victim Kamaljeet Kaur had in her crossexamination denied that she had made any call to the accused Sunita but the electronic evidence shows that on 14.9.2013 at 11:52:43 the victim Kamaljeet Kaur made a call to the accused Sunita which call lasted for One Hundred Ninety Eight seconds showing that there was a long conversation between them.
(115) The medical record of accused Sunita obtained from the Jail Hospital confirms the defence of the accused Sunita that she was virtually blind on account of cataract. The medical record obtained from the Jail Hospital confirms that at the time of the incident she was suffering from advance stage of cataract of both the eyes which affected her vision, pursuant to which she was operated in the month of December 2013 and remained admitted in the hospital for this treatment during the period 8.10.2013 to 12.10.2013 (for operation of the right eye) and from 21.12.2013 to 24.12.2013 (for operation of left eye). Specific suggestion in this regard has been made to Kamaljeet Kaur in her crossexamination which she has denied. This medical record lends credence to the version given by the St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 113 accused Sunita rather than the version of the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur. (116) The Addl. Public Prosecutor also placed his reliance on the testimony of Shamim (PW12) who is running a shop of sale of knives and sharpen them. He has alleged that one day prior to the incident the accused Sunita had come to his shop and got the Darant sharpen from him on the pretext that she has to cut the meat with the same. This testimony of Shamim (PW12) does not find any independent corroboration from any other source and is vague in respect of time there being no independent confirmation from the circumstantial and forensic evidence or any documentary record in the form of receipt etc. for the work done by him. Even otherwise, this Court has observed that the photographs Ex.PW23/CX1, Ex.PW23/CX2, Ex.PW23/CX3 and Ex.PW23/CX4 showing the darant lying at the spot resemble the darant Ex.P6 but there is no rust on the said darant produced in the court which is visible in the photograph in the portion encircled X, thereby establishing that it was sharpened much later.
(117) Under these circumstances, two views are possible one which favours the accused Sunita and it is a settled law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted [Ref.: Bhagwan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of MP reported in 2002 (4) SCC 85; State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram reported in 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran reported in 2007 (3) St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 114 SCC 755].
(118) Further, in State of Maharashtra Vs. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan & Ors, Cri. Appeal No. 2529 of 2002, decided on 24.10.2008 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
".... If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record then one favourable to the accused ought not be disturbed...."
(119) Also in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Munni Ram & Ors. reported in 2010 (12) JT 180 it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the defence of the respondents was a cross version of the incident and it could not be discarded and it was further observed that:
".....if two views are possible on the evidence adduced, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused is normally to be adopted......"
(120) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, in so far as the version given by the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur is concerned, the same has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. However, firstly it is writ large from the statement of accused Sunita under Section 313 Cr.P.C. duly supported by the medical and forensic evidence and also from the electronic evidence which has come on record that the accused Sunita does not dispute her presence at the spot and rather admits the same. Secondly the electronic record confirms that the accused had gone to the St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 115 spot on the calling of Kamaljeet Kaur. Thirdly the medical evidence confirms that not only Kamaljeet Kaur was injured but the accused Sunita had also sustained injuries. Rather, as pet the medical record the injuries on the person of Kamaljeet Kaur was not on account of use of Darant but are possible on account o accidental fall and do not confirm the use of force by second party. Thirdly the version given by the accused is equally possible that she had gone to the house of Kamaljeet Kaur pursuant to which there was a dispute between them. In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused Sunita admits that there was a verbal altercation between her and the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur who was refusing to return the money which she had entrusted to her (Kamaljeet Kaur) and when she insisted upon the same on the ground that her son was ill and she required money for his medical treatment on which she was scolded and told that her son would not die without treatment. She claims that she was even beaten by two ladies and her hair were pulled. The medical record of Sunita confirms Simple injuries/ abrasion on her forehead, again lending credence to the version given by her. Lastly I may observe that the accused Sunita is much younger in age to Kamaljeet Kaur. While the accused Sunita is hardly 3536 years of age whereas Kamaljeet is 56 years of age and is suffering from multiple ailments and is receiving treatment from various ailment including Cancer and hence under the given circumstances there is every possibility that in the hustle and physical altercation which followed the verbal altercation as admitted by the accused Sunita injuries were received by both Sunita and St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 116 Kamaljeet Kaur and more by Kamaljeet Kaur who appears to have fallen down on her back. In so far as the recovery of Darant from the spot is concerned, nobody is disputing the presence of Darant at the spot but the use of the same has not been proved and conclusively established. Except for the claims made by Kamaljeet Kaur neither Rita nor Neelam saw the darant in her hand or the accused inflicting injuries on Kamaljeet Kaur with the same nor the medical evidence confirms its use.
(121) It is the case of the accused herself that the Darant was lying on the top of almirah and it is only natural that in case if there was a physical altercation i.e. Hathapai there is every possibility of the same having fallen down from the top of the almirah. It is also evident from the testimonies of Smt. Neelam and Rita that as soon as they all caught hold of Sunita at the spot she (Sunita) repeatedly told them that the Darant which was kept on the top of almirah had fallen down, which appears to be possible since the almirah in question is an iron almirah and in case of any hustle the possibility of the almirah being shaken and the darant having fallen down in the process cannot be ruled out. Hence, under the given circumstances and keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, I hold that the provisions of Section 307 Indian Penal Code do not stand conclusively established. However, on the basis of the evidence which has come on record i.e. ocular, medical, forensic, circumstantial and electronic and particularly in view of the admissions made by the accused Sunita in her own statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. I hold her guilty of the lesser St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 117 offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code.
Allegations of custodial violence during the detention of the accused Sunita in the Police Station South Rohini during the intervening night of 1415.9.2013:
(122) During the course of trial this issue relating to the Custodial Violence inflicted upon the accused Sunita as alleged by her during her detention in the Police Station South Rohini in the intervening night of 1415.9.2013, came up for consideration before this Court. This issue of Custodial Violence is an issue related to Human Rights and Statutory Rights violation and being a separate cause of action not connected to the merits of the allegations involved in the present case, statement of the accused Sunita was recorded and after formulating a primafacie view on the basis of the material which had come on record in the form of the statements of the accused Sunita and the lady police officers including W/Ct. Balkesh, W/SI Khushboo, public witnesses Ms. Neelam, Ms. Rita and after considering the other documentary record, the allegations made by the accused against the police officers being incriminating and disclosing the commission of cognizable offence, certain directions were issued on 7.3.2014 copy of which order was sent to the Ld. District Judge, Ld. CMM and Commissioner of Police, Delhi and later pursuant to proceedings dated 24.3.2014 a report dated 11.4.2014 has been sent to the Hon'ble Chief Justice Delhi High Court for necessary action. St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 118
(123) It is also reported that in pursuance to the information sent to the Ld. CMM an FIR No. 220/2014 Police Station Maurya Enclave under Sections 376D/ 376 (2) (a)/ 354/ 354A/354B/506/34 Indian Penal Code has been registered and as per the information received the said proceedings are under consideration of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. MC No. 1757/2014 & Crl. M.A. No. 5872/2014 which is listed before the Delhi High Court on 10.7.2014 wherein this order and all subsequent proceedings have been stayed till 10.7.2014. This being the background, I hereby direct that any findings of this Court which touch upon the issues relating to the challenge of the order passed by this court relating to this separate cause of action as regards Custodial Violence or subsequent proceedings or any other issue which may be so under the challenge before the Delhi High Court shall be subject to the orders and directions so passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Crl. MC No. 1757/2014 & Crl. M.A. No. 5872/2014.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(124) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 119
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(125) Applying the above principles of law to the present case, from the evidence on record the following aspects stand established:
➢ That the accused Sunita a young widow of about 3536 years was working as Domestic Help at the house of the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur i.e. D15/41, Sector3, Rohini about seven years ago. ➢ That on 14.9.2013 at 11:28:10 the accused Sunita made a call to Kamaljeet Kaur which call lasted for only three seconds establishing that the call did not get through.
➢ That on 14.9.2013 at 11:29:58 the accused Sunita made a call to Kamaljeet Kaur which call lasted for nineteen seconds. ➢ That on 14.9.2013 at 11:52:43 the victim Kamaljeet Kaur made a call to the accused Sunita which call lasted for One Hundred Ninety Eight St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 120 seconds showing that there was a long conversation between the two. (This call lends credibility to version of accused Sunita. Complainant Kamaljeet in her testimony has denied being in touch with Sunita prior to the incident anytime during the last seven years which is factually incorrect and the Call Details as aforesaid confirms their calls and the fact that they were in touch with each other). ➢ That thereafter Sunita went to the house of the complainant where there was a verbal altercation between the accused Sunita and Kamaljeet Kaur followed by a physical altercation Hathapai. ➢ That both the accused Sunita and the complainant received injuries, which Sunita received an abrasion on her forehead (Simple in nature) whereas Kamaljeet Kaur received Simple and Superficial injuries on the backside of her neck and hand.
(126) However, it does not stand established that the accused Sunita had attacked Kamaljeet Kaur with a darant with the intention to cause her death. The Medical Evidence on record does not help the prosecution case in any manner. It not only establishes that even the accused Sunita had received Simple injuries in the incident but also that the Simple and Superficial injuries (two in number) present on the backside of the body of the complainant and could not be caused by the Darant and are possible on account of accidental fall ruling out use of force be second party. It lends credence to the defence version and establishes that the injuries caused are St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 121 on account of accidental fall and are only superficial and Simple in nature.
Further, the medical record of the accused Sunita establishes that at the time of incident she was unable to see properly, suffering from Cataract in both the eyes. The forensic evidence also does not help the prosecution in any manner not only because the finger prints/ measurements of the accused have been taken in grossviolation of Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act but also because the accused Sunita herself does not dispute her presence at the spot.
(127) This being the background, I hereby hold that the provisions of Section 307 Indian Penal Code do not stand conclusively established. However, on the basis of the evidence which has come on record i.e. ocular, medical, forensic, circumstantial and electronic and particularly in view of the admissions made by the accused Sunita in her own statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. I hereby hold her guilty of the lesser offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code for which she is accordingly convicted. (128) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 7.7.2014.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 3.7.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 122
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 202/2013 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0368532013 State Vs. Sunita W/o Late Sh. Niranjan R/o E291, Gali No.6, Mangol Puri, Delhi (Convicted) FIR No.: 265/2013 Police Station: South Rohini Under Section: 307 Indian Penal Code Date of Conviction: 3.7.2014 Arguments heard on: 7.7.2014 Date of Sentence: 7.7.2014 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Tofeeq Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Sunita in Judicial Custody with Ms. Neelam Singh Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per allegations on 14.9.2013 at about 5:00 PM at first floor, House No. D15/41, Sector3, Rohini the accused Sunita attacked Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur with a darant on her neck with such intention or knowledge St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 123 and under such circumstances that if by that act she caused the death of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur she would be guilty of murder.
However, on the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses i.e. Kamaljeet Kaur and her neighbours Smt. Neelam and Rita and also on the basis of medical, forensic, electronic and other circumstantial evidence on record this Court has vide a detail judgment dated 3.7.2014 held the accused Sunita guilty of the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code.
Vide the detail judgment this Court has observed that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove that the accused Sunita a young widow of about 3536 years was working as Domestic Help at the house of the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur i.e. D15/41, Sector3, Rohini about seven years ago; that on 14.9.2013 at 11:28:10 the accused Sunita made a call to Kamaljeet Kaur which call lasted for only three seconds establishing that the call did not get through; that on 14.9.2013 at 11:29:58 the accused Sunita made a call to Kamaljeet Kaur which call lasted for nineteen seconds; that on 14.9.2013 at 11:52:43 the victim Kamaljeet Kaur made a call to the accused Sunita which call lasted for One Hundred Ninety Eight seconds showing that there was a long conversation between the two. (This call lends credibility to version of accused Sunita. Complainant Kamaljeet in her testimony has denied being in touch with Sunita prior to the incident anytime during the last seven years which is factually incorrect and the Call Details as aforesaid confirms their calls and the fact that they St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 124 were in touch with each other); that thereafter Sunita went to the house of the complainant where there was a verbal altercation between the accused Sunita and Kamaljeet Kaur followed by a physical altercation Hathapai; that both the accused Sunita and the complainant received injuries, which Sunita received an abrasion on her forehead (Simple in nature) whereas Kamaljeet Kaur received Simple and Superficial injuries on the backside of her neck and hand.
However, the prosecution has not been able to establish that the accused Sunita had attacked Kamaljeet Kaur with a darant with the intention to cause her death. It has been observed by this Court that the Medical Evidence on record does not help the prosecution case in any manner and it not only established that even the accused Sunita had received Simple injuries in the incident but also that the Simple and Superficial injuries (two in number) present on the backside of the body of the complainant and could not be caused by the Darant and are possible on account of accidental fall ruling out use of force be second party. The Medical Evidence lend credence to the defence version and established that the injuries caused are on account of accidental fall and are only superficial and Simple in nature. Further, the medical record of the accused Sunita established that at the time of incident she was unable to see properly, suffering from Cataract in both the eyes. It has also been observed by this Court that the forensic evidence did not help the prosecution in any manner not only because the finger prints/ measurements of the accused have been St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 125 taken in grossviolation of Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act being inadmissible in evidence but also because the accused Sunita herself does not dispute her presence at the spot.
This being the background, it has been held by this Court that the provisions of Section 307 Indian Penal Code do not stand conclusively established. However, on the basis of the evidence which has come on record i.e. ocular, medical, forensic, circumstantial and electronic and particularly in view of the admissions made by the accused Sunita in her own statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused Sunita has been held guilty of the lesser offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code for which she has been accordingly convicted.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Sunita is stated to be aged about 36 years of age. She is a widow having two children i.e. one married daughter and one son who is residing along with his maternal grandmother i.e. Nani. She is totally illiterate and prior to her arrest the convict Sunita used to earn her livelihood by working as Maid.
Ld. Legal Aid Counsel/ Amicus Curiae has vehemently argued that the convict Sunita is herself a victim of circumstances. She has pointed out that the complainant Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur is a UDC in Ministry of Women and Child Development and has used her influence and falsely implicated the convict in this case. She has argued that the convict had already suffered a lot on account of aggravated provisions being invoked and had been subjected to Custodial Violence during detention in police lockup St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 126 in the Police Station South Rohini. She has further argued that the convict is a widow having no financial and social support since her daughter has been married and her son is residing with his nani i.e. mother of the convict. She has also argued the convict Sunita is in Judicial Custody since 14.9.2013. She prays that a lenient view be taken against the convict Sunita.
I have considered the submissions made before me. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extent to one thousand rupees, or with both. The convict Sunita is a widow aged about 36 years and has already remained in judicial incarceration for Nine Months and Twenty Three days. Therefore, a lenient view is taken against the convict Sunita who is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Months for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by her.
The convict is informed that she has a right to prefer an appeal against the judgment. She has been apprised that in case she cannot afford to engage an advocate, she can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 127
Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to the convict free of costs and one copy of sentence be attached with her jail warrants.
Before ending it is clarified that since the issues and allegations relating to the Custodial Violence and registration of subsequent FIR against police officers is already under active consideration of the Hon'ble High Court in Crl. MC No. 1757/2014 & Crl. M.A. No. 5872/2014 now listed for 10.7.2014 wherein the order regarding the aforesaid aspect and allegations and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same have been stayed till 10.7.2014, hence any findings/ observations made by this Court touching upon the said aspects in any manner shall be subject to the outcome of the said petition pending before the Delhi High Court and directions if any.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 7.7.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Sunita, FIR No. 265/2013, PS South Rohini Page No. 128