Delhi District Court
State vs . : Sanjay Kumar Sood on 24 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC - 01) (SOUTH), SAKET,
NEW DELHI
SC No. : 6921/2016
FIR No. : 467/2013
PS : Mehrauli
State Vs. : Sanjay Kumar Sood
JUDGMENT
(a) Name of complainant : Mr.Satpal
(b) Name, parentage & : (1) Sanjay Kumar Sood
address of accused(s) S/o Sh.Munshi Lal
R/o H.No.542, Khasra No.322,
Vill. Neb Sarai, New Delhi
Permanent Address
Vill. Aarthal, PO Rajpura,
PS Dhanari, Tehsil Gunour,
Distt. Badayun, U.P.
(c) Offence complained off : 302/304B IPC
(d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(e) Final order : Acquitted
(f) Date of such order : 24.02.2023
Date of Institution : 09.10.2013
Final arguments heard : 27.01.2023
Date of Judgment : 24.02.2023
BRIEF FACTS :
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.07.2013 at about 9.00 p.m. at H.No.340, Near Gujjar Tube-well, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi accused Sanjay FIR No 467 /2013 PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.1 of 19 Kumar Sood gave blows with an iron tawa (pan) on the head of his wife Maya, due to which she died in a hospital on 12.07.2013. It is also alleged that accused Sanjay also used to harass his wife for dowry and also used to subject her to cruelty. Consequently, Charge-sheet for the offence U/s 302/304B IPC was filed against accused Sanjay Kumar Sood.
After the compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, matter was committed to the Court of Sessions by Ld. MM vide order dated 14.10.2013.
Charge:-
2. On the basis of material placed on record by the prosecution, charge was framed against accused Sanjay Kumar Sood for the offences punishable under Section U/s 302/304B IPC passed by Ld.Predecessor, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence :-
3. In order to bring home the guilt of accused persons, prosecution examined twenty nine witnesses in the prosecution evidence i.e. PW1 Mr.Bir Singh (Public witness), PW2 Mr.Mahesh Bhadana (Land lord of Ashok, brother of accused Sanjay), PW3 Mr.Prabhash Kumar (public witness), PW7 Satpal (Complainant/Father of deceased), PW8 Om Pal (public witness), PW9 Jagga (brother of deceased), PW11 Smt.Omwati (Relative of deceased), PW16 Mr.Ajit Singh, PW18 Dr.Prakash Ranjan Mishra (to prove the MLC of deceased Maya), PW25 Dr.Hans Raj (to prove the postmortem report), PW26 Dr.Naresh Kumar (to prove the FSL report), PW27 Mr.Amit Rawat (to prove the FSL report), PW29 Mr.Rajesh Kumar Bhardwaj (to prove the inquest FIR No 467 /2013 PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.2 of 19 proceedings) and police witnesses i.e. PW4 HC Ved Pal, PW5 Ct.Jaivir Singh, PW6 SI Anoop Kumar Singh, PW10 HC Arvind Kumar, PW12 ASI Rajesh Kadian, PW13 ASI Vinay Kumar, PW14 Ct.Ankit, PW15 Ct.Prakash, PW17 HC Hemant, PW19 Ct.Vikas Kumar, PW20 WHC Anjana, PW21 Retired ASI Udai Singh, PW22 Ct.Ravinder, PW23 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, PW24 Inspector Dalip Kumar and PW28 SI Gopal Singh.
Summary of prosecution evidence :-
4. In the prosecution evidence, prosecution examined Mr.Satpal as PW7. PW7 Satpal, father of the deceased, deposed that his daughter Maya was married to accused Sanjay Kumar Sood and was living at her matrimonial home at Maidan Garhi. PW7 Satpal further deposed that he had gone to the matrimonial house of his daughter Maya, on the occasion of marriage of the sister of accused Sanjay and there, he had also met Mr.Ashok (brother-in-law of deceased Maya). He further deposed that at about 5-5.30 p.m., Ashok asked PW7 Satpal to accompany him to the market to buy some articles for the marriage of his sister and at that time his daughter Maya was alone in the house. He further stated that at about 8/8.30 p.m., when he returned from the market, he saw that his daughter Maya was lying in an injured condition, in a pool of blood on the floor. He further testified that on seeing the condition of his daughter, he raised an alarm and someone from the persons who had gathered there, called the police. He further deposed that the police took deceased Maya and him to AIIMS Trauma Centre. He further stated that at that time, his daughter was unconscious. As per his testimony, police made enquiries from him and he narrated the said facts to the police. He further stated that police obtained thumb impression on the said statement. His further FIR No 467 /2013 PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.3 of 19 statement given to the police was placed on record as Ex.PW7/A. He, however, deposed that he had not stated any fact to the police as to how his daughter had sustained injuries.
5. The said witness was however, cross-examined by Ld.Addl. PP as he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police. In his cross-
examination conducted by Ld.Addl. PP, PW7 Satpal neither admitted nor denied the suggestion that he had gone to the house of his daughter on 11.07.2013. He, however, denied the suggestion that he had told the police that at about 9.00 p.m. when he had returned to the house of Ashok at H.No.340, Maidangarhi and saw his daughter in an injured condition, on inquiring from her as to how she had sustained injuries, she had told him that she was beaten up by her husband i.e. accused Sanjay and that after beating her, he had fled away from the spot. PW7 Satpal was, therefore, confronted with his statement Ex.PW7/A where it was so recorded. PW7 Satpal further denied the suggestion that on 13.07.2013 Sh.Rajesh Kumar Bhardwaj, SDM, Saket had also made enquiries from him about the death of his daughter Maya or that he had told the SDM that the accused used to beat his daughter Maya and had compelled her to bring money from her parents. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW7/PX where it was so recorded. PW7 Satpal deposed that he could not tell if statement Ex.PW7/PX bore his signatures. Ld.Counsel for accused, however, did not cross-examine the witness despite opportunity being given.
6. PW2 Mr.Mahesh Bhadana deposed that on 11.07.2013 at about 9-9.30 p.m., he heard voice of his tenant Prabhas Kumar Thakur from outside his house, who told him that a quarrel was going on in the house of his other tenant Ashok. He FIR No 467 /2013 PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.4 of 19 further deposed that he reached at the house of his tenant Ashok and he saw that PW7 Satpal (father of deceased namely Maya) was present and when he went inside the room, he saw that one lady was lying in a pool of blood. Thereafter, he took the mobile phone of PW3 Prabhas Thakur and called at 100 number. PW2 Mahesh Bhadana further deposed that on 13.07.2013, IO/SI Gopal Singh alongwith Crime team reached at the spot and IO/SI Gopal Singh opened the lock of the room and Crime team inspected the spot and IO/SI Gopal Singh seized the 'Chunni' from the place of occurrence alongwith blood stained 'earth control', one quarter bottle of liquor (having little quantity of liquor in it) and few strands of hair from the place of incident vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that IO prepared the site plan of the spot and also seized one iron Tawa, but he did not recollect the date when the site plan and seizure memo of iron Tawa were prepared. Ld.Addl. PP, therefore, sought permission of the Court to put leading questions to the witness on some material aspects, and the same was allowed. In response to the same, PW2 Mahesh Bhadana deposed that he came to know from the IO about the death of the said lady and the name of the said lady (deceased) was Maya, w/o accused Sanjay Kumar. He further deposed that when he reached at the room, PW7 Satpal (father of the deceased Maya) had told him that his daughter had been murdered by his son-in-law Sanjay Kumar. He further deposed that site plan of the spot and seizure memo of iron Tawa were prepared on 12.07.2013 vide Ex.PW2/B & Ex.PW2/C respectively. PW2 Mahesh Bhadana further deposed that due to lapse of time, he could not recollect whether the said iron Tawa was got recovered at the instance of the accused or not. PW2 Mahesh Bhadana denied the suggestion that on 12.07.2013, accused Sanjay had got recovered the said iron Tawa from behind the gas stove, near the TV in the room. PW2 Mahesh Bhadana identified one FIR No 467 /2013 PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.5 of 19 red & green colour chunni (with brown stains), bunch of hair, cotton swab (with brown stains), concrete material i.e. blood-stained earth, one tumbler were also seized and produced before the Court vide Ex.PW2/P-1 to Ex.PW2/P-5.
7. In his cross-examination, PW2 Mahesh Bhadana deposed that he was residing at H.No.330, whereas his tenant Ashok used to reside at H.No.340 and the distance between the said houses was about 40-50 paces. He further deposed that accused Sanjay was not present at the place of occurrence, when he reached there and further stated that accused Sanjay used to reside in Neb Sarai and accused Sanjay was arrested from his room in Neb Sarai.
8. PW3 Prabhas Kumar deposed that he had returned back home from his work at about 9.15 p.m. on 11.07.2013, and when he was changing his clothes, he heard that PW7 Satpal was crying and PW3 Prabhas Kumar, therefore, reached at the room (in Maidan Garhi). He further stated that PW7 Satpal was crying and public persons were also gathered there and owner of the house namely Mahesh Gurjar (PW2) also reached there. PW3 Prabhas Kumar further deposed that he was carrying his mobile phone and (PW2) Mahesh Gurjar took his mobile phone and informed the police at 100 number. He further deposed that police came at the spot and took (deceased lady) Maya to the hospital in PCR Van alongwith PW7 Satpal. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was not carrying any mobile phone on that day, or that no such phone was taken from him from (PW2) Mahesh Gurjar or that police was not informed.
FIR No 467 /2013PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.6 of 19
9. PW1 Mr.Bir Singh PW1 Mr.Bir Singh had deposed that on 11.07.2013, two police officials from PS Neb Sarai had visited his house at house no.165, Khasra No.322, Prajapati Mohallah, Neb Sarai and apprehended accused Sanjay Kumar Sood from the room, which he had given on rent to him. Accused chose not to cross-examine the witness despite opportunity being given.
10.PW8 Ompal deposed that his brother i.e. accused Sanjay had married deceased Maya and was residing alongwith his wife at Maidan Garhi. He further deposed that the police had come to his house to make inquiries about his brother and that only then he came to know that his brother had committed the murder of his wife and had been arrested by the police. Ld.Addl. PP, however, sought permission of the Court to cross-examine the witness as he was resiling from his earlier statement. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld.Addl. PP, PW8 Ompal denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the police or that he had told the police that on 11.07.2013 at about 5.30-6.00 p.m. his brother i.e. accused Sanjay had come to his house in a drunk condition and was also carrying half a bottle of liquor with him. He further denied that they both had consumed liquor together on that day. He also denied the suggestion that he had told the police that he had noticed that his brother i.e. accused Sanjay was disturbed and was angry with his wife Smt.Maya and stated that his wife was under the influence of Ashok and was having illicit relation with him. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW8/PX where it was so recorded. He further denied the suggestion that he had told the police that his brother i.e. accused Sanjay remained at his house till 7-7.15 p.m. and thereafter, he left from there. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW8/PX where it was so recorded. He further denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not telling FIR No 467 /2013 PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.7 of 19 the true facts being brother of the accused. Ld.Counsel for accused chose not to cross-examine the said witness despite opportunity being given.
11.PW9 Jagga deposed that he had identified the deadbody of deceased Maya, who was his elder sister in AIIMS Trauma Centre and his statement was recorded on 14.07.2013. Ld.Addl. PP, however, sought permission of the Court to cross-examine the said witness as well, as he was resiling from his earlier statement. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld.Addl. PP, PW9 Jagga denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the police on 14.07.2013 or that he had stated to police that accused Sanjay used to beat his sister Maya and also used to harass her. He also denied the suggestion that on 11.07.2013, he was told by his father (PW7 Satpal) that his sister Maya was severely beaten by her husband Sanjay (accused) and was admitted in the hospital and on 12.07.2013, she had died while she was under treatment. He further denied the suggestion that he had given a statement vide Ex.PW9/PX to the police or that he had signed the same.
12.PW11 Omwati, relative of deceased Maya had deposed that she had identified her body in AIIMS hospital.
13.PW28 SI Gopal Singh deposed that on 11.07.2013, on receiving DD No.51A, he alongwith Ct.Ankit went to the spot at H.No.340, near Gujjar Tubewell, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi where few public persons were present and they came to know that injured lady had been shifted to hospital by his father in the PCR. He further deposed that he had collected the MLC of injured Ms.Maya, however, she was declared unfit for statement by the Doctor on duty. He further deposed that father of the injured lady, PW7 Mr.Satpal, was found there FIR No 467 /2013 PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.8 of 19 and he recorded his statement vide Ex.PW7/A. He further deposed that Complainant/PW7 Satpal had told him that the accused/husband of injured lady was residing at H.No.542, Neb Sarai and that he might flee from his house. He further deposed that Complainant/PW7 Satpal told him that the spot is a rented premises and elder brother of the accused namely Ashok resides there. He further deposed that Ct.Ankit also reached at the spot alongwith accused Sanjay and accused Sanjay was under the influence of alcohol. He prepared ruqua vide Ex.PW28/A and prepared site plan at the instance of complainant/PW7 Satpal vide Ex.PW2/B, accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW28/B. PW28 SI Gopal further testified that he had seized the white T-shirt of accused having blood stains vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/D, mobile phone of the accused was seized vide memo Ex.PW14/C. He had also seized iron tawa having blood stains on it, which was stated to be the weapon of offence, vide Ex.PW2/C. He further deposed that he had also collected the exhibits from the spot i.e. one blood stained chunni/stall, blood stained long hairs, blood samples from the ground and dried blood samples from the ground floor and a blood stained glass and a quarter bottle of liquor of make 8PM and seized the same vide Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that he received information of death of the injured lady and same was shared with the SDM and the statement of PW7 Mr.Satpal (father of the deceased's lady) was recorded by the SDM. He further stated that postmortem of deceased was got conducted after her due identification and after the same, deadbody was handed over to her relatives. He further deposed that thereafter, the investigation was transferred to Inspector Dalip and he handed over the complete case file to IOInsp. Dalip.
FIR No 467 /2013PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.9 of 19
14.In his cross-examination, PW28 SI Gopal deposed that landlord Mahesh Bhadana, eye witness Prabhash Kumar and several other public persons were found present at the spot. He further testified that he remained at the spot for about 20-25 minutes and during his said stay at the spot, Ashok i.e. brother of accused had not arrived there. He further stated that he did not remember if any witness had disclosed to him about seeing accused Sanjay going inside the house, where the incident had taken place, at the relevant time. He further deposed that he had not sent the iron tawa to seek the second opinion about the weapon of offence. He further testified that SDM, Saket had signed the inquest papers vide Ex.PW29/A and Ex.PW29/B (Colly.) in the mortuary at AIIMS Hospital. He further stated that he had not recorded the statement of SDM. He further denied the suggestion that nothing had been recovered from the possession or at the instance of accused.
15.PW29 Mr.Rajesh Kumar, SDM, Saket deposed that he had recorded the statement of Satpal in this case vide Ex.PW7/PX and he had also countersigned the inquest proceedings vide Ex.PW29/A and Ex.PW29/B (Colly.)
16.PW14 Ct.Ankit and PW15 Ct.Prakash supported the testimony of PW SI Gopal Singh.
17.PW24 Inspector Dalip Kumar deposed that further investigation of the case was marked to him from SI Gopal and Section 302 IPC was already added in the present case. He further deposed that he had interrogated the accused and had recorded disclosure statement of accused Sanjay Kumar Sood vide Ex.PW24/A and he had prepared pointing out memo of place of occurrence at FIR No 467 /2013 PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.10 of 19 the instance of accused vide Ex.PW24/B. He further testified that he had collected 8 photographs through SI Gopal and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/C. The photographs were placed on record as Ex.PW5/A1 to A-8. He further deposed that he had collected PM report of deceased and PCR Form, CAF & CDR of mobile phone bearing number 9891998424, which was registered in the name of one Sompal, but the same was used by accused Sanjay Kumar Sood. He further stated that he had also recorded the statement of Mr.Ompal, brother of accused. He further deposed that he had got prepared the seizure memo of PCR form vide Ex.PW17/A, and had prepared the scaled site plan from the draftsman. He further deposed that he had filed the charge- sheet against the accused under Section 302/304B IPC without FSL result. He collected the FSL result and filed an application for filing of FSL report and subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence and injury, in the Court vide Ex.PW24/D and Ex.PW24/E and the FSL report, serological analysis report and viscera report were placed on record as Ex.PW24/F, Ex.PW24/G & Ex.PW24/H respectively.
18.In his cross-examination, PW24 Inspector Dalip deposed that disclosure statement was recorded in the PS Mehrauli in the presence of Ct.Jai Bhagwan and SI Gopal Singh. He further deposed that no public witness had joined the investigation at the time of recording of disclosure statement of accused. He had denied the suggestion that accused had not given the disclosure statement voluntarily or that accused had not pointed out any place of occurrence. He further denied the suggestion that the witness Mahesh Bhadana and Prabhas Kumar were planted witnesses. He further denied the suggestion that CDR and photographs were manipulated.
FIR No 467 /2013PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.11 of 19
19.The scene of crime report was placed on record as Ex.PW6/A. Photographs of the place of incident placed on record as Ex.PW 5/A-1 to Ex.PW5/A-8 alongwith its negatives.
20.The present FIR alongwith endorsement on the ruqua was placed on record as Ex.PW10/A & Ex.PW10/B, Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act was placed on record as Ex.PW10/C, DD No.51A and DD No.68B were placed on record as Ex.PW12/A & Ex.PW12/B, DD No.37A regarding death of deceased Maya was placed on record as Ex.PW13/A, attested copy of CAF of mobile no.9891998424 was placed on record as Ex.PW16/A, attested copy of voter ID was placed on record as Ex.PW16/B, CDR of the mobile phone no.9891998424 for the period 01.07.2013 to 15.07.2013 was placed on record as Ex.PW16/C and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act was placed on record as Ex.PW16/D, cell ID chart of said mobile was placed on record as Ex.PW16/E, MLC of deceased Maya dated 11.07.2013 was placed on record vide Ex.PW18/A, Inquest proceedings of deceased Maya dated 13.07.2013 was placed on record as Ex.PW29/A and Ex.PW29/B (Colly.), scaled site plan prepared by Inspector Mahesh Kumar at the instance of SI Gopal and Inspector Dalip Kumar was placed on record vide Ex.PW23/A, CRDD No.11th July 131530388 was placed on record vide Ex.PW17/H, postmortem report no.921-13 dated 14.07.2013 was placed on record vide Ex.PW25/A, serological report dated 09.04.2014 was placed on record vide Ex.PW24/G, FSL report dated 14.11.2013 was placed on record vide Ex.PW24/H.
21. Thereafter, PE was closed. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
was recorded vide order dated 11.01.2023..
FIR No 467 /2013PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.12 of 19 Appreciation of Evidence and Findings :
22. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.07.2013 at about 9.00 p.m. at H.No.340, Near Gujjar Tube-well, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi, accused Sanjay Kumar Sood gave blows on the head of his wife i.e. deceased Maya with an iron Tawa (Pan) on her head and caused her death on 12.07.2013. It had also been alleged that accused used to harass her wife on account of non fulfillment of dowry demands and used to subject her to cruelty.
23. In order to prove the same, the prosecution had examined the father of deceased i.e. PW7 Satpal. In his examination-in-chief, he had deposed that the accused and her daughter were married in the year 2013 and after their marriage, they were living at their matrimonial home at Maidangarhi. He had further testified that on 11th or 12th of a month in the year 2013, he had gone to the matrimonial home of his daughter Maya, on the occasion of marriage of the sister of accused. He had further stated that he met with his daughter, her brother-in-law Ashok who were present in the said house and at about 5.00 - 5.30 p.m., he had left with the said brother-in-law namely Ashok for the market, in order to buy some articles for the said marriage and at that time his daughter was alone. He had further stated that when he came back at about 8.00 - 8.30 p.m., he had found his daughter lying in injured condition in a pool of blood, on the floor, due to which he had raised an alarm and someone had informed the police. Police took his daughter to AIIMS Trauma Centre and his statement was recorded vide Ex.PW7/A. He, however, stated that he had not stated therein any fact regarding the injuries sustained by his daughter. The said witness had, thus, resiled from his previous statement given to the police and in his cross-examination conducted by Ld.Addl. PP, he had denied the FIR No 467 /2013 PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.13 of 19 suggestion that he had told the police that when he came back from the market and enquired from his daughter about the injuries sustained by her, she had told him that she was beaten by her husband i.e. accused and that after beating her he had fled away from the spot. He had, infact, stated that he could not tell whether the statement i.e. Ex.PW7/PX had his signatures. Thus, the said material witness examined by the prosecution, who had the occasion to throw some light on the circumstances which led to the death of his daughter, did not support the case of the prosecution. Infact, as per his own testimony, when the police took his daughter to the hospital, she was unconscious. Thus, since the said witness had turned hostile, the fact as to whether the deceased had spoken to him about the said incident is also doubtful.
24. Furthermore, the other witnesses examined by the prosecution had also not supported the case of the prosecution. Infact, other prosecution witness i.e. PW2 Mahesh Bhadana, who was the landlord, in respect of the aforementioned house, reached at the said room which was rented to Ashok (brother of accused) and saw that PW7 Satpal was present there and that one lady was lying on a floor in a pool of blood. Therefore, he took the mobile phone of one Prabhas Thakur and informed the police at 100 number. However, in his cross- examination conducted by Ld.Addl. PP, although, he had deposed that PW7 Satpal had told him that his daughter had been murdered by his son-in-law i.e. accused Sanjay Kumar, he did not support the case of the prosecution in respect of recovery of any weapon of offence i.e. iron tava at the instance of the accused and stated that he could not recollect whether the said iron tava was got recovered by the accused or not. He, infact, further denied the suggestion that on 12.07.2013, accused Sanjay had got recovered the said iron tava from behind the gas stove, near the TV in the room. Furthermore, as per FIR No 467 /2013 PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.14 of 19 his testimony, accused Sanjay was not present at the place of occurrence when he reached there and he used to reside in Neb Sarai. As per his deposition, accused Sanjay was arrested from his home at Neb Sarai. Moreover, PW1 Bir Singh, landlord of the room which was given to accused Sanjay, at Neb Sarai had stated that accused Sanjay was arrested at the said room. Be that as it may, perusal of the arrest memo of accused Sanjay i.e. PW14/A shows that his place of arrest is stated to be at the spot i.e. H.No.340, Near Gujjar Tubewell, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi instead of his rented premises at Neb Sarai. Thus, the said fact casts a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution and is contrary to the testimony of PW1 Bir Singh as aforementioned. Thus, there is a material contradiction in the version of the prosecution.
25. Moreover, although, PW2 Mahesh had deposed that PW7 Satpal had told him that his daughter had been murdered by his son-in-law i.e. the accused, however, PW7 Satpal had himself denied the same in the Court, as abovementioned. Even the other public witness i.e. PW8 Ompal i.e. the brother of accused also did not support the case of the prosecution and deposed that the police had made enquiries from him about his brother i.e. accused Sanjay Sood and had told him that he had committed murder of his wife. He, however, denied that he had told the police that his brother i.e. accused Sanjay was disturbed when he came to meet him on 11.07.2013 at about 5.30 - 6.00 p.m. and was angry with his wife i.e. deceased Maya as she was under the influence of his brother Ashok and was having illicit relation with him. Thus, the said material witnesses also did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution could not bring on record any motive to show that accused was harbouring any grudge against his wife, which led him to commit the alleged offence.
FIR No 467 /2013PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.15 of 19
26. Even the brother of deceased Maya i.e. PW9 Jagga also resiled from his previous statement and had only stated that he had identified the deadbody of his sister in AIIMS Trauma Center. He also denied the suggestion that accused Sanjay used to beat her sister or that he used to harass her or that his father had told him that his sister was severally beaten by her husband Sanjay on 11.07.2013.
27. Thus, none of the material prosecution witnesses who could have given strength to the case of the prosecution and could have joined the trajectory of events that had taken place on the date of incident, had supported the version of the prosecution that it was the accused who had committed her murder. No 'last seen' evidence had been brought on by the prosecution. None of the prosecution witnesses had stated that they had seen the accused entering the said house on the day of the incident.
28. Prosecution had, infact, relied upon the recovery of an iron tawa which was alleged to have been used in the commission of the alleged offence of murder and the Investigating Officer i.e. PW28 SI Gopal had stated that he had seized the iron tawa with blood stains from the spot of occurrence i.e. the house rented by brother of accused namely Ashok. Ld.Addl. PP had, thus, argued that the said iron tawa was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure made by the accused i.e. Ex.PW24/A and is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
29. Having said that, it is well settled that a confession of guilt made by the accused to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence as per Section 26 Indian FIR No 467 /2013 PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.16 of 19 Evidence Act. However, it is also well settled that the information received from the accused which distinctly relates to discovery of a new fact at the instance of the accused can be proved in terms of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Perusal of the seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW2/C shows that it mentions that the said Tawa was recovered from the left side of the room near the entrance/door behind the gas (Mukhya dwar ke bayeen taraf rakhe TV ke saath zameen par rakhe gas-chule ke peeche deewar ke saath rakhe lohe ke roti banane wale tawe jisme ek lohe ki chad tatha chad ke upar ek lakdi ka hatha laga hua hai). Perusal of the said seizure memo shows that the same was witnessed by PW2 Mahesh Bhadana, however, PW2 Mahesh Bhadana had resiled from his previous statement and did not depose regarding the said alleged recovery.
30. Be that as it may, the moot question that is now involved is that whether the alleged recovery of said iron tawa can be said to be discovery of a new fact distinctly relatable to the fact in issue in terms of Section 27 Indian Evidence Act and whether it is so relevant so as to warrant conviction of the accused despite the fact that other public persons have not supported the case of the prosecution and had turned hostile? The answer to the same appears to be negative. Perusal of testimony of PW14 Ct.Ankit shows that he had deposed that the tawa was recovered from the left side of the entrance. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the prosecution that the said recovery was effected from the place of residence of the accused which was admittedly at Neb Sarai. Moreover, the place of recovery of iron tava is not such which could not have been accessed by any other person such as the resident of the said house himself namely Ashok. Conpicuously, Ashok (brother of accused) was never examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it, even FIR No 467 /2013 PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.17 of 19 though he had rented the said house. In fact, it is pertinent to mention that the blood stains which were alleged to be present on iron tawa as per the seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW2/C could not be related to the blood of the deceased as per the FSL report dated 09.04.2014 placed on record i.e. Ex.PW24/G, as per which the blood on the said iron tawa could not be detected. Even the T-shirt of the accused which was seized and was alleged by the prosecution to have blood of deceased (seized vide Ex.PW2/A), also did not show any reaction to any blood group. Thus, the prosecution had miserably failed to show that the said iron tawa which is alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused was used as weapon of offence by the accused.
31. Moreover, the shoddy investigation that was conducted in the present matter shows the lackadaisical attitude of the investigating officer and the police agency in bringing home the guilt of the accused. Perusal of the report of the Crime team i.e. Ex.PW6/A shows that no chance print were developed on the glass and quarter of whisky that was found there or even on the iron door and the said iron tawa, which could have led the police agencies to bring to book the said accused for the alleged offences.
32. It is well known that in such like offences, pre-dominently circumstancial evidence is available and such kinds of crime take place only in private where the accused takes utmost care that he assaults the victim only when the victim is not in the company of any other person. However, the circumstancial evidence brought on record should be so cogent and the chain of events should be so complete, so that the only hypothesis that may be drawn in such like cases is the guilt of the accused. However, in view of the aforesaid testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who have turned hostile and lack of any forensic FIR No 467 /2013 PS (Mehrauli) State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.18 of 19 evidence worth it's name as aforementioned, the chain of circumstancial evidence is weak and the missing links have not been provided therein by the prosecution. Mere suspicion that the accused had committed an offence does not warrant that he be convicted for the same and the same would be against the due process of law. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence to prove that the deceased wife of the accused i.e. Maya was subjected to any kind of harassment at the hands of the accused for non- bringing of sufficient dowry. None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed to that effect. Thus, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused.
33. In view of the aforesaid facts, prosecution has failed to prove it's case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He is hereby acquitted.
34. Before parting with the order, it is deemed expedient in the interest of justice that lapses in collection of forensic evidence especially in heinous crimes such as in the present case be brought to the notice of Investigating Agencies. Therefore, Copy of the order be sent to the DCP concerned to ensure that there are no lapses in future in collection of forensic evidence in such like cases where the forensic evidence is material to bring home the guilt of the accused .
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
on 24.02.2023 (MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR)
ASJ (FTC) - 01, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET: NEW DELHI
FIR No 467 /2013
PS (Mehrauli)
State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sood Page No.19 of 19