Delhi District Court
State vs . : Parveen Rana on 6 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF ASJ/PILOT COURT/NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No: 343/17
FIR No. : 188/17
U/s : 302 IPC
P.S. : SP Badli
State Vs. : Parveen Rana
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh
R/o H.No.200, Balle
Pardhan Wali Gali,
Khera Kalan, Delhi
Offence complained of : 302 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Conviction
Date of committal : 08.06.2017
Date of Judgment : 06.06.2018
JUDGMENT
1. On 02.03.17, a call was received at 100 number, "ek aadmi ne apni wife ka kisi cheez se gala kaat diya hai, house no.200 Khera Kalan, Primary School wali gali, Balle Pn wali gali". The information was given by Satbir from mobile phone number 9811773332. PCR van reached the spot and found one Neha having cut injuries on the throat. She was removed to the hospital where the doctor examined her and declared State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 1 her dead. DD no.11 A was recorded in PS Samai Pur Badli. Local police also reached there. They found that on the second floor in a room a double bed was lying. On the double bed there was blood on the metress and the sheet. There was also blood on the wall of that room. Statement of Manjeet Rana was recorded, who told that in house no.200 village & post office Khera Kalan, his father Satbir is residing on the ground floor. He along with his wife, child and mother is residing on the first floor. His elder brother Parveen along with his wife Neha and two sons Kartik and Chirag was residing on second floor. Neha was working in a dispensary at Kirti Nagar as Nurse. Parveen Rana used to quarrel and beat Neha and on that night also Parveen Rana quarreled with Neha. Today i.e. 02.03.17 in the morning at 8.23 AM his brother Parveen made a call from mobile phone number 9871827742 and asked, "kit hai" on which he replied, "main ghara". Parveen said, "100 number per call ker de, maar di hai mene, uppar padi hai voh, theek hai". Manjeet Rana did not believe his brother but still he woke up his mother and went upstairs to find out if everything is ok. They found that Neha was lying on the double bed with blanket. He removed the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 1 blanket and found that her neck has been cut and there was lot of blood. They came down stairs and he told all the facts to his father Satbir, who made a call at 100 number. FIR was registered. Post mortem was got conducted on the dead body. Accused was arrested from village Balla. Accused got recovered one knife used in the commission of offence. The clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident were seized. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet against the accused was filed.
2. Ld. MM after complying with the provisions of Sec.208 Cr.PC committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Accused was charged for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined 45 witnesses.
4. Dr. Mukta Mala was examined as PW-1. She deposed that on 02.03.2017 at 9:42 am Neha was brought to casulity of Dr. BSA hospital in State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 2 unconscious state with the alleged history of physical assault around 8:15 am as told by the father-in-law Satbir. She examined the patient and declared her dead vide MLC Ex.PW1/A. The MLC was prepared by Dr. Mayur JR under her supervision. The dead body was handed over to IO through duty constable. The testimony of witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
5. Sh. Manjeet Rana was examined as PW-2. He deposed that he along with his wife, daughter and mother reside on the first floor of H.No.200 Village and P.O:khera Kalan Delhi-82. His father Satbir resides on ground floor. His elder brother Parveen Rana along with his wife Neha and two children namely Chirag and Kartik were residing on the second floor of the house. His brother Parveen was unemployed and was in habit of drinking liquor. His wife Neha was working as nurse in a dispensary at Kirti Nagar. Parveen used to quarrel with Neha on the issue of money and also for not cooking food of his liking.
6. On 02.03.2017 at about 8:23 am he received telephone call on his mobile number 9711119874 State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 3 from mobile phone no.9871827742. Accused Parveen Rana asked, 'kith hai. He replied, 'main gharan'. Accused asked him to make a call at 100 number by saying, 'maar di hai, maine, upper padi hai vo, theek hai". He did not take the call of his brother seriously. There is auto call recorder application in his mobile phone. He informed his mother that a quarrel had taken place between accused and Bhabhi. However, he did not tell his mother with regard to the call received by him. He along with his mother went to the second floor by opening the door of the stair case and of the room occupied by his brother. He saw his Bhabhi lying on bed covered with blanket. He removed the blanket and found her neck has been cut. There was blood on the neck of his Bhabhi. He along with his mother came down stairs. He also informed his father on the ground floor. His father made a call to the police at 100 number. PCR van reached and removed the dead body of Neha to the hospital. His father accompanied her in the PCR van. Police of PS:
Samay Pur Badli also reached there. He searched for his brother but he was not found. He came to know that his brother had borrowed Rs.300/- from State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 4 Harender a shopkeeper. He came to know that Neha had expired and accordingly his sister Preeti informed Nisha sister of Neha. He deposed that his brother had killed his Bhabhi Neha and after killing her he ran away. He proved his statement Ex.PW36/A. The blood stained mattress one blood stained bed sheet wrapped in a piece of cloth sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW27/B. The blood stains were also taken from the wall near the bed put in a container and seized vide memo Ex.PW27/C. He pointed out the place of incident to Inspector Ramesh Kumar who prepared the site plan as Ex.PW2/A having his signature at point A. He along with his relatives went to the mortuary and identified the dead body of his Bhabhi Neha Ex.PW2/B.
7. On 03.03.2017 he went to the police station and handed over his mobile phone set make LeTV golden colour having sim No.9711119874 in which the call made by his brother was recorded which was heard by Inspector Ramesh Kumar. He confirmed the voice of his brother in the said recording dt.02.03.2017 at 8:23 am received from mobile phone no.9871827742. The mobile phone was State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 5 switched off. It was wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW2/C.
8. On 03.04.2017 he was called to the police station by the IO. From there he along with two police officials and IO went to FSL Rohini. His brother Parveen Rana was already present with the police. The voice sample of his brother and his voice sample were taken by the officials of FSL. He also identified the accused. He identified the mattress and bed sheet as Ex.PW2/Article-1. He also identified his mobile phone asEx.PW2/Article-2. The mobile phone was switched on and audio file is played and after hearing the same he confirmed that it is the recording of 02.03.2017 at 8:23 am in which one voice is his and the other voice is of Parveen Rana. The transcript of the same is already mentioned in the memo Ex.PW2/C.
9. During cross examination by the defence he stated that accused was having mobile phone No. 9136213834 which he was using in the month of March 2017. Accused was also having mobile No.9213450214. Accused used to change his mobile numbers. Neha was also having mobile number but State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 6 he does not remember her mobile number. He had not seen the mobile set of accused and of the deceased in the room on the second floor on 02.03.2017 in the morning hours. Police did not seize any mobile phone of accused and deceased in his presence from the said room of second floor.
Neither he nor his father or any other family member handed over the mobile phone of accused or deceased to the police. He remained at his house till 3 pm on 02.03.2017, thereafter he went to BSA hospital. Police officials were frequently visiting their house during the period he stayed there on 02.03.2017 and some of the officials continuously remained present there. At about 10:00 or 10:30 am parents and other relatives of Neha including the sister, mother and brother also reached there house. Police also made inquiries from the brother of Neha while standing outside the house in the street. Police firstly met him at about 9:00 am on 02.03.2017. His statement was recorded in the evening hours when he returned to his house from the mortuary of BSA hospital. His statement was recorded after the cremation of Neha. The last rites of Neha were performed at about 5:30 or 6:00 pm on 02.03.2017.
State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 7 Police made inquiries from him number of times from 9:00 am till his statement was recorded. He admitted that he did not hand over his mobile phone to the police on 02.03.2017. The recording stored in his mobile phone was heard by the police on 02.03.2017 in the morning hours 3-4 times.
10. He entered the room of Neha for the first time at 8:30 am on 02.03.2017. the room is of the size 15 x12 ft on the second floor. The legs of Neha were resting up to knee on the bed with face towards the roof. Police arrived after half an hour. Police officials who came first in time made inquiries from him and removed Neha to hospital. He told them all those facts which he told in his statement to the police. Police asked him to hand over his mobile phone and he told them that as the phone calls of relatives will be coming on the phone and that is why he cannot hand over the mobile phone. Police did not tell him that Sim cards from the mobile phone can be taken out and be given to him. He admitted that his wife and parents were also having mobile phone. He came to know about the arrest of Parveen Rana on the intervening night of 02/03 March 2017.
State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 8
11. He first time visited police station at about 7:00 or 7:30 pm after the cremation of Neha and remained there for about an hour. He admitted that he was carrying his mobile phone with him when he visited the police station. He again visited the police station on 03.03.2017 at about 10:00 /10:30 am. He told the police that there is dual sim in his mobile phone but he did not tell the mobile numbers to the police. He admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.PW2/C that it was having dual sim and IMEI numbers also not mentioned. There was no external memory card in his mobile phone. In his mobile phone there was recording of 200 calls approximately. A question was put by defence counsel as under.
Q. You have stated in examination in chief that you did not take the call of your brother seriously. Can you explain the reason?
Ans. Vo kabhi kabhar nashe mein aisa kehta rehta tha.
12. On 02.03.2017 at 8:23 am he was present at his house. He admitted that his parents and his wife were also present at the house. He did not tell his parents and his wife with regard to the call attended State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 9 by him at 8:23 on 02.03.2017. He denied the suggestion that he did not tell the contents to his parents and wife because no such call was received by him. He denied the suggestion that from 9 am till the evening of 02.03.2017 he did not disclose receiving of such call to the police or that is why his statement was not recorded by the police immediately after making inquiries from him.
13. Deceased Neha was working as a nurse in the dispensary and used to leave the house at about 7:15 or 7:30 am. She used to take train for going to dispensary. Neha was working in the dispensary for the last 2 or 2 ½ years. She used to return home at about 3 - 4 pm. The children of accused used to leave for school at 7:15 am. On 02.03.2017 children of accused left the house for school at usual time. Neha woke up at 6 am on 02.03.2017. He saw Neha preparing meals on 02.03.2017. He left house at about 6:30 am for his Gher for milking the buffaloes.
14. He denied the suggestion that Neha had not lodged any complaint against his brother Parveen Rana. He does not know when the last complaint was lodged by Neha against Parveen Rana. He does not know if State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 10 any complaint was pending against his brother lodged by Neha when she died. He was confronted with Ex.PW36/A. Where it was not found mentioned that his brother has fled away after killing his wife. He admitted that he had not seen Parveen Rana running away from the house. He had not told the police that he had opened the door of stairs and of the room for entering into the room. The door of the room and of the stair case was found locked. Police did not take any finger print of the door of the room or from the door of the stair case.
15. He did not take the police to any shop on 02.03.2017 or to the shop of Harender. Police had taken the search of the room where dead body was found. He was confronted with Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/DX where it was not found mentioned that voice recorded in his mobile phone which was received at 8:23 am is of his brother. He denied the suggestion that he got repaired his mobile from the shopkeeper before it was handed over to the police. He stated that he never visited any repair shop during that period. He denied the suggestion that no such call was received by him on 02.03.2017 at about 8:23 am State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 11 or that no call was recorded in his mobile at 8.23 am or due to that reason mobile phone was not seized or taken into possession by the police or till the time accused was arrested. He denied the suggestion that he was asked to make a call from his number at his mobile phone and was asked to speak the conversation as mentioned in Ex.PW2/C and that recording was shown to have been recorded on 02.03.2017 at about 8:23 am. He denied the suggestion that voice sample in which he uttered the conversation mentioned in the Ex.PW2/C was made the voice sample of Parveen Rana. He denied the suggestion that he implicated the accused under the influence of his father upon the pressure built up by the family members of the deceased or that they would have implicated the entire family in this case of killing Neha. He denied the suggestion that Neha was killed by some unknown person. He denied the suggestion that 2-3 days prior or 02.03.2017 accused went to the house of his cousin Somveer. He denied the suggestion that in the intervening night of 01/02 March 2017 or 01.03.2017 accused was not at home. He denied the suggestion that some miscreants had committed the murder of Neha State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 12 and she died in her matrimonial home and he and his family members because of the fear that the family members of Neha can implicated them in this murder case gave false statement against the accused and created false evidence to implicate the accused. He denied the suggestion that there was no recorded conversation dt. 02.03.2017 in his mobile phone about talking with the accused and that is why the same was not demanded by the police. He denied the suggestion that he did not go upstairs after receiving the call of Parveen Rana. He denied the suggestion that he has concocted a false story. The witness was recalled on application u/s 311 Cr.PC wherein he admitted that he handed over his mobile phone to the IO after registration of FIR. He denied the suggestion that he did not receive any call from his brother Parveen Rana on 02.03.2017 from mobile phone no.9871827742. He denied the suggestion that the recording in the mobile phone was done after the registration of the case in his voice or that this recording was manipulated in the manner so as to make it believe that it was call made by his brother Parveen Rana. He denied the suggestion that while taking the voice sample his voice was recorded in State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 13 the cassette in which name of Parveen Rana was written by the IO.
16. Master Kartik, the son of accused was examined as PW-3. He stated that he along with his parents and his brother Chirag was living on the second floor of the house situated in village Khera Kalan. His uncle Manjeet along with his wife Sangeeta and daughter Anvi and grand father Satbir Singh and grand mother Sushila reside on the first floor. Neha was his mother. His father cut the neck of his mother with knife and thereafter put the blanket on his mother. His parents used to quarrel with each other but he does not know the reason. Few questions were put to him. Q. Why your papa cut the neck of your mother? Ans. I and Chirag were in school at that time and therefore cannot tell why my father cut the neck of my mother.
Q. Who told you that your papa cut the neck of your mother?
Ans. Aur kaun ho sakta hai.
17. During cross examination by the defence he stated that he and his brother used to return home from school at 5 O'clock. He does not know if his mother State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 14 has already been taken to hospital before he and his brother reached home along with their uncle Manjeet. Defence counsel put the question. Q. Whether your mother used to meet your grand parents at ground and first floor? Ans. My mother and we also used to be with our dada-dadi during the day and it was only for the sleeping purpose that we used to go to the second floor.
18. His father had never slept at Gher due to non opening of door by his mother. Some time his father used to not open the door due to which his mother has to cry and only thereafter his father used to open the door.
19. Master Chirag was examined as PW-4. He had not stated anything but he stated that his parents used to quarrel with each other. But he does not know the reason. He also stated that he along with his brother, mother and father were residing on the second floor.
20. Israr Babu Alternate Nodal Officer Vodafone was examined as PW-5. He proved the record of mobile phone No.9811773332. According to customer application form ExPW5/A supported by driving State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 15 license Ex.PW5/B. This telephone number was issued in the name of Satbir Singh Rana s/o Sh. Balbir Singh. The call detail record of this number from 01.03.2017 to 30.03.2017 is proved as Ex.PW5/C. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW5/D.
21. He has also brought the record of mobile phone No.9711119874. The customer application form is proved as Ex.PW5/E supported by driving license Ex.PW5/G. This number was issued in the name of Manjeet Rana s/o Sh. Satbir Singh. The call detail record of this number from 01.03.2017 to 30.03.2017 is proved as Ex.PW5/G. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW5/H.
22. He has also brought the record of mobile phone No.9999505951. The customer application form is Ex.PW5/I supported by the driving lisence Ex.PW5/J. This number was issued in the name of Sh. Naveen Malik. The call detail record of this number from 01.03.2017 to 30.03.2017 is proved as Ex.PW5/K. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW5/L. The cell ID Chart is proved as Ex.PW5/M.
23. He also deposed that Nodal Officer Saurabh State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 16 Aggarwal had already supplied the copies of customer application form along with the documents. CDR and the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act pertaining to mobile phone No.9811773332 vide letter and documents collectively Ex.PW5/N. He had also provided the documents and CDR along with certificate with respect to No.9711119874 and 9999505951 vide letter and documents Ex.PW5/O. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
24. Nisha Malik was examined as PW-6. She deposed that on 02.03.2017 at about 9:09:30 am she received telephone call of her sister's sister-in-law Preeti Rana who informed that her brother Parveen Rana had cut the neck of Neha Rana the deceased. Neha Rana was married with Parveen Rana on 20.01.2007 in accordance with Hindu Rites. After few days of the marriage of Neha accused started demanding car and harassing her sister for demand of dowry. Her parents were compelled to fulfill the demand of the accused. At the time of birth of child Kartik her parents gave Alto car to the accused. Accused was habitual drinker and was involved in bad habits such State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 17 as gambling etc. He used to snatch money from the purse of her sister. The accused also snatched the ATM card of her sister. Her sister was helpless and she started working as nurse in the govt. dispensary on contract basis.
25. On 01.03.2017 her sister Neha made a call from her mobile phone No.9891635231 on her mobile 9999505951 at about 8.30 or 8.45 pm and informed that accused had given her beating mercilessly. She was weeping at that time. She also informed that 2 days prior to that accused had removed money from her bag. She was worried about the admission of her children and said, "Kya mere bachho ka admission aap karwa dogi". Neha also informed her that accused is threatening that he would cut Kartik and Chirag with axe. Neha also requested her to send Amit in the morning at her house, as she is afraid of accused. She identified the accused during cross examination by the defence she stated that she reached the house of Neha at 10:30 or 11:00 on 02.03.2017. She admitted that neither she nor her mother and brother made any call to the police since 8:30 pm on 01.03.2017 till they reached the house State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 18 of Neha on 02.03.2017. He denied the suggestion that she did not make any such call because nothing as stated in her examination in chief was told by Neha on 01.03.2017 at 8:30 /8:45 pm. When they reached the house of Neha police was already present there. Her statement was recorded by the police first time on 14.03.2017. Prior to that she did not disclose anything to the police. She denied the suggestion that accused was keeping her sister well and there was no harassment or torture by him. She denied the suggestion that she made a false statement of involvement of accused in death of her sister.
26. Pushpa Chaudhary was examined as PW-7. She is mother of deceased Neha. She deposed that Neha was married with accused Parveen Rana on 20.01.2007. On the same day her daughter Neha was also married. Accused started demanding car from us and harassing Neha at the time Neha was blessed with male child they arranged fund and purchased an Alto car in the name of accused. Accused was in the habit of drinking liquor. Father of accused told them that accused was gambling and State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 19 father of accused had paid Rs.20,00,000/- to 22,00,000/- to the person whom accused owed that amount. Accused used to give beatings to Neha and come late in the night hours under the influence of liquor and harass her daughter and beat her. Accused harassed her daughter and wanted to live separately after taking share from his parental property. They had given Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused and they started living separately. Neha was again beaten by the accused and thereafter, she came to her parental home. Neha also filed a complaint with the police Ex.XPW7/A having her signatures at point A. family members of accused Neha to accompany her in her matrimonial home and she agreed to the same.; Neha gave him in writing in police station Ex.PW7/B and she started residing in matrimonial home. Neha was working on contract basis in the govt. dispensary as nurse. In the month of February 2015 her daughter was beaten by the accused and police was called. Neha was medically examined. Accused used to threaten that he would kill her. After 2-3 months Neha was again beaten by the accused. In the month of February 2016 accused visited their house and threatened to throw Acid on State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 20 Neha on which they made a call to the police and accused was taken to PS: Dhaula Kuan. Neha thereafter started living with them. Accused and his family members again visited their house requesting that last chance be given for improving. Her daughter started living with her sons in her matrimonail house on the second floor. But accused again started beating her and threatening to kill her.
27. She also stated that on 01.03.2017 Neha made a call to Nisha and she corroborated and supported the deposition made by Nisha. Neha also made a call on her mobile No.8130337251 and informed that accused is threatening to kill her and her sons by axe and said that, "na rahega baans na bajegi bansuri". Her daughter was weeping at that time and she was under fear. Neha also said her to send her brother Amit in the morning. She adviced her daughter to take her sons to the room of other family members i.e. Devar devrani and mother in law and told her that they would come in the morning. In the morning of 02.03.2017 at about 9:30 or 10:00 am they were informed by the police that her daughter sustained injury and she is in the hospital. They reached the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 21 house of her daughter Neha and came to know that Neha has been killed by her husband by cutting her neck with knife. The children of Neha also informed that accused had given beatings to Neha. Devar of her daughter Manjeet informed that accused made a call to him on the mobile after killing her.
28. During cross examination by the defence she deposed that they reached the house of Neha at 10 or 11 am. Family members of accused and police officials were present at the spot. Police made inquiry from her and she informed that she is mother of deceased. She went to the police station along with other persons. She was aware that complaint was given by Manjeet. She did not make a call to Neha after receiving call from her till she received the news about her death in the morning. She admitted that her statement was recorded by the police after 12-13 days of the incident. She admitted that she did not make any complaint to the police or made any call at 100 number about any ill treatment or harassment given to Neha by accused in the year 2016. She does not know if accused was admitted in DDU hospital in march 2015 and thereafter referred to State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 22 LNJP Hospital. On 23.03.2015 accused was taken by the police after her daughter made a call at 100 number from their house. She denied the suggestion that her brother and other relatives have broken both the legs of accused and also gave the beatings to him.
29. She denied the suggestion that on 01.03.2017 her daughter did not disclose anything to her about any torture threat or beatings given by accused or that she made a false statement. She did not make any call at 100 number or tried to know the well being of her daughter during whole night of 01/02 March 2017 or even in the morning till she received call about her death. She denied the suggestion that accused did not commit this offence. She denied the suggestion that family members of accused had given a false information regarding the involvement of accused. She denied the suggestion that accused was keeping Neha and both the children well or that accused never harassed or beaten her daughter at any point of time.
30. Preeti Rana the sister of accused was examined as PW-8. She deposed that on 02.03.2017 she received State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 23 call from her mother from mobile No:9211073351 on her mobile No.7007235625 that accused Parveen had cut the neck of her Bhabhi Neha. She reached the house of her parents. Dead body of Neha had already been taken to the hospital. She made a call from her mobile number on the mobile phone of Nisha and informed her about the murder of Neha. She identified the accused.
31. During cross examination she stated that on 02.03.2017 at about 9:30 am she reached her parents house. She was the first who informed Nisha about the murder of Neha. The gher is at a distance of about 500 to 600 meters from her parental house. She admitted that there is a stair case leading to the first floor and second floor which arises from the ground floor from inside the main gate. She admitted that one has to enter into residential portion for going to the first floor and second floor. Police was present in the street when she reached there. She denied the suggestion that name of accused was wrongly given for commission of this offence.
A court question was put to the witness:
Q. Is it correct that unless a person enters the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 24 ground floor through the main gate, he can not have access to the stair case leading to the first and second floor?
Ans. It is correct.
32. She denied the suggestion that father was having ill will against the accused and was not willing to give any share in the property and for this reason upon his asking accused has been falsely implicated in this case.
33. Ct. Naveen was examined as PW-9. He prepared the scaled site plan at the instance of SI Suresh Chand and proved the same as Ex.PW9/A. The testimony of witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
34. Sukhbir Singh Nodal Officer Idea Cellular, was examined as PW-10. He proved the record of mobile No.9891635231. As per the record this number was alloted in the name of Amit Chaudhary S/o Sh Dharambir Chaudhary. The photocopy of the customer application form is proved as Ex.PW10/A the photocopy of driving liscence is Ex.PW10/B. The call detail record of above number for the period 01.03.2017 to 03.03.2017 is proved as Ex.PW10/C. As per the data on 01.03.2017 a call was made from State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 25 this number on number 9999505951 at 20:38 hrs and the call duration was 720 seconds.
35. Another call was made on 01.03.2017 from this number to 8130337251 at 21:24 hrs and the call duration was 234 seconds. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW10/D.
36. During cross examination nothing came on record to discredit the witness.
37. Deepak Kanda, Nodal Officer JIO was examined as PW-11. He proved the record of mobile phone No.7007235625 as per record it was issued in the name of Girjesh Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Nar Singh.
The photocopy of the customer application form is proved as Ex.PW11/A. The photocopy of Adhar card is proved as Ex.PW11/B. The call detail record of this number for the period 01.03.2017 to 03.03.2017 is proved as Ex.PW11/C. According to data a call was made from this mobile No.9999505951 on 02.03.2017 at 9:28:26 hrs and the call was terminated at 9:29:07 hrs. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW11/D. Nothing material came during the cross examination by the defence to be discredit the witness.
State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 26
38. Suresh S/o Sh. Kishrori Rai was examined as PW-
12. He deposed that on 02.03.2017 at about 8:30 am he was standing outside the "lakri ki tall" situated on the palla road near PS: Alipur. Accused present in the court came to him and asked for his mobile phone for making some call. He handed over his mobile phone to him and after making the call the accused returned his mobile phone and returned away. His mobile phone number is 9871827742. The witness has correctly identified the accused.
39. During cross examination by the defence he stated that he never visited the Jail or the court before that day for the identification of the accused. He went to the police station to identify the accused. Somebody called him from the police station by calling on his mobile phone. He does not know the name of that police official. He went to police station, saw the accused and identified him. Accused was not pointed out to him in the police station. He himself identified the accused as the person who took his mobile phone from him. He denied the suggestion that accused did not make call from his mobile number on 02.03.2017 at about 8:30 am or that the police State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 27 official in the police station introduced the accused to him and for this reason he identified the accused today in the court.
40. Sh. Satbir Singh was examined as PW-13. He deposed that on 02.03.2017 his son Manjeet received a call on his mobile No.9211119874 from some unknown number at about 8:30 am. Manjeet told him, Parveen ka phone aaya hai ke maine tumhari Bhabhi Neha to kaat diya hai". He was present at home at that time, reached the second floor of his house. He found Neha lying in the pool of blood on the bed in the room situated on the second floor. He immediately made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone Number 9811773332 and told, "Mere ladke Parveen ne apni patni ka gala kaat diya aur vo yaha se chala gaya". After about 20 minutes PCR reached the spot. SHO also arrived there. Dead body was removed to BSA hospital by PCR Van. He also accompanied the body in PCR Van.
41. During cross examination by the defence he deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on 03.03.2017 only and not thereafter. He State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 28 denied the suggestion that for long three months he did not disclose anything to the police. He denied the suggestion that he did not tell the name of Parveen in his call at 100 number or for this reason name of Parveen is not mentioned in PCR form No.1. He is residing on the ground floor of the house number mentioned above. He admitted that the stair case does not start from the residential portion in his possession leading to the first and second floor. A person can reach the first floor and second floor after entering the main gate without entering the room situated on the ground floor. He admitted that there is a dispute between him and Parveen for the last many years. He admitted that accused has manhandled him and had also spoiled his money. He said that he disowned the accused in the year 2014. He denied the suggestion that as accused had manhandled and was picking quarrels with him, he and other family members falsely implicated the accused in this case. He denied the suggestion that he falsely named the accused as he demanded his share in the property or that he never wanted to give his share to him. He stated that the property was not in his name and is in the name of his father. He State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 29 denied the suggestion to get rid of the accused he falsely implicated him.
42. Sh. Naresh Yadav was examined as PW-14. He deposed that he is having a lakdi ka taal. Suresh S/o Sh. Kishori Lal was working under him. He purchased mobile No. 9871827742 on his ID and handed over the said mobile SIM to Suresh. The photocopy of the customer application form is Ex.PW14/A. The photocopy of the ID card is annexed with the CAF which is Ex.PW14/B.
43. During cross examination by the defence he denied the suggestion that Suresh was not working in his taal or that he is making a false statement with respect to handing over the sim card to Suresh.
44. Amit was examined as PW-15. He deposed that he purchased mobile sim No. 9891635231 and the same was used by his sister Neha. This sim was purchased by him using his ID. The photocopy of the customer application form Ex.PW10/A is having his photograph at point A. The photocopy of the driving licnese annexed with that CAF is ex.PW10/B. His mother was using mobile phone No.8130337251 issued on the ID of Neha. His sister Neha was State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 30 married with accused on 20.01.2007. Accused used to harass and beat his sister for demand of vehicle. Accused used to drink liquor and snatch money form the purse of his sister. At the time of birth of the first child they gave Alto car to the accused. Accused used to gamble and level false allegations on his sister and others. His sister had also filed a complaint in the police station with regard to the accused giving her beatings and demanding dowry.
45. On 01.03.2017 in the night hours when he reached home his mother informed him that she received a telephone call from Neha who informed that she was beaten by accused and threatened to be killed and also her children with axe. Neha also requested his mother to send him in the morning. In the morning by the time he prepared himself for going to the house of Neha his mother received a telephone call from SI Suresh that Neha sustained injury and asked them to reach at the matrimonial house of Neha. They reached the house of Neha where they came to know that Neha had been killed. Manjeet informed that Neha sent the children to school. Thereafter, Neha went upstairs in her room and was killed. He State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 31 went to BSA Hospital where he identified the dead body of his sister Neha vide memo Ex.PW15/A. The dead body was handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW15/B.
46. During cross examination he stated that he is residing at Q-28, Prem Nagar, Kirari for the last one year. He met the police first time on 02.03.2017 in BSA hospital. IO and SHO were also present in the hospital. SI Suresh also met him at the house of Neha. He admitted that his first statement was recorded on 02.03.2017 and thereafter on 14.03.2017. He had not told about the conversation between his sister Neha and his mother and his sister Nisha in hid statement dt. 02.03.2017 and 14.03.2017. He denied the suggestion that Neha had not told about the quarrel, beatings and the threats extended by Parveen to her and to children through her mother on 01.03.2017 on phone. He denied the suggestion that he told these facts in his examination in chief only to falsely implicate the accused. He told these facts to the police on 23.05.2017. He did not tell the police in his statement that he was getting ready to go to the house of Neha in the morning State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 32 when the call was received from SI Suresh. He denied the suggestion that his mother did not inform him about the beating, quarrel or threat extended to Neha. He denied the suggestion that Neha was residing at her matrimonial home in cordial atmosphere. He denied the suggestion that to falsely implicate the accused he gave the false statement or that accused was not involved in any manner in commission of this offence.
47. Brijesh was examined as PW-16. Accused Parveen Rana is his brother-in-law (brother of his wife). He purchased mobile sim No:7007235625 on his ID and the same was used by his wife Preeti. On 02.03.2017 in the morning hours his wife informed him that she has received call from her parental home that Neha has been murdered. He along with his family members reached the house of in-laws. He identified the customer application form Ex.PW11/A having his photograph at point A and his signature on point B on the application. The Aadhar card accompanying the CAF is identified as Ex.PW11/B. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 33
48. Naveen Malik was examined as PW-17. Accused Parveen Rana is his sadhu. He deposed that he purchased mobile SIM No.9999505951 which was used by his wife Nisha Malik. He identified the photocopy of customer application form Ex.PW5/A having his photograph at point A and his signatures at point B. the photocopy of driving licnese annexed with the CAF form is Ex.PW5/J. He deposed that on 01.03.2017 in the night hours his wife received a call from the mobile phone of her sister Neha informing that she was beaten by accused and was weeping and also informed that her life has been made hell. She also informed that accused had removed money from her bag about 2-3 days ago. On 02.03.2017 in the morning hours his wife received telephone call on her mobile phone from Preeti sister of accused informed that Parveen had killed Neha by cutting her neck with knife and ran away. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
49. ASI Rakesh Kumar was examined as PW-18. He deposed that on 02.03.2017 he was posted in mobile crime team as Incharge. On receipt of a call he along with HC Virender and other staff reached at State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 34 H.No.200 second floor, Balley Pn wali gali Khera Kalan where SI Suresh Chand SHO and Addl. SHO and other staff met him. He inspected the scene of crime and found that double bed was lying in the room. Blood was found on the double bed bedding, on the wall and the stair case. The photographer took the photograph. He prepared the scene of crime report Ex.PW18/A having signatures at point A. He remained on the spot from 9:30 am to 10:30 am. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
50. HC Virender Singh was examined as PW-19. He was the photographer in mobile crime team which visited the spot on 02.03.2017. He took 12 photographs of scene of crime from different angles and proved the same as Ex.PW19/A1 to Ex.PW19/A12. He proved the negatives as Ex.PW19/B. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
51. ASI Sudesh was examined as PW-20. On 02.03.2017 he was working as duty officer in PS: S.P Badli. At about 8:38 am he received information from wireless operator that, "caller keh reha hai ek aadmi ne apni wife ka kissi cheej se gala kaat diya hai,"
State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 35 Khera kalan primary school wali gali H.No.200 and Balley Pn wali gali. He recorded this information in DD No.11A and conveyed the same to SI Suresh Chand on telephone. He proved the copy of DD No.11A as Ex.PW20/A.
52. On 02.03.2017 at 11:00 am SI Suresh Chand produced one rukka for registration of FIR. He got fed the contents in the computer. He proved the computer generated copy of FIR as Ex.PW20/B. He made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW20/C. The further investigation was assigned to Inspector Ramesh Kumar. He handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Mukesh for handing over the same to Inspector Ramesh. The copies of FIR were sent to senior police officials and area MM through Ct. Rakesh who left the police station on motorcycle No. DL 1SZ 5159. He also recorded DD No.14A and 18 regarding starting of FIR and closing of FIR. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW20/D.
53. During cross examination by defence he denied the suggestion that FIR and DD entries are ante timed. He admitted that in DD No.14A gist of information is State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 36 not mentioned.
54. HC Anu was examined as PW-21. She deposed that on 02.03.2017 she was working as a DD writer from 8 am to 4 pm. At 9:56 pm she received information from ASI Chander Parkash of BSA hospital that Neha wife of Parveen admitted in the hospital by SI Ramesh of PCR L31 in BSA hospital vide MLC NO. 2594/17 has been declared brought dead. She handed over DD No.44B to SI Suresh Chand. She proved the copy of DD No.44B as Ex.PW21/A.
55. During cross examination she denied the suggestion that copy of DD No.44B was handed over to SI Suresh Chand in the police station. She stated that SI Suresh Chand was informed telephonically. She admitted that it is not mentioned in the DD that the information was conveyed to SI Suresh telephonically. She denied the suggestion that she had made improvement or that SI Suresh Chand was present in the police station at the time of recording of this DD.
56. SI Satyabir was examined as PW-22. He deposed that on 23.03.2015 he was posted at PS: Delhi Cantt. PP: Subrotto Park. On that day he received DD State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 37 No.46 Ex.PW22/A. About quarrel at B-13/1 Uri Enclave, Delhi Cantt. He along with Ct. Mahesh reached there and met Neha wife of Parveen Rana. The accused was already taken to hospital by PCR Van. He also met the parents of Neha. Neha told him that she reached at the house of parents due to quarrel with Parveen Rana at her matrimonial home. She also informed that accused Parveen Rana visited her parents house and threatened that he would not allow her to work. Neha informed that a quarrel took place with the accused and accused sustained injury. He went to DDU hospital where accused was got medically examined but he refused to give any statement. On return to the police station on 24.03.2015 he recorded DD No.14 Ex.PW20/B. He identified the accused correctly.
57. During cross examination by the defence counsel he admitted that he obtained the copy of MLC No. 2464/15 of Parveen s/o Sh. Satbir. He does not remember on which part of the body Parveen sustained injuries. He admitted that the copy of the MLC was not handed over to the IO of the case. He has no document to show on which date Parveen State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 38 was discharged. The witness stated that Parveen was discharged on the same day. He admitted that in a follow up action he did not record any statement of Neha and Parveen. When he reached the house of Neha at Uri Enclave, family members were present inside the house. He denied the suggestion that Parveen told him that he sustained severe injuries because of beatings given by brother and other family members of Neha. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not record the statement of accused.
58. SI Umed Singh was examined as PW-23. On 16.03.2017 he was working as Nodal officer and generated the copy of PCR form No.2 MAR 171410104 dt.02.03.2017 recorded on receiving information at 8:29:33 which was dispatched at 8:32:29 from Extension No.141. The information was received from mobile No.9117733332. The computer generated copy of PCR form is Ex.PW23/A. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is Ex.PW23/B. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
59. HC Rajender was examined as PW-24. He deposed State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 39 that on 21.03.2017 on the direction of SHO /IO he received one sealed parcel from MHC(M) and deposited the same in BSA hospital vide RC No.100/21/17. He obtained the acknowledgement from the hospital and handed over the same to MHC(M) on return to the police station. No one tampered with the exhibit till the same remained in his possession. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
60. HC Goverdhan was examined as PW-25. He deposed that on 02.03.2017 he was posted at PS:
Samay Pur Badli. On the direction of IO he along with SI Deepak, SI Suresh and secret informer left for out station vide DD No.30A at 7 pm. They reached at village Balla Distt;Karnal where they met Sombir near padha Wali chaupal. Accused Parveen Rana was produced before them. He was interrogated but he was not co-operating. They all along with accused reached at PS: S.P. Badli. On
03.03.2017 accused was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW25/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW25/B. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.PW25/C. State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 40
61. During cross-examination by the defence he stated that he joined the investigation of this case for the first time on 7:30 pm on 02.03.2017. from the police station they directly reached village Balla, district Karnal. They reached village Balla between 10 to 11 pm. He was not knowing Sombir before that day. IO inquired about the house of Sombir after reaching the village. They returned PS: S.P. Badli at about 2:00 am. IO recorded the statement of Sombir in village Balla at 11:30 pm. He denied the suggestion that Sombir in his statement told the IO that Parveen is at his house for the last 2-3 days. IO started interrogating the accused at about 2:30 am on 03.03.2017. After the interrogation was complete IO recorded the disclosure statement. He admitted that the disclosure statement of accused does not bear his signature. He denied the suggestion that one mobile phone was also recovered from the possession of accused when he was apprehended. Accused was not interrogated in the village Balla. He admitted that during investigation of this case he never visited Hoshiyar pur and Panipat. He denied the suggestion that accused was wrongly apprehended and falsely implicated in this case. State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 41
62. HC Dilbagh Singh was examined as PW-26. He deposed that on 29.03.2017 on the direction of IO and SHO he received three sealed plastic jars, six sealed parcels with sample seals, two FSL forms vide RC No.108 and 109 for depositing the same for depositing in FSL Division. He deposited the same in FSL and obtained the copies of acknowledgements. On return to the police station he handed over the acknowledgement and copy of RC to the MHC(M). During the period exhibits remained in his possession nobody tampered with the same. The testimony of the witness had gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
63. SI Ajay Kumar was examined as PW-27. He deposed that on 02.03.2017 at about 8:45 am he received DD No.12A Ex.PW27/A. He reached house No.200 Village and P.O:Khera Kalan near primary school. Balley Pardhan Wali Gali. SI Suresh Chand, Inspector Ramesh Kumar and other police staff met him there. Crime team inspected the scene of crime situated on the second floor of the house. In the room there was one bedding, two blood stained mattresses having gray and light yellow colour and State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 42 one bed sheet stained with blood were lying. These articles were lifted, wrapped in piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of RS and seized vide memo Ex.PW27/B. The blood was also found on the wall of the room. The blood stains were scratched, put in plastic container sealed with the seal of RS and seized vide memo Ex.PW27/C. He also reached BSA hospital where IO prepared inquest papers for the post mortem. The dead body was identified by the relatives. After the post mortem three plastic jars duly sealed one envelope and one sealed parcel duly sealed, along with two sample seals were received by the IO which he seized vide memo Ex.PW27/D.
64. During cross-examination by the defence he stated that he left the PS at about 9 am and at about 9:30 am he reached the spot. He reached BSA hospital between 12 noon to 1 pm. He remained on the spot for about 2 ½ to 3 hours. IO and crime team thoroughly searched the room. He does not remember how many rooms were there on second floor. He does not know if IO also conducted search in the kitchen as he was present in the room where dead body was found. He denied the suggestion that State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 43 from the kitchen one knife was collected by the IO and was planted in this case.
65. HC Ramesh Kumar was examined as PW-28. He deposed that on 16.12.2014 a complaint made by Neha was assigned to him by SHO. He went to the house of complainant i.e. her matrimonial home but she was not there. He came to know that she is at her parental home. He talked with her on telephone and she told that she will come back. On 28.02.2015 he again went to the matrimonial home of Neha i.e. H.No.200 village Khera Kalan and recorded her statement. She told that she has settled all her disputes and started living in her matrimonial home. She also told that it was family dispute and now there is no harassment to her in the matrimonial home. The complaint assigned to him is Ex.PW7/A. The statement recorded by him of Smt. Neha is Ex.PW7/B. He gave his report as Ex.PW28/A.
66. During cross-examination by the defence counsel he stated that he recorded Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW7/B at the matrimonial home of Neha.
67. HC Rajender was examined as PW-29. He deposed that on 02.03.2017 on receiving DD No.11 A he State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 44 along with SI Suresh Chand reached second floor of H.No.200 Balley Pn wali gali village Khera Kalan. On the second floor there was one room. In the said room one double bed was lying. There was blood on the double bed as well as on the wall. They came to know that dead body has already been removed to BSA hospital. SHO, Addl. SHO and Inspector Ramesh also reached the spot. SI Suresh Chand recorded the statement of Manjeet Rana. He was left on the spot. SI Suresh and Ct. Mukesh left for the hospital.
68. During cross-examination he deposed that they left the police station at 8:45 am. They reached the spot at about 9:00 am. He remained at the spot till 11 - 12 noon. He admitted that in his presence at the spot the parents and other relatives of Neha also reached. In his presence no statement of the parents or relatives of the deceased was recorded. He admitted that rukka was not sent in his presence. He left the spot when SI Suresh Kumar and other police officials reached the spot. They all left the spot together. In his presence the bed sheet and bedding were taken in possession. After SI Suresh returned State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 45 from the hospital. No other item except bed sheet, bedding and blood sample seized in his presence. He denied the suggestion that till he remained on the spot Manjeet did not disclose anything to SI Suresh.
69. HC Jagat Singh was examined as PW-30. He was working as MHC(M). He proved the entries in register No.19 as Ex.PW30/A to Ex.PW30/C and Ex.PW30/K. He proved the copies of RC as Ex.PW30/D. Exx.PW30/F, Ex.PW30/G, Ex.PW30/J and Ex.PW30/L. He proved the acknowledgment receipt from the hospital as Ex.PW30/E. The acknowledgment of the FSL as Ex.PW30/H, Ex.PW30/I and Ex.PW30/N. He also stated that till the property and exhibits remained in his possession no one tampered the same in any manner.
70. During cross-examination by the defence he admitted that in Ex.PW30/L the seal impression on the audio cassette of Manjeet Rana is not mentioned and it is only mentioned that it was sealed and that three sealed parcels received by FSL. He denied the suggestion that case property was tampered with before sending to FSL.
71. Ct. Anoop Yadav was examined as PW-31. He State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 46 deposed that on 12.04.2017 on the direction of the IO he received three sealed pullandas along with FSL form from MHC(M) vide RC No.121/21/17. He deposited the case property in the FSL and obtained acknowledgment. He returned to the police station and handed over the copy of RC and acknowledgment to the MHC(M). During the period exhibits remained in his possession no one tampered the same. Nothing material came in the cross- examination of the witness to discredit him.
72. HC Parmod Kumar was examined as PW-32. He deposed that on 03.04.2017 he was posted at PS:S.P Badli. He joined the investigation with HC Naveen. IO Inspector Ramesh Kumar and complainant Manjeet Rana and left for FSL Rohini. They reached the room No.8 ground floor of FSL Rohini where Parveen Rana was also brought in judicial custody. Accused was also present in the same room of FSL. The lab assistant of physics division of FSL namely Rohit took voice sample of accused and of complainant separately. Rohit also prepared cassettes of voice samples of complainant and accused and prepared duplicate copies of each State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 47 cassettes. All the four audio cassettes were wrapped in a piece of cloth which were sealed with the seal of RS and were seized vide memo Ex.PW32/A. He identified the video cassettes on which words Parveen 'O' is found written as Ex.PW32/A. The other cassette one which Manjeet 'O' is found written as Ex.PW32/2.
73. During cross-examination he stated that IO took along with him four cassettes. All the cassettes were empty. IO asked him to accompany at 10:00 am. He does not know what machine was used for recording cassettes in FSL. He admitted that the cassettes ExPW32/Article-1 and Article-2 are common cassettes on which recording can be done by using any recording device. The seizure memo Ex.PW32/A was prepared in FSL. His statement was recorded in the police station after return from FSL. He cannot identify signature of Rohit Lab assistant and hence cannot tell if the seizure memo does not bear the signatures of Rohit. He denied the suggestion that cassette does not bear the signature of accused. He admitted that the cloth parcel in which the cassettes were sealed does not bear his signature. He denied State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 48 the suggestion that parcels were not prepared in his presence in FSL on 03.04.2017. He admitted that there is no signature of Manjeet on seizure memo Ex.PW32/A. He denied the suggestion that no recording was done in the FSL.
74. Ct. Rakesh was examined as PW-33. He does not remember the date. Duty officer delivered him the copy of FIR which he delivered to the senior police officials and the area MM.
75. During cross-examination by Ld. APP he admitted that he delivered the copies of FIR on 02.03.2017 on motorcycle No. DL 1SZ 5159. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
76. Mukesh was examined as PW-34. He deposed that on 02.03.2017 he along with SI Ajay, ASI Chander, ASI Chetan and Ct. Dinesh left the police station vide DD No.12A for the investigation of DD No.11A and reached the second floor of H.No.200 village and post office Khera Kalan. SI Suresh Chand and other staff was already present there. SI Suresh recorded the statement of Manjeet Rana. HC Rajender was left at the spot. He along with SI Suresh Chand reached BSA hospital. IO collected the MLC of Neha, State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 49 who was declared brought dead. The dead body of Neha was preserved in the mortuary. He along with SI Suresh Chand returned to the police station where SI Suresh Chand presented the rukka to the duty officer at 11:00 am for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR duty officer ASI Sudesh handed over him the copy of FIR and original rukka which he presented to Inspector Ramesh.
77. On 04.03.2017 he joined the investigation with Inspector Ramesh Kumar, HC Ashok. Accused Parveen Rana was interrogated. He made the disclosure statement Ex.PW34/A. Accused was wearing T-shirt and trouser. Accused changed his clothes and his waring T-shirt and trouser were taken in possession by Inspector Ramesh. He along with HC Ashok, SI Suresh Chand and accused Parveen Rana left the police station vide DD No.70B in private car for out station to Distt. Karnal. They reached village Balla, Distt. Karnal, Haryana. Accused led them to the house of his mausa Balbir. Somveer son of Balbir met them there. Accused led them to the room situated on the left side. In the room to the left side corner there was one bag pointed out by the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 50 accused. "Teachers" was found written on that bag. On checking one vegetable knife was found in the inner side of the bag. The sketch of the same is Ex.PW34/B. There were blood stains on the knife. It was wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW34/C. In the bag there were two grey colour pants and two checkdar yellow and green colour shirts. The pants and shirts were again put in the bag. The bag was wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW34/D. Accused also pointed out motorcycle No. HR 13/C 3621. Discover black colour. It was seized vide memo Ex.PW34/E. The clothes which accused was wearing were seized vide memo Ex.PW34/F. He identified the knife as Ex.PW34/1. He identified the T-shirt and the trouser which accused was wearing as Ex.PW34/2. He identified the black colour bag on which 'Teachers' was found printed as Ex.PW34/3. There were two pants and two shirts in that bag. He identified the motorcycle as Ex.PW34/Article-4. He also identified the accused.
78. During cross-examination by the defence he stated that he does not remember as to on which date his State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 51 first statement was recorded. He cannot say whether it was recorded prior to going to village Balla or after return from village Balla. He reached the spot at about 8:45 pm. He did not come to police station from the spot. The statement of PCR official was not recorded in his presence. The rukka was not sent from the spot or the hospital. They remained in the hospital for about 1:45 hours. In his presence brother or sister of deceased were not examined on the spot or in the hospital. From the mortuary they came to the police station and reached there at about 11:00 am. He admitted that till 11:00 am FIR was not recorded. He denied the suggestion that he did not hand over the copy of FIR and rukka to Inspector Ramesh. He denied the suggestion that no statement of Manjeet was recorded on the spot. He denied the suggestion that statement of Manjeet and the FIR was recorded after the 11 am while sitting in the police station. He was confronted with the statement where it was not found mentioned that statement of Manjeet was recorded on the spot.
79. He does not remember how many disclosure statements of accused were recorded on State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 52 03.03.2017. After going through the disclosure statement Ex.PW34/A the witness confirmed that it is no where recorded that he can get the weapon recovered from the house of his mausi in village Balla, Karnal, Haryana. He stated that he does not remember as to whether on 03.03.2017 when the accused was interrogated the bag of accused was with the IO. He does not remember if on 03.03.2017 and 04.03.2017 they visited any field in village Balla. He had gone through DD No.70B before leaving out station on 03.03.2017. He admitted that in the DD it is not mentioned that they are leaving Delhi for going to village Balla, Distt. Karnal. He denied the suggestion that they did not visit village Balla on 03.03.2017.
80. Sh Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer Bharti Airtel was examined as PW-35. He brought the record of mobile No.8130337251. This number was issued in the name of Neha Chaudhary d/o Sh. Dharambir Singh. The photocopy of customer application form is proved as Ex.PW35/A. The supporting document D/L is proved as Ex.PW35/B. The call detail record from 01.03.2017 to 30.03.2017 is proved as Ex.PW35/C. State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 53 The witness has also brought the record of mobile No.9871827742. This number is in the name of Naresh Yadav S/o Sh. Sita Ram. The photocopy of customer application form is proved as Ex.PW35/D. The photocopy of voter ID card supporting document of CAF is Ex.PW35/E. The CDR form 01.03.2017 to 03.03.2017 is proved as Ex.PW35/F. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW35/G. The photocopy of the cell ID chart is proved as Ex.PW35/H. He also deposed that the Nodal officer Surender Singh had already supplied the copy of customer application form No. 8130337251 and 9871827742 along with the documents, CDR and the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act which are collectively Ex.PW35/I. He identified the signatures of Surender Singh at point B. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness in cross- examination by the defence counsel.
81. SI SURESH Chand was examined as PW-32. He deposed that on 02.03.2017 at about 8:40 am he received DD No.11A Ex.PW20/A. He along with HC Rajender reached at H.No.200 Second floor. In one room on the second floor one double bed was lying. State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 54 Blood was found on the bedding of the double bed and also on the wall. SHO and IO Inspector Ramesh also reached the spot along with the staff. Manjeet Rana met them there who informed that he is real brother of accused Parveen Rana and deceased is wife of Parveen Rana. He inspected the scene of crime. He recorded statement of Manjeet Rana Ex.PW36/A. He left Rajender to guard the spot. He along with Ct. Mukesh went to BSA hospital and collected the MLC of deceased Neha who was declared dead at 9:42 am. There was cut mark on the neck. He got the dead body preserved in the mortuary. He reached police station and made endorsement Ex.PW36/B on the statement of Manjeet Rana. He requested SHO to hand over the investigation to Inspector Ramesh and to send the crime team to the spot. At 11:00 am he handed over the rukka to the duty officer. Who registered the FIR and further investigation was conducted by Inspector Ramesh. He also conveyed the fact of death of Smt. Neha to her mother Smt. Pushpa.
82. On 02.03.2017 he again joined the investigation with Inspector Ramesh who got information about the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 55 movement of accused Parveen Rana at his native Distt. Panipat Karnal. On the direction of Inspector Ramesh Kumar he along with SI Deepak and Ct. Goverdhan left for out station vide DD No.30A Ex.PW36/C at 7:00 pm. They reached at village Balla Distt. Karnal Hayana where Somveer met them at padha wali chaupaal. He produced accused Parveen Rana. Accused was interrogated but he did not co- operate. They all, along with accused reached at PS:
S.P Badli. He corroborated the testimony of PW-5 regarding the arrest and disclosure made by the accused. He also corroborated the testimony of PW- 34 regarding the recovery of clothes, knife and the motorcycle at the instance of accused. He identified the accused. He also stated that seal after use was handed over to Ct. Mukesh. He also identified the case property.
83. During cross-examination he stated that till the FIR was lodged copy of DD entry No.11A was not received by him. He received the same in the police station when he went to hand over the rukka to the duty officer. He is not able to recollect what was the information received vide DD No.11A. He reached State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 56 the spot at about 9:00 am. He reached the BSA hospital at about 10:15 am. From the hospital he went to the police station and then reached the spot. He denied the suggestion that statement of Manjeet was not recorded at the spot at the time stated by him. He denied the suggestion that statement of Manjeet was recorded in the police station in consonance with the contents of DD. There were 20 to 30 persons present on the spot when he again reached the spot from the police station. He admitted that the parents of deceased and other relatives were present on the spot when they reached there. In his presence IO did not make any inquiry from the relatives and parents of the deceased. He received the complete file of this case for investigation on 03.03.2017 and remained with him till 04.03.2017. He does not know if the statement of Satbir and parents of Neha were in the file or not. After seeing the DD No.27 dt. 04.03.2017 the witness stated that on 04.03.2017 the investigation of this case was assigned to him for three days and he received the case file. He did not conduct any investigation during that period. He did not prepare any record to show that mobile phone of Manjeet was seen by him or the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 57 conversation recorded in the mobile phone was heard by him. He admitted that he did not hear any conversation recorded on the mobile phone. He does not remember if Manjeet told him that his mobile phone was having dual Sim or having single sim. He admitted that he did not seize any mobile phone on 02.03.2017. PCR officials were already present when they reached the spot first time. He denied the suggestion that Inspector Ramesh and SHO PS: SP Badli were already present on the spot before he reached there or the body was shifted to the hospital in the presence and on the directions of SHO. He did not note down the name of the PCR officials who shifted the dead body to the hospital. He did not inquire from Manjeet if Parveen was having any mobile phone. He did not inquire from Manjeet if the mobile phone number told by him was of Parveen or not. He did not try to trace or record the statement of Harender. He does not remember if the statement of Harender was on file when the investigation was assigned to him on 03.03.2017. He cannot say if IO did not record the statement of Harender. The house of the accused was 2 ½ storied. The adjacent house is also 2 ½ storied. There was blood on the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 58 mattresses in large quantity. Crime team did not visit the scene of crime in his presence. He had not noticed blood on the clothes of accused when he apprehended him. He admitted that there was no apparent injury on the face of the accused when they apprehended him. He did not conduct any search in the house where the dead body was found.
84. No written order was given to him for going out of station. It was verbal direction. He had not received any secret information in this case on 02.03.2017 and 03.03.2017 till his return to the police station. He admitted that in DD No.30A dt. 02.03.2017 it is not mentioned that information about presence of accused in Karnal is received. He did not record any statement of Sombir on 02.03.2017. He recorded the statement of Sombir only on 04.03.2017. He does not remember if Sombir in his statement told him that police visited the village Balla, on 02.03.2017 and took away accused Parveen. After going through the statement of Sombir he stated that he had not deposed so. Sombir did not tell him as to since when accused Parveen was residing with him. In DD No.70B Ex.PW36/DX there is no mention that State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 59 accused was apprehended from village Balla Distt. Karnal, Haryana or that they are leaving for the village Balla. He denied the suggestion that on 02.03.2017 after receiving information about death of his wife accused came to his house or that on his arrival he was apprehended. He denied the suggestion that accused told that he was at the house of his Mausi at Karnal at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion that to verify this fact police reached the house of his Mausi at Karnal or that Sombir told them that accused is staying at their house for the last 2-3 days or for this reason statement of Sombir was not recorded or due to this reason neither in DD No.30A nor in DD 70B it is mentioned that police team is going to village Balla.
85. He denied the suggestion that accused was not present at his house on the intervening night of 01/02 March 2017 or in the morning of 02.03.2017. He denied the suggestion that after the offence was committed the family members concocted a false story or that accused has been falsely implicated. He denied the suggestion that no call was received by Manjeet or recorded in the mobile phone of Manjeet State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 60 on 02.03.2017.
86. Inspector Ramesh did not ask Manjeet to show the residence or shop of Harender in his presence. He did not record the statement of the driver in whose car they had gone to Haryana. He denied the suggestion that they did not go to village Balla in search of the accused. It is correct that in the disclosure statement of accused the place of recovery is mentioned as the agricultural field in village Balla. He admitted that they did not visit any field in search of the weapon. In the sketch of the knife the presence of blood is not mentioned. He denied the suggestion that it was falsely planted and falsely shown to be recovered at the instance of accused.
87. Dr. Mukesh Kumar was examined as PW-37. On 02.03.2017 he along with Dr. Vijay Dhankar and Dr. Brijesh Narain Singh conducted post mortem on the dead body of Neha. After the post mortem they opined that cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon injury to the neck. All injuries were ante mortem in nature fresh in duration prior to death and caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 61 No.1 along with corresponding internal injuries was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The viscera was preserved to rule out any intoxication at the time of death. He proved the post mortem report as Ex.PW37/A.
88. He also perused the viscera analysis report No. FSL 2017/C/2344 dt. 27.04.2017 and opined that the cause of death is same as already given in the post mortem report.
89. On 21.03.2017 request was received from the IO along with the parcel sealed with the seal SK to opine about the weapon of offence. He examined the knife and opined that injury mentioned in the post morte report can be caused by the weapon (knife examined). He proved the subsequent opinion as Ex.PW37/B. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
90. Lateron the witness was re-called u/s 311 Cr.PC where in he stated that the possibility of cutting the throat of the victim while sleeping cannot be ruled out in the circumstances mentioned in the post mortem report. The post mortem report was prepared on the day post mortem was conducted. It is not State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 62 mentioned in the report that on which date it was handed over to the IO but there is a register maintained in the mortuary in which date of handing over the report to IO is mentioned. In the post mortem report it is not mentioned that how many inquest papers were received. The detail of inquest papers is mentioned in column No.11 of the post mortem report. He had not put any initial on any inquest paper. They only put photocopies of inquest papers which are still in their department. He denied the suggestion that as per protocol the autopsy surgeon is required to put the number on the inquest papers and put his initials.
91. Ms.Soni Khamba was examined as PW-38. She examined the exhibits of blood and DNA profiling and proved her report as Ex.PW38/A. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
92. W/Ct. Kewal was examined as PW-39. She deposed that on 02.03.2017 she was working in CPCR and was working on extension No.141 she received the information that "caller keh reha hai yahan ek aadmi ne apni wife ka kisi cheez se gala kaat diya". She fed State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 63 this information in PCR form No.2MAR171410104 dt. 02.03.2017 landing time 8:29:33 and dispersed time 8:32:29 from mobile No.9811773332. She proved the PCR form as Ex.PW23/A. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
93. V. Laxmi Narsimha, Asst. Director Physics FSL was examined as PW-40. He examined the audio file and proved his report as Ex.PW40/A. He admitted that there was no certificate or confirmation in audio cassettes to show that these contain the voice of the same person whose name is mentioned in the forwarding letter. He admitted that he had not examined the original mobile phone and the SIM card. He admitted that folder and file name is given by him. He stated that it was retrieved by computer forensic unit. He cannot say how many similar files were there in the mobile phone. The complete detail of the files contained in the mobile phone were not provided by the computer division of FSL. He denied the suggestion that report given by him is not correct.
94. Sombir was examined as PW-41. He deposed that on 02.03.2017 in the evening hours accused Parveen Rana came to his house. Parveen is his State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 64 cousin. Accused told him that he had murdered his wife at his house. He made a call to his maternal uncle Prem resident of village Murthal Distt. Sonepat Hayrana and informed him about the above facts. On the same night police reached at his house and apprehended the accused and took him to Delhi.
95. On 04.03.2017 police again came to his house along with accused Parveen. Parveen got recovered one bag. Police checked the bag and in that bag two pants and two shirts and one knife were found. The bag was of black colour. Police prepared the sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW34/B. The knife was wrapped in a cloth and seized vide memo Ex.PW34/C. The black bag with two pants and two shirts was also wrapped in cloth and seized vide memo Ex.PW34/D. The police also seized the motorcycle on which Parveen came to his house vide memo Ex.PW34/D. The witness identified the knife as Ex.PW34/Article-1. The bag along with two pants and two shirts as Ex.PW34/Article3 and the motorcycle Ex.PW34/Article4.
96. During cross-examination he stated that he did not make any call either to the father or brother of State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 65 accused on 02.03.2017. He has also not received any phone call from them on 02.03.2017. He did not sign any document prepared by the police on 02.03.2017. No other relative of his resides at village Balla except his family. He did not convey any information to his family member or other known persons residing in village Balla about accused on 02.03.2017. Police did not record his statement on 02.03.2017. He does not remember if he told to the police in his statement that on 02.03.2017 at about 6/ 7 pm Parveen Rana came to his house at Balla and told him that he had murdered his wife. This fact was not found mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He denied the suggestion that on 02.03.2017 Parveen Rana did not tell him that he had murdered his wife or that he did not inform his maternal uncle about this statement made by Parveen Rana. He denied the suggestion that Parveen Rana came to his village Balla one or two days prior to 02.03.2017 or that after receiving the information about the death of wife he came to Delhi from where he was apprehended and falsely implicated in this case. He denied the suggestion that Parveen Rana on 02.03.2017 brought the police to village Balla to State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 66 confirm his statement from him that he was residing at village Balla about one or two days prior to death of his wife or that he confirmed this fact to the police. He denied the suggestion that when Parveen Rana went to Delhi he was carrying his bag with him. He denied the suggestion that bag has been falsely shown to be recovered from village Balla.
97. Dr. Vijay Dhankar was examined as PW-42. He was in the team which conducted the post mortem along with Dr. Mukesh and Dr. Brijesh Narain. He deposed on the lines of PW-37 and proved the post mortem report as Ex.PW37/A.
98. During cross-examination he deposed that the inquest papers were not numbered by them and also not signed. The photocopies of the inquest papers were taken. He denied the suggestion that number of FIR was mentioned only upon the asking of the IO whereas by that time FIR was not recorded. There was no struggle mark on the body of deceased and hence the same was not incorporated in the post mortem report. There was cut throat injury on the body of the deceased which causes immediate death and hence no possibility of resistance and struggle. State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 67 Ld. Defence counsel put the question:
Q.If the cut throat injury is caused in the living body by the assailant from the front side there is possibility of struggle mark?
Ans. No, neck consists of only soft tissues on the front and cutting them with the sharp weapon can happen in less then a second which would lead to immediate death and will not lead to any struggle. Further it depends on two circumstances, distance between the victim and the assailant and the weapon used by the assailant. He admitted that he has mentioned that the trachea and oesophagus was cut through and through along with the surrounding muscles and nerves with cut present over the vertebral column. Multiple tailing were present on the two ends of the injury. He denied the suggestion that multiple tailing on the two ends of the injuries is indicative of the fact that the blow by knife was not sudden. If there is slight movement of the hand while giving the sudden blow there would be multiple tailings.
Q.I put to you that in the case where multiple tailing are appearing with the injury on the front of neck the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 68 young body of living person will resist. Ans. No, cut throat injury involved in cutting of neck vessels will cause immediate incapacitation and hence there is no possibility of resistance. The possibility of cutting the throat while the victim was sleeping cannot be ruled out in the circumstances mentioned above cannot be ruled out. The petechial hemorrhage are non specific findings and are found in different types of causes of death. No specific reason for appearance of the petechial hemorrhage can be given on the basis of post mortem report. As per post mortem report there was no symptoms of strangulation on the neck.
99. Inspector Ramesh Kumar was examined as PW-43.
He deposed that on 02.03.2017 he left the police station vide DD No.12 A Ex.PW27/A and reached at H.No.200 second floor. In the room on the second floor one double bed was lying. Blood was found on the bedding of the bed and also on the wall. SHO and the other staff also reached the spot. Manjeet Rana the real brother of accused Parveen Rana was on the spot. Neha the deceased was the wife of accused Parveen Rana. SI Suresh Kaushik recorded State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 69 the statement of Manjeet Rana. Thereafter, SI Suresh went to BSA hospital. Crime team reached the spot and inspected the scene of crime. Photographer took the photographs. SI Suresh came back on the spot. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW2/A at the instance of Manjeet Rana. Ct. Mukesh came to the spot and handed over copy of FIR Ex.PW20/B along with original rukka to him.
100. He corroborated the testimony of PW-26 regarding lifting of the exhibit from the spot. Thereafter he along with SI Ajay Kumar reached BSA Hospital where he prepared the inquest papers. Ex.PW43/A. Dead body was identified by Amit and Manjeet vide memos Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW3/A respectively. Dead body was identified by Amit and Manjeet vide memos Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW2/B. He requested Manjeet Rana to hand over his mobile phone as he had received call of the accused admitting that he had killed his wife. Manjeet Rana expressed his inability to hand over the mobile phone because he was receiving the telephone calls after the death of Neha and he had also to inform his relatives about the death of Neha. Manjeet Rana assured him that State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 70 he would protect and save the said conversation.
101. He moved application for the post mortem. After the post mortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives vide memo Ex.PW15/B. After post mortem doctor handed over to him three sealed parcels, one envelope and one sealed parcel along with two sample seals which he seized vide memo Ex.PW27/D. He deposited the case property in the malkhana. On the same day on his direction SI Suresh Kaushik along with SI Deepak, HC Goverdhan left for out station at 7 pm vide DD No.30A Ex.PW36/C.
102. On 03.03.2017 accused was produced before him by SI Suresh Kaushik and other staff. He interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW25/A. He conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW25/B. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.PW25/C. He obtained the police custody remand of accused.
103. On 03.03.2017 Manjeet Rana came to the police station and handed over his mobile make LeTV golden colour. He seized the same vide memo Ex.PW2/C. He interrogated the accused, at that time State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 71 Suresh S/o Kishori Lal came to the police station and identified the accused as the person who made a call by using his mobile phone. Accused also revealed that he was wearing the same clothes at the time of commission of offence. He recorded the supplementary disclosure of accused which is Ex.PW34/A. The clothes of the accused that is black colour T-shirt and blue colour trouzer were taken in possession vide memo Ex.PW34/F. Fresh clothes were provided to the accused brought from his house. Thereafter on his direction SI Suresh Kaushik along with HC Ashok and Ct. Mukesh went to village Balla, Karnal, Haryana along with the accused. Thereafter, they returned to the police station and deposited the case property in the malkhana.
104. On 07.03.2017 he moved application Ex.PW43/B for voice examination test of accused and for taking voice sample of the complainant and the accused. He produced the complainant and accused on 03.04.2017 at 10:30 am with transcription and four empty audio cassettes for conducting voice examination. He recorded the statements of witnesses. He collected the PCR form No.1 and State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 72 moved application Ex.PW43/C with regard to the subsequent opinion. He obtained the subsequent opinion on 31.03.2017 which is Ex.PW37/B. He collected the photographs taken by the mobile crime team. On 29.03.2017 the exhibits were sent to FSL through HC Dilbagh Singh. On 03.04.2017 the accused was produced for taking voice sample. Complainant was also taken there. The four empty cassettes were handed over to the lab assistant physics division. After recording, he seized the four cassettes vide memo Ex.PW32/A. On 12.04.2017 the exhibits were sent to FSL through Ct.Punnu. He recorded the statement of witnesses, collected the call detail records of the mobile phones. He collected the FSL results Ex.PW43/D, Ex.PW32/A, Ex.PW40/A and Ex.PW43/E. He identified the exhibits and also the accused.
105. During cross-examination by the defence counsel he deposed that the call at 100 number was made by father of the accused. He admitted that father of accused is not an eye witness. Satbir the father of accused met him for the first time in the hospital on 02.03.2017. He did not record the statement of Satbir State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 73 on 02.03.2017. He did not record the statement of the police officials who were first to reach the spot. During investigation accused disclosed that he cut the neck of his wife after putting her on the bed. He did not found any mark of struggle or injury on the person of accused when he arrested him. There were no blood stains visible on the clothes of the accused and during investigation accused did not tell any fact that he changed his clothes or washed the clothes. He collected the CDR of mobile phone of Manjeet. He did not notice if the mobile phone produced by Manjeet was of dual Sim or single Sim. He does not remember if he recorded the IMEI number of the mobile phone of Manjeet. Record shows that in the seizure memo Ex.PW2/C the IMEI number is not mentioned. The mobile phone of Manjeet was taken out on the request of Ld. Defence counsel. On the direction of the court it was found having two IMEI numbers 869087020596240 and 869087020596257. He did not give any notice in writing to Manjeet to deposit the mobile phone. He did not record the statement of Manjeet that he is receiving phone calls from his relatives and that is why he has shown his inability to hand over his State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 74 mobile phone to him on 02.03.2017. He denied the suggestion that Manjeet had tendered false explanation in this regard. He did not find any mobile phone of the deceased and he also did not try to find out the mobile phone of the deceased. The mobile phone of the deceased was not found on the scene of crime. Deceased was working as nurse in Kirti Nagar dispensary. He did not verify from the dispensary on 02.03.2017, if deceased had to attend the dispensary or applied for leave. The form 25.35 B Ex.PW43/A was filled by SI Ajay on his direction. He does not remember if he observed any struggle marks on the body of deceased or on the clothes.
106. A complaint was given in 2014 by the deceased against the accused which was assigned to HC Ramesh. He admitted that accused told him that he was beaten by his in-laws in the year 2015 and was taken to DDU hospital, but these facts were not found correct during investigation. He made inquiries from SI Satybir who investigated that matter in the year 2015. He did not collect the MLC No.264/15 of the accused prepared in 2015 during the investigation of the case.
State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 75
107. No application for Judicial TIP of accused was moved. He admitted that accused was not kept in muffled face. He did not receive any information about apprehension of accused. He was directly produced before him on 03.03.2017 at 11:00 am. He collected the CDR of the mobile phone of Manjeet for the period 01.03.2017 to 03.03.2017. he did not prepare any voice identification memo either on 02.03.2017 or on 03.03.2017.
108. He had not prepared any record that he had listen the audio recording from the mobile phone of Manjeet on 02.03.2017. He denied the suggestion that no such record was prepared as on 02.03.2017 he did not listen any recording and there was no such recording in the mobile on 02.03.2017. He denied the suggestion that later on the recording in the mobile phone of Manjeet was manipulated or that after loading the same mobile was seized. He did not record the statement of father or the mother of Manjeet on 02.03.2017. He did not prepare any document to verify if auto call recorder App was there in the mobile phone.
109. The police team went out station on 03.03.2017 after State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 76 making DD No.70B Ex.PW36/DX. No DD entry was made regarding arrival of Suresh S/o Kishori Lal in the police station. He denied the suggestion that Suresh did not identify the accused on 03.03.2017 or that is why there is no such mention in DD No.70B Ex.PW36/DX. He did not prepare any record that he had arranged for blank cassettes for depositing in the FSL. FSL official did not affix his seal on those cassettes. FSL official written alphabet 'O' on the original cassette and 'C' on copied cassette. He denied the suggestion that all the four cassettes the voice of Manjeet was recorded in the police station or that thereafter two out of four cassettes were made as specimen voice of Parveen Rana. He denied the suggestion that voice of Parveen Rana was not recorded or that the record with respect to the voice was manipulated. He denied the suggestion that there was no quarrel took place between the accused and deceased on the intervening night of 01 and 02 March 2017 or that no threat was extended by accused to the deceased.
110. Rohit Sahu was examined as PW-44. He deposed that on 03.04.2017 he was working as operator. On State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 77 that day Inspector Ramesh Kumar along with his staff produced one accused Parveen Rana and another person for recording their voices. Inspector Ramesh provided him four new packed audio cassettes. He recorded the voice sample of the accused and prepared two cassette one original and one copy. Thereafter, he recorded the voice of the other person and prepared two cassette one original and one copy. He handed over all the four cassettes to the police.
111. During cross-examination by the defence he stated that he did not sign any document to the fact that he took the voice sample of two persons. He did not seal the cassettes with his seal. He also did not put his initials on those audio cassettes. He did not hand over any document to the police showing that the recording in the cassettes was done by him. He denied the suggestion that he did not take the voice sample of two persons or that no recording was done by him in the FSL.
112. Vikas Kumar Senior scientific Assistant was examined as PW-45. He was deputed by the Director FSL to depose in place of Yuvraj Deshmukh Junior State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 78 Scientific/Assistant Chemical examiner. He worked with him. He had proved the report Ex.PW43/E and identified signature of Yuvraj Deshmukh at point A and B.
113. During cross-examination he stated that if a mobile phone is having facility of inserting dual Sim the mobile phone will be having two IMEI numbers. He does not know if any computer print out was taken out of the timing of the relevant call and from which number it was made. In general practice IO sent specific querrey in the forwarding letter itself and most probably that is reflected in the report. He had not received the forwarding letter in this case and has seen only the report. He admitted that the mobile number and data mentioned in the report are as per the quarry of the IO but the data is recovered from the mobile phone. He denied the suggestion that no call detail data was retrieved from the mobile phone. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.
114. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein he denied the entire evidence. Though he admitted that Neha was his wife. He did not wish to lead any evidence in defence and claimed that he is State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 79 innocent. Thereafter, the case was fixed for final arguments.
115. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state ld. Counsel Sh. Rajiv Mohan for the accused and perused the record.
116. The case is based upon circumstantial evidence there is no eye witness in this case. It is settled law that even in the absence of eye witnesses a person can be held guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court in the case titled as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 has held that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 80 consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
117. In the present case prosecution intend to prove the guilt of accused by proving the following circumstances:
Extra Judicial Confession.
Recover of dead body pursuance to the extra judicial confession.
Accused making call from the mobile phone of Suresh.
The Recovery of weapon of offence The plea of alibi.
118. I take up the circumstance one by one Extra Judicial Confession
119. Ld. APP submitted that in the present case there is extra judicial confession made by the accused before his own brother Manjeet Rana examined as PW-2 and his cousin Sombir examined as PW-41. Ld. PP submitted that it was the morning of 02.03.17 when accused made a telephone call to Manjeet Rana on his mobile number 9711119874 from mobile phone no. 9871827742 and asked, "kit hai". Manjeet replied, "mein ghara". Accused asked Manjeet to State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 81 make a call at 100 number and also said, "maar di hai maine, upper padi hai voh, theek hai". Ld.APP submitted that by saying these words to Manjeet Rana, he has confessed that he had killed his wife. Manjeet Rana when appeared in the witness box as PW-2 has fully supported the prosecution case. Ld. APP submitted that he is trustworthy and reliable witness. He is the real brother of the accused and there is no reason for PW-2 to falsely implicate his own real brother or depose falsely against him. Ld. PP submitted that this testimony of PW-2 inspires confidence.
120. Ld. APP submitted that the other witness is Sombir examined as PW-41. He is also the cousin brother of the accused. On 02.03.17 in the evening at 6/7 PMaccused reached the house of Sombir situated in village Balla, PS Asandh, Dist. Karnal and told Sombir that he has murdered his wife at his home. Ld. APP submitted that both the witnesses are close relative of the accused and that is why he confided in them and confessed about murdering his own wife. Both witnesses are reliable and trustworthy. None of them had any reason to depose falsely. Both have State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 82 stood through the test of cross examination and proved the extra judicial confession made by the accused. Ld. APP submitted that the onus which was on the prosecution has fully been discharged. This circumstance points towards the guilt of the accused and is also inconsistent with any hypthesis of innocence of accused.
121. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that so far as witness Sombir is concerned he has made material improvement in his statement. His statement was recorded on 04.03.17 under Sec.161 Cr.PC. In his statement recorded under Sec.161 Cr.PC there is no such mention that accused reached his house on 02.03.17 at about 6/7 PM or that accused told him that he had murdered his wife. Ld. Counsel submitted that this is a new fact introduced by PW-41 in his statement. Under the circumstances as it is a material improvement made by the witness, hence his testimony in this regard can not be relied upon.
122. Ld.counsel further submitted that so far as Manjeet is concerned, he is the real brother of accused. He is not a reliable witness and is deposing falsely at the instance of his father and the family members of the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 83 deceased in order to save themselves from the case as they were threatened that if they will not name Parveen, they would implicate all of them. Ld. Counsel submitted that even otherwise PW-2 is not reliable and not trust worthy. According to PW-36, he recorded the statement of Manjeet on the spot and from there they went to the hospital and from the hospital he went to PS where he handed over rukka to duty officer for registration of FIR. Ld. Counsel submitted that according to the record the FIR was registered at 11 AM but if PW-2 is to be believed his statement was recorded on 02.03.16 in the PS in the evening after cremation. Ld. Counsel submitted that in fact the FIR is ante time and is result of due deliberation between the family of the deceased and Manjeet Rana along with IO. They thereafter manipulated and made out a case implicating Parveen Rana showing that he has murdered his wife. Ld. Counsel submitted that there was no occasion for accused to make a call and tell all these facts. Even otherwise according to PW-2 accused was having his own mobile phone but he did not make the call from his mobile phone but from other number. Ld. Counsel submitted that in order to make State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 84 out the case, the call detail record was checked and thereafter it was planted that accused made the call from that number because there was no other call received at the relevant time vide which accused could be implicated in this case. Ld. Counsel submitted that as PW-2 is not reliable, hence the circumstance of extra judicial confession is not proved. Even otherwise extra judicial confession is very weak type of evidence and it does not point towards the guilt of the accused. It is prayed that as the prosecution has failed to prove and establish this circumstance, the benefit of same be given to the accused and he be acquitted.
123. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that so far as Sombir is concerned in his statement recorded by the police, there is no such mention that accused told him that he has murdered his wife at home. It is for the first time in the court that he deposed this fact. His attention was also drawn towards his statement recorded under Sec.161 Cr.PC wherein this fact does not found mention. Under the circumstances, in my opinion it is material improvement made by Sombir in his State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 85 statement while deposing before the court that accused confessed before him that he had murdered his wife at home. Keeping in view all these facts in my opinion the statement of Sombir to this effect can not be relied.
124. So far as the testimony of Manjeet Rana is concerned, Ld. Counsel has tried to make out the case that there is some family dispute or that Manjeet Rana is telling a lie in connivance with other family members and the IO but could not substantiate the same. The father of accused Sh. Satbir was examined as PW-13. He deposed that he had already disowned Parveen Rana. Under the circumstances, I do not find that there was any reason to falsely implicate the accused as PW-13 had already disowned him. He had also stated that the property is also not in his name but in the name of his father, that also again shows that there can not be any such issue with respect to the property to falsely implicate the accused. The father Satbir when appeared in the witness box as PW-13 he denied the suggestion that he did not want to give share in the property to accused or that is why he falsely State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 86 implicated the accused. The record also shows that accused was residing in the same property where the other family members were residing i.e. his father, brother, brother's wife and their child. PW-2 has specifically stated that on 02.03.17 at about 8.23 AM he received the call from mobile phone number 9871827742 and the accused asked him to make a call at 100 number and also informed "maar di hai mene, uppar padi hai voh, theek hai". PW-2 has stood through the test of cross examination. The suggestion is given to the witness that accused did not tell this fact but he specifically denied. Question raised by the Ld.counsel is that accused had his own mobile number then why he will make a call at any other mobile phone, but it is not necessary that accused shall make a call from his own mobile only. PW-2 is real brother of accused. There is nothing on record that the two brothers have any animosity or PW-2 had any reason to depose falsely against own real brother or that he had not recognized the voise of his own brother on telephone. PW-2 had stood through the test of cross examination. Ld. Defence counsel has also raised the issue of fabricating the facts and delay in recording the statement of PW-2 State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 87 but I don't find any substance in the same particularly when there is documentary evidence to the effect that FIR is registered at 11 as mentioned in the FIR Ex.PW-20/B. The witnesses stated that Manjeet Rana was on the spot when they reached there and Manjeet Rana also admitted that police met him and made inquiries from him. Keeping in view all these facts and considering the fact that one death had taken place in the family of Manjeet Rana, some discrepancy about the time when his statement was recorded does not demolish the entire testimony and the entire case of prosecution. It is to be kept in mind that he is real brother of the accused. There is nothing on record that there is any dispute between two brothers or he has any reason to depose falsely. He has also stood through the test of cross examination. Keeping in view all these facts, in my opinion, the circumstance of extra judicial confession is proved and established by the prosecution. Recovery of dead body pursuance to the extra judicial confession.
125. Ld. APP submitted that after receiving information at 8.23 AM, Manjeet informed his mother, who is State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 88 residing with him on the first floor of the same house. They went to the second floor where accused along with deceased and children was residing. Manjeet and his mother found some body lying on the bed under a blanket. After removing the blanket they found that Neha is lying on the bed having cut injuries on her throat. She was dead. Thereafter they came down. Manjeet told this fact to his father Satbir Singh Rana. Satbir Singh Rana made a call at 100 number at 8.29.33 hours as per PCR form Ex.PW- 23/A. Ld. APP submitted that this recovery of dead body from the room situated on second floor occupied by the accused and his family corroborates the extra judicial confession made before Manjeet Rana and points towards the guilt of the accused. Ld. APP submitted that prosecution has proved and established this fact by examining PW-2 Manjeet Rana, PW-13 Satbir Singh, who made the call and then PW-23, who proved the PCR form as Ex.PW- 23/A. Ld. APP submitted this point towards the guilt of the accused and is also inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence of accused.
126. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that according to the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 89 testimony of PW-2, after receiving the information he informed his mother but he did not tell that Parveen Rana has told him that he has murdered his wife. He went to the second floor along with his mother and after removing the blanket, they found the dead body of Neha. The mother of Manjeet Rana had not been examined to prove and establish this fact that they went upstairs only after getting information from the accused. Ld. Counsel submitted that in fact that it was the time for Neha to go to office as according to PW-2 Neha used to leave at 7.30 AM in the morning. They checked if she had gone and found her dead, thereafter, a story was concocted to implicate the accused. Father has been examined but he had not gone upstairs to verify the same. He had also not told the name of Parveen Rana that he had killed his wife but he only told that ek aadmi ne apni wife ka kisi cheez se gala kaat diya. Ld. Counsel submitted that under the circumstances the best witness was mother, who has not been produced in the witness box. So far as PW-2 is concerned, he himself stated that he did not believe the accused when he told him that he had killed his wife. Ld. Counsel submitted that onus was on the prosecution, who established State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 90 the chain that recovery of dead body only pursuance to the extra judicial confession which has not been established. It is prayed that benefit of the same be given to the accused and he be acquitted.
127. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that the information was received by Manjeet Rana at 8.23 AM. The call was made at 8.29.33 hours as mentioned in PW-32/A. Manjeet Rana had stated that he went up stair with his mother only after getting this information. Thereafter he went down and informed his father, who made a call at 100 number. It is a known fact that a person can tell a lie but the circumstances do not. Here the documentary evidence i.e. the call detail record of PW-2 Ex.PW-5/G shows that call was received at 8.23.07 hours and the call detail record of Satbir Ex.PW-5/C shows that he made the call at 100 number at 8.28.36 hours clearly shows that Manjeet Rana and his parents came to know about the death of Neha only after accused made the extra judicial confession and told that he has killed his wife. The exact word used are, "maar di hai mene, uppar padi hai voh, theek hai". In this accused had also told that State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 91 dead body is lying upstair from where the dead body was ultimately recovered and found by PW-2. No doubt PW-2 reached there along with his mother and they were the first persons to find the dead body and the mother of PW-2 had not been examined. Non examination of the mother does not demolish the case and no adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution for not examining the mother of PW-2 and of accused as the other witnesses examined in this regard have fully supported and corroborated each other and also the story of the prosecution. In view of the testimony of PW-2, PW-13 and PW-23 in my opinion, the onus which was on the prosecution has fully discharged and it is established that dead body was found pursuance to the extra judicial confession made by the accused.
Accused making call from the mobile phone of Suresh.
128. Ld.APP submitted that as per PW-2 on 02.03.17 at 8.23 AM, he received call from mobile phone no.9871827742. The record of this mobile phone was checked. It was found to be in the name of Naresh Yadav/PW-14. Naresh Yadav deposed that he is State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 92 running a lakdi ki taal where Suresh son of Kishore Lal is working under him as rickshaw puller. He purchased one mobile phone number 9871827742 using his ID. He identified his photograph at point A and signature at point B. on the customer application form Ex.PW-14/A. He also gave photocopy of his voter ID card while purchasing the sim card and the same is Ex.PW-14/B. The record from Bharti Airtel Ltd.was also summoned. Sh. Chander Shekhar Nodal officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.was examined as PW-
35. He brought the original customer application form. According to that record, this phone number was issued in the name of Naresh son of Sita Ram i.e. PW-14. He proved the customer application form as Ex.PW-35/D and the voter ID card annexed with the customer application form as Ex,.PW-35/E. Call detail record of this phone number is proved as Ex.PW-35/F and the certificate under Sec.65 B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW-35/G. This mobile phone was used by Suresh. Suresh has been examined as PW-12. He fully corroborated the testimony of PW-14 that this phone number was given to him by his employer Naresh Yadav. He also deposed that on 02.03.17 at about 8.30 AM he was State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 93 standing outside the taal situated on Palla Road, near PS Alipur accused came to him and asked for his mobile phone for making some call. He handed over his mobile phone to the accused, who after making the call returned his mobile phone and went away. Ld. APP submitted that PW-12 has correctly identified the accused Parveen Rana as the person, who took the mobile phone of PW-12 and made the call. Ld. APP submitted that according to this record on 02.03.17 at 8.23.06 hours call was made at mobile phone no.9711119874 and the duration was 17 seconds. This mobile phone number is of Manjeet Rana as deposed by PW-2 Manjeet and also according to the customer application form data Ex.PW-5/E which was supported by ID proof i.e. driving license Ex.PW-5/G. The call detail record of this phone is proved as Ex.PW-5/G and this record shows that a call was received at 8.23.07 hours from the mobile phone number 9871827742. Ld. APP submitted that the documentary evidence i.e. the CDR is supported by the oral testimony of PW-2, PW-12 and PW-14. PW-12 has also correctly identified the accused as the person, who took the mobile phone from him and made a call. Ld. APP State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 94 submitted that this making of a call further point towards the guilt of accused that it was he who made the call to Manjeet and none else confessing about murder of Neha, his own wife. Ld. APP submitted that the onus which was on the prosecution has fully been discharged and the circumstance is proved and established beyond doubt.
129. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that accused was having his own mobile numbers 9136213834 and 9213450214 as admitted by PW-2. If he had to made a call, he would have made the same by using any of these phone numbers. Accused did not make any such call from mobile phone no.9871827742. The witness Suresh examined as PW-12 has been falsely introduced. As per the evidence he was not knowing the accused before that day, therefore, the judicial TIP should have been got conducted, but the IO in his own wisdom did not get the TIP conducted. The accused was shown to the witness in the police station that he has to identify him as the person, who took his mobile phone and he accordingly identified the accused in the court. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that Suresh was already known to Manjeet State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 95 Rana and he used to call him but in order to implicate the accused, this false story has been concocted that accused made the call using mobile phone of Suresh. Ld. Counsel submitted that when accused was having his own mobile phone, there was no occasion for him to take the mobile phone of some other person and make call. Ld. Defence counsel prayed that Suresh is an introduced witness, who falsely implicate the accused regarding making telephone call. He is not reliable, particularly when TIP was not conducted.
130. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that there is no such question either to Manjeet or to Suresh that they were knowing each other or that they used to call each other even prior to 02.03.17. Even the CDR placed on record does not show any previous call between the two. The CDR of Manjeet Rana has been proved on record as Ex.PW-5/G. This CDR shows that he has received the call from mobile phone number 9871827742 at 8.23.07 hours.
131. The mobile number 9871827742 is found to have been issued in the name of Naresh Yadav. Naresh State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 96 Yadav was examined as PW-14, who admitted that he got issued this phone number on his ID. After getting this phone number, he handed over this phone number to Suresh son of Kishori Lal, who was working as rickshaw pullar on his shop. Suresh was examined as PW-12. He correctly identified the accused as the person, who took mobile phone from him for making some call and after making the call returned his phone. The contention raised is that test identification prayed should have been conducted and in the absence of the same, testimony of PW-12 identifying the accused first time before the court can not be relied. It is important to note that accused met this witness during day time, remained face to face to him for a long time while making call and that is why he was able to recognize his face and identified the accused. It was suggested to this witness that police pointed out the accused to him but he stated that he identified the accused himself and pointed out to the police that he is the same person, who took mobile phone from him and made a call, thereafter returned his mobile phone. Keeping in view this fact in my opinion, even if TIP was not conducted that does not effect the credibility of the witness PW-12 and his State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 97 identification of the accused in the court is admissible and reliable. The CDR of this number has also been placed and proved on record as Ex.PW-35/F. This CDR also shows that on 02.03.17 at 8.23.06 hours a call was made at mobile phone number 9711119874 i.e. on the mobile phone of Manjeet Rana. This documentary evidence and the testimony of PW-12 clearly establishes that it was the accused who made the call to Manjeet Rana on 02.03.17 by using mobile phone number 9871827742. The onus which was on the prosecution has fully been discharged and the circumstance is established.
Recovery of weapon of offence.
132. Ld. APP submitted that in this case accused was apprehended from village Balla. Initially he confessed that he had thrown the weapon of offence in the field but then he led the police team to village Balla to the house of Sombir/PW-41 and from the room got recovered one bag of black colour. From the pocket of that bag one kitchen knife Ex.PW- 34/Article 1 was recovered. The sketch of the knife is Ex.PW-34/B. The knife was wrapped in a white cloth, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 98 Ex.PW-34/C. Prosecution has examined three witnesses to prove the recovery of knife i.e. PW-34 Ct. Mukesh, PW-36 SI Suresh and PW-41 Sombir. All the three witnesses are consistent and deposed about the recovery. They have also identified the knife. This knife was also shown to Dr. Mukesh/PW- 37, who gave the subsequent opinion Ex.PW-37/B that the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report can be caused by weapon (knife) examined. Ld. APP submitted that in this case public witness PW-41 is the cousin of the accused. There is no reason for him to depose falsely or implicate the accused falsely. He has only deposed the truth. His testimony gives credibility to the testimony of PW-34 and PW-36. Three witnesses have corroborated each other and proved the recovery of knife Ex.PW-34/Article 1 beyond doubt. Ld. APP submitted that the onus which was on the prosecution has fully been discharged by examining PW-34, PW-36 and PW-41 and then the opinion of the doctor, who conducted the post mortem that the injuries found on the dead body are possible with this knife. It is prayed that this circumstance point towards the guilt of the accused and stands established.
State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 99
133. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that this is some thing unbelievable that the accused who according to the prosecution had traveled all the way upto village Balla in District Karnal would continue to carry the weapon of offence with him, which otherwise have no value for him. Ld. Counsel submitted that it is a kitchen knife and in fact it was lifted from the kitchen on 02.03.17 itself and later on planted upon the accused. Even that bag which is shown to have been recovered from the house of Sombir at village Balla was not recovered from there. Ld. Counsel submitted that accused was already there at the house of Sombir. When he came to know about the death of his wife, he came to Delhi and was apprehended from outside his house and falsely implicated. Ld. Counsel submitted that the witnesses are planted and the knife was also planted upon the accused
134. This knife was also sent to FSL for analysis but the DNA on the blood found on the knife could not be isolated and it could not be established that the blood was even of human origin. There is no conclusive evidence that the injury on the persons of Neha was caused only with this knife. The onus was on the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 100 prosecution to prove and establish this fact which the prosecution has failed to prove and establish. It is prayed that benefit be given to the accused and he be acquitted.
135. After hearing the arguments and going through the record I found that there are three witnesses of recovery of weapon of offence i.e. PW-34, PW-36 and PW-41. All three are consistent and corroborated each other that the accused led the police team to the house of Sombir at village Balla on 04.03.17 and from the room got recovered one bag of black colour having label of "Teachers". In the bag there were two pants and two shirts. From the pocket of that bag, the knife Ex.PW-34/Article 1 was recovered. All the three witnesses have stood through the test of cross examination. It is pertinent of mention here that PW-41 is the cousin of the accused and there is nothing on record that he has any reason to depose falsely against the accused. In fact accused himself stated that he was at that time at the house of Sombir but he alleges that it was 2-3 days prior to 02.03.17 that he was there. I will discuss this issue later on but this fact itself shows State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 101 that the relations between the accused and Sombir were cordial and there are no animosity between the two. Sombir PW-41 fully supported and corroborate the testimony of PW-34 and PW-36 that accused got recovered the black bag from his house and from the pocket of that bag the knife Ex.PW-34/Article 1 was recovered. In view of the testimony of the three witnesses, in my opinion the prosecution has been able to prove the recovery of knife at the instance of accused.
136. Ld. Defence counsel has raised the plea that this knife was lifted from the kitchen and planted upon the accused, but I found that there is no such cross examination to PW29 and PW-36 that the knife was lifted from the kitchen on 02.03.17 itself. There is also no cross examination to PW-2 in this regard. Keeping in view these facts, I do not find any merit in the defence raised by the accused.
137. This knife was sent to FSL for analysis. The FSL result is available on record and is Ex.PW-38/A. According to this result blood was found on the knife. This report itself is not conclusive evidence that the blood found on the knife was of the deceased as the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 102 DNA could not be isolated from the blood found on the knife but at the same time the subsequent opinion given by Dr. Mukesh/PW-37 is important, which shows that the injury found on the body of the deceased can be possible with this knife.
138. The counsel has also submitted that accused was not arrested from village Balla. He himself came to Delhi after coming to know about the death of his wife but I do not agree with Ld. Counsel on this point as according to PW-2 accused was having two mobile phones. He got this information at the house of Sombir as argued by the defence counsel but Sombir does not support the same. There is nothing on record to show that accused contacted any of his family members including his father, mother, brother or in laws to verify the truth of the information about the murder of his wife. If he had got that information at Karnal as alleged by him then he must have contacted his family members firstly to know whether the information received by him is correct or not, which is not there. Infact he was already knowing that he was murdered his wife and only thereafter he reached village Balla. This itself falsifies the stand State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 103 taken by the accused.
139. Keeping in view the above discussions, in my opinion the prosecution is able to prove the recovery of knife Ex.PW-34/Article 1 at the instance of accused from the house of Sombir from village Balla, District Karnal, Haryana.
Plea of alibi.
140. In this case Ld. Counsel argued that accused was not present at home on the intervening night of 1 and 2nd March 2017. He was already at the house of Sombir. It was at Karnal that he got the information and thereafter he came to Delhi. The onus was upon the defence to prove and establish this fact which the defence has miserably failed. In fact this was an attempt to come out of the evidence that he along with his wife and children was residing on the second floor of the house where this offence was committed. The witnesses i.e. PW-2 Manjeet Rana, Master Kartik/PW-3, real son of the accused, Master Chirag/PW-4, real son of the accused and Satbir/PW-13, all stated that accused was residing along with his wife and children on the second floor of the house no.200 village Khera Kalan, Balle Pn State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 104 wali gali, i.e. the place of incident and there is no denial to that fact by the accused. Even in his statement under Sec.313 Cr.PC in reply to question 1, he admitted this fact that he was residing there. The only witness about the plea of allbie i.e. Sombir did not support the stand taken by the accused and he specifically stated that accused came to him only on 02.03.17 that also at about 6/7 PM. Defence counsel has asked him that accused was at his home 2-3 days prior to 02.03.17 which he specifically denied. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the defence taken by the accused that he was not at home at the relevant time but was at village Balla with Sombir.
141. Here the testimony of Nisha/PW-6 and of Pushpa Choudhary/PW-7 are also important. Both stated that on 01.03.17 Neha made a call and informed them that accused had beaten her mercilessly and also threatened to kill her and her sons with axe. This testimony of Nisha Malik/PW-6 and PW-7 is corroborated by the call detail record, showing that Neha from her mobile phone no.9891635231 made a call on the mobile phone no.9999505951 and also on State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 105 the mobile phone no.8130337251. The mobile phone no.9891635231 was alloted in the name of Amit Choudhary, brother of deceased Neha as per the customer application form proved as Ex.PW-10/A. Amit was examined as PW-15 and he stated that this mobile phone no.was got issued by him but he gave the same to his sister Neha (deceased). The call detail record of this number from 01.03.17 to 03.03.17 is proved as Ex.PW-10/C which shows that from this number a call was made on mobile phone number 9999505951 at 20.38 hours and the duration was 720 seconds. Another call was made from mobile phone number 9891635231 on mobile phone no.8130337251 at 21:24 hours and the duration of the call was 234 seconds. The certificate under Sec.65 B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW-10/D. It is also important to note here that according to PW- 15 mobile phone no.8130337251 was used by Pushpa/PW-7 his mother. The mobile phone no.9999505951 was issued in the name of Naveen Malik examined as PW-17 and he deposed that this phone number was used by his wife Nisha Malik/PW-
6. This witness has also stated that on 01.03.17 in the night his wife received a call from the mobile State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 106 phone of her sister Neha, who informed that she was beaten by accused and was weeping. It is important to note that the testimony of Naveen Malik had gone unchallenged and uncontroverted. This fact has also remained unchallenged and uncontroverted that mobile phone issued in the name of Amit was used by Neha. Keeping in view the testimony of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-6 immediately informing her husband Naveen examined as PW-15 clearly shows that accused had beaten his wife on 01.03.17 and that is why there is no challenge to the testimony of PW-15 on this count. This fact also shows that accused was also present at home on that day.
142. Prosecution also alleges that in the mobile phone of Manjeet there was an auto recorded app. When Manjeet received the call from mobile phone no.9871827742, it was automatically recorded. The voice samples of accused and the complainant were taken in the FSL lab by PW-44 Rohit. Those casettes were examined in the FSL. The report of FSL is Ex.PW-40/A. According to this report the one voice is of the accused, who said the words, "kit hai 100 per call ker de" and the words "main ghara" are in the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 107 voice of Manjeet Rana. The contention is that this establishes that the call was made by accused to Manjeet Rana. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the mobile phone of Manjeet was not seized on 02.03.17 but was seized on 03.03.17. There is no reasonable explanation coming on record as to why this phone was not seized on 02.03.17. The IO had stated that the mobile phone could not be seized on 02.03.17 as Manjeet told that he has to inform the relatives about the death and would also be receiving the calls on this mobile phone but the call detail record shows that there are no such call received on this mobile number after 10.03.17 hours. Therefore, this plea taken by him is itself false. Ld. Counsel has also submitted that the recording was added in the mobile phone later on. The voice recording was done by Manjeet Rana in the mobile phone as well as in the FSL but it is passed as voice of Parveen Rana as confessing his crime and informing Manjeet about commission of offence. Ld. Counsel also submitted that there is no evidence that this recording was done only on 02.03.17 or that there is any auto recording app found in the mobile phone of Manjeet Rana.
State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 108
143. After going through the report Ex.PW-43/E, I found that he specifically mentioned that data is abstracted from the mobile phone containing the requisite audio call recording file of mobile number 9871827742 dt.02.03.17. The other audio files and call locks, phone book contacts and data extracted was also provided in the CD. That CD was examined by V.Laxmi Narsimhman examined as PW-14, who tallied the voice sample taken by PW-44 with the recording in the CD. The fact that the voice samples were taken is corroborated by Manjeet Rana as well as PW-32 HC Pramod and IO Ramesh Kumar. PW- 44 also stated that he recorded the voice of accused Parveen Rana in one cassete and then prepared the copy of the same. Thereafter he recorded the statement of another person and prepared the copy of the same. After preparing these audio cassetes he handed over the same to the police and the police seized those four casettes vide memo Ex.PW-32/A. After examination and comparing the recording with the CD prepared from the mobile phone of Manjeet Rana clearly shows that the call made from mobile phone number 9871827742 was made by Parveen Rana. Ld. Counsel has raised the issue that this State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 109 recording was done on 03.03.17 in the mobile phone, but the report Ex.PW-43/E clearly shows that this audio file was of 02.03.17 with respect to the audio call made from mobile number 9871827742. No doubt there is no such report on the file whether there was any auto call recording app in the mobile phone but as the record itself shows that there was recording of the call of this mobile phone that does not make any difference. Keeping in view the above discussion, in my opinion the call made on 02.03.17 at 8.23 AM from mobile phone no.9871827742 was made by Parveen Rana as per the scientific evidence.
144. There is another circumstance i.e. the dead body is found on the second floor and the defence counsel submitted that the offence was committed by some other person but the accused has been falsely implicated. It is important to note that the way to the second floor passes from the ground floor there is no evidence of any forced entry in the house. There is nothing on record that any thing went missing from the house. The room where Neha was found murdered was also in order and the articles in the State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 110 room were not found scattered as if some persons had tried to find out the valuables or had taken any valuables. It is also important to note that the murder was not committed during night as according to PW- 2 Neha woke up in the morning, prepared the children for going to the school and after the children left for school she went up stairs to get ready to go for her duty. None of the witness says that they heard any noise or had seen any body running away from the house. Under the circumstances, when there is no evidence of any forced entry in the house, particularly in the room where dead body was found and there is nothing missing the articles of the room were not found scattered, I do not find any merit in the contention that some third person committed this offence.
145. Ld. Counsel has also tried to make out a case that perhaps the offence was committed when the deceased was sleeping. But I found that the doctors PW-37 and PW-42, only said that this possibility can not be ruled out and not that the murder was committed only when she was sleeping. Ld. Counsel has also contended that there were multiple tailings State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 111 of the injury found on the neck and the deceased must have resisted, therefore, there should have been struggle marks on the body of the deceased and also on the body of the accused which were not there. This shows that accused is not involved in the commission of offence.
146. In this regard the testimony of the doctor is important who has specifically opined that neck consists of only soft tissues on the front and cutting them with a sharp weapon can happen in less than a second which will lead to immediate death and will not lead to any struggle. The doctor has also stated that cut throat injuries involving cutting of neck vessels will cause immediately incapacitation and hence, there is no possibility of resistence. Here it is also important to note the testimony of PW-2, who stated that the legs below the knee were hanging from the bed and the rest of the body above the knee was resting on the bed. This clearly shows that she was not sleeping at that time.
147. Keeping in view the above discussions, I do not found any merit in the contention that she was murdered while sleeping or that there must have State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 112 been some marks of resistance on the body of the accused and also on the dead body.
148. It is further important to note that the relation between accused and the deceased were not cordial. There was earlier complaint Ex.PW-7/A and also calls at 100 number. The fact that their relations were not cordial is deposed not only by PW-2, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-13 and PW-15 but also by PW-3 and 4 the children of the accused. They both stated that father used to quarrel with the mother but they don't know the reason. The reason is supplied by other witnesses that he was no satisfied with the dowry. He wanted more money. He even used to snatch money from Neha. He was not liking working of Neha, though he wanted money and that is why he used to quarrel with Neha and also beat her. The fact that accused used to beat her is deposed by his own real brother PW-2 besides the sister of the deceased PW-6 and the mother PW-7. According to the children even the accused used to bolt the room from inside and did not allow Neha to enter the same, unless she cries. All these facts clearly shows that every thing was not fine in their relations and in State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 113 fact their relations were so strained that police complaints were also made in this regard. PW-3 when appeared in the witness box, he stated that his father used to quarrel his mother and it is he (father) who murdered his mother and then covered with blanket. The child was not at home at the time of murder and when he was asked as to who told him that his mother had been murdered by his father, he said, "aur kaun karega". This statement of the child itself speaks volume about the conduct of the accused towards the victim and that he was hostile towards the victim and that the relations were very much strained.
149. Keeping in view the above discussions and the circumstances proved and established coupled with the fact that accused has taken the false plea of alibie which point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances established i.e. the extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW-2 Manjeet Rana; recovery of dead body on the second floor in the room of accused pursuance to this extra judicial confession by PW-2 and his mother; call detail record showing that mobile phone of Suresh/PW-12 was State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 114 used by accused for making call to Manjeet Rana and identification of accused by Suresh that he is the person who took his mobile on 02.03.17 and made the call; the recovery of weapon of offence, the strained relations of the victim and the accused; no evidence of forced entry in the house, nothing was found missing from the room and the articles were also not found scattered, beatings to the victim by the accused on the night of 01.03.17 and the false plea of alibi taken by the convict nails him. All these circumstances point towards the guilt of accused and at the same time inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence of accused. I therefore, hold the accused guilty and convict him for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC.
150. Let the convict be heard on the point of quantum of sentence on 08.06.2018.
Digitally signed
VIRENDER by VIRENDER
KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2018.06.06
Announced in the open court 14:30:46 +0530
today i.e. on 06.06.2018
(VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL)
ASJ/Pilot Court/North District
Rohini Courts/New Delhi.
State Vs. Parveen Rana SC NO: 343/17 115