Delhi District Court
State vs . Hema @ Dolly on 31 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 36/10)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0154482010
State Vs. Hema @ Dolly
FIR No. : 60/10
U/s : 302/392/394/397/411/34 IPC
P.S. : Rani Bagh
State Vs. Hema @ Dolly
W/o Sh. Gopal Aggarwal
R/o I1/65, Budh Vihar,
Delhi.
Second Add.: K1/8,
Mangol Puri, Delhi.
Date of institution of case 03.06.2010
Date on which, judgment has been reserved 31.08.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 31.08.2013
JUDGMENT:
1 The case of the prosecution as stated in the chargesheet that on 23.02.2010, DD No.72B was registered at 10:28 PM at P.S. Rani Bagh, on receipt of information about murder on first floor of house No.1789, Rani Bagh, and thereafter Inspr. Ajay Kumar proceeded to the place of incident along with his staff comprising of SI Ajit Kumar, Ct. Dolas and Ct. Sanjeev Kumar. At the informed place, one dead body of a lady aged about 45 years with injury marks on its neck and left wrist was found lying on the bed in the house. The son S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 1 of 28 of the deceased was also found present there and he gave his statement Ex.PW2/A wherein he deposed that he was working in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and that his wife was also working and that his mother Smt. Manjeet Kaur, aged about 46 years, had been residing all by herself on the first floor of house No.1789, Multani Mauhalla, Rani Bagh, and that their father Sh. Amarjeet Singh had been living separately from their mother since last about 10 years and that his elder brother Harvinder Chabra and sister Amandeep Narula were also married and were living separately. On the day of incident, complainant picked up his wife Kajal from her place of work at Saraswati Vihar and went to meet his mother at Rani Bagh at about 8:30 PM. Wife of complainant went upstairs to the house of mother of complainant and informed him that the gate of the house was bolted from outside and that the wooden door was half closed and that the light in the room had been left switched on. Complainant asked his wife to return back thinking that his mother must have gone to house of her friend Kanchan at 1977, Rani Bagh, and they both went there, however, on reaching said place, they were told by Smt. Kanchan that complainant's mother was not there and that she had not heard from the mother of complainant since last about two days. Complainant and his wife returned back to their house and complainant again tried to contact his mother without any success and at about 10:15 PM, he went to his mother's house again. On reaching the said house, he peeped inside and saw that almirah inside the room was lying open and that there was blood lying on the floor of the room. Complainant unbolted the door and found that the gate was open. Complainant went inside and saw that articles from the almirah were lying scattered in the room and in the other room his mother was lying dead on the bed with her mouth gagged with her own shawl. Complainant removed shawl from mouth of his mother and saw injury on her neck and left wrist. He also found blood lying on the bed and floor of the said room. However, the jewelery which his mother had been wearing was found intact. Complainant expressed suspicion that some unknown person had murdered his S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 2 of 28 mother.
2 On basis of statement Ex.PW2/A, case FIR Ex.PW22/A u/s.302 IPC was registered at P.S. Rani Bagh against unknown persons and the investigations were marked to PW27 Inspr. Ajay Kumar. During the course of investigations, IO called the crime team as well as dog squad to the spot. The crime team lifted three chance prints from the spot. Some strands of hair, which were found in one of the fists of the deceased, were also seized. The exhibits / samples were also lifted from the place of occurrence. The dead body of deceased was sent to mortuary of BJRM Hospital for postmortem examination and after postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to her relatives. During the course of investigation, PW2 Kuldeep Singh son of the deceased informed the IO regarding theft of some articles, jewelery and two mobile phones belonging to the deceased from her house. IO obtained call details of one of the stolen mobile phones with number 9871228500 and it was discovered that on the day of the incident there had been calls exchanged on the mobile phone of deceased from mobile phone number 9654433480. It was further revealed that the stolen mobile phone, which was having IMEI No.356941031855260, had been used to operate mobile phone No. 9654433480 in the afternoon, on the day of incident. IO obtained details of ownership of mobile phone No. 9654433480 and the same was found in the name of Smt. Karmawati r/o house No.955, Mangol Puri. Said Karmawati further told the IO that she had given the mobile phone in question to her daughter Hema @ Dolly r/o I1/65, Budh Vihar, for use. Efforts were made to trace out Hema @ Dolly, however, she was found missing from her house and on 05.03.2010 she was arrested from the house of her mother. During the course of interrogation, accused Hema @ Dolly admitted having committed the offence with her husband Gopal Aggarwal, who went missing after the incident. IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Hema @ Dolly. Later accused Hema @ Dolly was taken S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 3 of 28 on PC remand and it is claimed that at the instance of accused Hema @ Dolly one ladies suit piece, one ladies purse containing silver paijeb and blood stained clothes which accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband Gopal Aggarwal had been wearing at the time of incident were recovered. Some receipts of payment of installments of television and purchase of a washing machine, which accused Hema @ Dolly is stated to have paid for with the stolen money were also seized.
3 During the course of investigation, the chance finger prints lifted from the spot, along with the samples taken from accused Hema @ Dolly, were sent for the expert opinion. The exhibits of the case, including the strands of hair recovered from the fist of the deceased and the samples of hair of the accused Hema @ Dolly, were also sent to FSL for opinion. 4 After completing the investigation, IO prepared charge sheet and filed the same in the Court through SHO. The FSL result and the result of analysis of finger prints was filed later on in the Court.
5 As accused Gopal Aggarwal absconded himself, he was declared PO vide order dated 06.08.2010.
6 Upon committal of this case to the court of Sessions, charges for the offence under Sections 392/302/34/411 IPC were framed against the accused Hema @ Dolly on 03.09.2010. However, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 4 of 28 7 In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 27 witnesses : 8 The PW1, Harminder Singh, is the elder son of deceased Manjeet Kaur. He had reached the spot, that is house of his mother Manjeet Kaur at 1789, Multani Mauhalla, Rani Bagh, on being informed by PW Kuldeep Singh, his younger brother, that someone had murdered their mother. He proved the memo vide which deadbody of his mother was handed over to him as Ex.PW1/A and the dead body identification memo as Ex.PW1/B. He also deposed that some cash, jewelery, clothes and two mobile phones bearing no.9810472356 and 9871228500 belonging to his mother were found missing after her death. The two mobile phones, alleged to have recovered from accused Hema @ Dolly, were shown to PW1, but he failed to identify them even though he had stated that mobile phone No. 9810472356 was in his name.
9 The PW2, Kuldeep Singh, is the younger son of deceased Manjeet Kaur, and he was the first person to have recovered the deadbody of deceased Manjeet Kaur and had further joined post incident investigations with the police and deposed regarding the same. He proved his complaint as Ex.PW2/A, deadbody identification memo as Ex.PW2/B and the memo vide which deadbody of his mother was handed over to him and his elder brother as Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed about joining investigations with the police on 07.03.2010 when he was present at the house of his mother and accused Hema @ Dolly was brought there by the police and pointed out the almirah from where she had taken jewelery, cash and other articles and thereafter led the police party to her house at I1/65, Budh Vihar, from where she got recovered one blood stained suit and one jewelery purse containing one pair of silver coloured paijeb and also her own and her husband's blood stained clothes. This witness failed to give details of the documents prepared by the police at the spot and during S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 5 of 28 his crossexamination by the learned Additional PP, he proved the seizure memo of articles seized from the Diwan (single bed) of house of accused Hema @ Dolly as Ex.PW2/C ; seizure memo of clothes of accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband as Ex.PW2/D ; seizure memo of jewelery purse containing pair of paijeb as Ex.PW2/E ; and some receipts which accused had got recovered as Ex.PW2/F. He also proved the seizure memo vide which various articles and earth control samples and blood stained floor pieces were seized by the IO, from the spot, as Ex.PW2/G and the pointing out memo of the place of incident, prepared at the instance of accused Hema @ Dolly, as Ex.PW2/H. 10 The case property was also shown to this witness and he identified one unstitched ladies suit, recovered from the house of accused Hema @ Dolly, as Ex.P1 ; the two mobile phones, alleged to have been got recovered by the accused Hema @ Dolly, as Ex.P2 (Colly). The PW2 further stated that said mobile phones belonged to his mother. The purse containing pair of silver coloured paijeb was exhibited as Ex.P3 (colly) ; the clothes of accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband, which they are alleged to be wearing at the time of incident, were exhibited as Ex.P4 (colly) ; and the clothes, which the deceased was wearing at the time of incident, were proved as Ex.P5 (colly). 11 The PW3, Kuldeep Singh, is the owner of the shop from where accused is stated to have purchased television on installments. He proved the receipt of deposit of installments of television, dated 25.02.2010 and 27.02.2010, by the accused Hema @ Dolly as Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively. He also proved the carbon copy of cash memo / challan vide which accused Hema @ Dolly had purchased a washing machine from his shop on 27.02.2010 as Ex.PW3/C. S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 6 of 28 12 The PW4, Ct. Balkishan, is the DD writer, who had reduced the information regarding murder at House No.1789, First Floor, Rani Bagh, in writing vide DD No.72D dated 23.02.2010 and deposed regarding the same. He proved the copy of said DD as Ex.PW4/A. 13 The PW5, Ct. Raminder, had taken the exhibits of the present case to FSL vide RC No.15/21/10 to FSL Rohini and deposed regarding the same.
14 The PW6, Ct. Rajiv Kumar, had delivered copy of FIR to learned MM, Joint CP and DCP and deposed regarding the same.
15 The PW7, Karamawati, is the mother of the accused Hema @ Dolly and the mobile phone No. 9654433480, from which the calls were made at the mobile phone of the deceased prior to her death, is stated to be belonging to this witness, however, she failed to support the prosecution case and stated that she had never got issued any telephone connection in her name. This witness was declared hostile and during her crossexamination by learned Additional PP, she was shown Mark "A" application form for connection of said Vodafone Number and Mark "B" photocopy of her voter identity card, however, she had denied that she had taken Vodafone connection No.9654433480 in her name and handed over the same to her daughter. She also stated that she was illiterate and had never signed the application form for issuance of the said mobile phone connection. 16 The PW8, Sh. Jagdish Chander, has been put forth as a material link witness, who is stated to have seen accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband coming out of the premises of the deceased soon after her death. However, this witness also failed to support the prosecution case. He only deposed that in the month of February, 2010, someone S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 7 of 28 had murdered Manjeet Kaur and that he had not seen anyone and that no one was shown to him by the police and that he had not identified anyone before the police. He also stated that Mauhalla people including him (PW8) had come to know of murder of Manjeet Kaur when her son Deepak @ Deepu raised alarm.
17 During his crossexamination by learned Additional PP, PW8 denied that on 23.02.2010 at about 11:30 AM, he had seen deceased Manjeet Kaur and talked to her. He also denied that on the same day at about 1:30 PM, while standing outside his shop in gali, he had seen accused Hema @ Dolly along with one boy, while they were both coming out of house No.1789. He further denied that at that time accused Hema @ Dolly was having one panny (polythene bag) containing something. He even denied that on 07.03.2010, accused Hema @ Dolly was brought by the police to his shop or that he had identified her before the police.
18 The PW9, Krishna Devi, is the landlady of the premises where accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband were residing as tenant at the time of incident. Though this witness deposed that accused Hema @ Dolly as well as her husband Gopal had been residing as her tenant, she denied that on 07.03.2010, police had brought accused Hema @ Dolly to her house and searched their room and recovered some articles from there.
19 The PW10, Lady Ct. Kiran, had joined investigations of the case on 05.03.2010 and deposed regarding the same. She deposed that on 05.03.2010, she along with HC Sushil Kumar and PW24 SI Ved Prakash had joined investigations of the case with IO and that they all went to Budh Vihar in search of accused but her house was found locked and S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 8 of 28 thereafter they went to house of mother of accused where accused Hema @ Dolly was seen and was apprehended by PW10 while she was trying to escape. The PW10 further deposed that at that time accused Hema @ Dolly was trying to conceal something under her chunni and then she produced one mobile phone of blue and grey colour which she was trying to conceal stating that the same was of deceased and that accused also produced another mobile phone which she claimed was hers and that both the mobile phones were handed over by PW10 to IO, who sealed the same with the seal of 'AK' in two separate pullandas and seized them vide separate seizure memos. The PW10 proved the arrest and personal search memos of accused Hema @ Dolly as Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B respectively. Clarifications were sought from the witness regarding sealing of the mobile phones by learned Additional PP by putting a leading question to the witness and in response thereto the witness termed it correct that the mobile phones recovered from accused had not been sealed. She identified the mobile phones seized from the possession of accused Hema @ Dolly as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively.
20 The PW11, Sh. Deepak Kumar, is neighbour of the deceased and had given information about murder of deceased at 100 number when he reached her house on 23.02.2010 at about 10:30 PM, after hearing noise, and found deadbody of deceased Manjeet Kaur lying there. He stated that the family members of deceased also present in the house at that time.
21 The PW12, Ct. Sanjiv Kumar, had taken DD No.72 B to SI Ajit Kumar and had thereafter joined investigations of the case with the IO. He deposed about the manner in which IO lifted exhibits from spot. He identified some of the exhibits i.e. the blood stained S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 9 of 28 black coloured shawl of deceased as Ex.P6 ; blood stained bedsheet as Ex.P7 ; and blood stained towel as Ex.P8 and stated that the same had been lifted from the spot by the IO after the incident.
22 The PW13, Ct. Dolas, had joined investigations of the present case with IO Inspr. Ajay Kumar on 23.02.2010 and deposed regarding the same. He also deposed that on directions of the IO, he had removed the dead body of deceased to Mortuary at BJRM Hospital and got the same preserved there and that on the next day, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of deceased after postmortem and that the concerned doctor had handed over two envelope parcels and one bottle, sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital Mortuary and sample seal, to IO, who seized the same. 23 The PW14, Israr Babu, produced record pertaining to mobile phone No. 9654433480. He deposed that the said phone number was issued to Karmawati w/o Kundan Kumar, vide application form Ex.PW14/A (marked as Mark "A", during testimony of PW7) and that at that time photocopy of election identity card of the consumer was also taken and proved the same as Ex.PW14/B (marked as Mark "B" during testimony of PW7 Smt. Karmawati). He further produced the call details of said phone number for period from 20.02.2010 to 25.02.2010 and stated that same number was used on mobile phone with IMEI No.356397029079430 till 23.02.2010 at 14:02:16 hours and that thereafter at about 14:27:51, the number was used on mobile phone with IMEI number 356941031855260 and was continued to be used on said phone till 20:47:54 hours and then it was again used on mobile set bearing IMEI No. 356397029079430. He proved the call details of mobile phone No. 9654433480 as Ex.PW14/C and the certificate u/s.65 B(4) (c) of Evidence Act as Ex.PW14/D. S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 10 of 28 24 The PW15, Sh. Vishal Gaurav, produced record pertaining to mobile phone No. 9871228500 issued to Manjeet Kaur (since deceased). He proved the application form as Ex.PW15/A, photocopy of Voter Identity card of applicant as Ex.PW15/B and call details of the said mobile phone from 20.02.2010 to 28.02.2010 as Ex.PW15/C. 25 He further produced record pertaining to mobile phone No.9810472356 issued to Harvinder Singh. He proved the application form as Ex.PW15/D, photocopy of Voter Identity card of applicant as Ex.PW15/E and call details of the said mobile phone from 20.02.2010 to 28.02.2010 as Ex.PW15/F. The certificate u/s.65 B of Indian Evidence Act was proved as Ex.PW15/G and the Cell ID (location) chart of both the mobile phones as Ex.PW15/H. 26 The PW16, Ct. Parvinder, was the photographer of the mobile crime team at that time. He deposed that on the night intervening 23/24.02.2010, on the directions of IO, he took 16 photographs of the spot of crime with digital camera and that the photographs and one CD were handed over by him to the IO. He proved the said photographs as Ex.PW16/1 to Ex.PW16/16 and the CD as Ex.PW16/17.
27 The PW17, Ct. Ram Kishan, was the finger print proficient of mobile crime team at the relevant time. He deposed that on the directions of IO, he lifted three chance prints from the spot and that said prints were later on developed by him and were sent to Finger Print Bureau at Kamla Market for matching.
28 The PW18, Dr. K. Goel, had conducted the postmortem examination on the S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 11 of 28 dead body of deceased Manjeet Kaur and proved the report of postmortem examination as Ex. PW18/A. He further deposed that all injuries were antemortem in nature caused by sharp edged cutting weapon and that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock consequent upon injuries to neck vessels and that mode of death was homicidal and that injury no. 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, individually or collectively and that time since death was about 25/26 hours.
30 The PW19, SI Manohar Lal, is the draftsman and he deposed that at the instance of IO Inspr. Ajay Kumar, he had taken the measurements of the place of occurrence and later prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW19/A. 31 The PW20, W/Ct. Usha, was working as channel operator at CPCR, PHQ, at the relevant time. She deposed that on 23.02.2010 at about 10:20 pm, she received a call from mobile phone No.9810413473 through caller Deepak Kumar, who gave information about murder on the first floor of House No.1789, Rani Bagh. She proved the PCR form Ex.PW20/A. 32 The PW21, SI Satpal, was the incharge of mobile crime team at the relevant time. He proved the inspection report as Ex.PW21/A. 33 The PW22, SI Ajit Kumar, had joined investigations of the case with Inspr. Ajay Kumar, Insp. Baljeet Singh, Ct. Dolas and Ct. Sanjeev Kumar on 23.02.2010. He deposed regarding the investigations carried out by the IO at the spot and further deposed that on the next day morning, he had visited BJRM Hospital Mortuary with the IO and that the doctor had handed over three parcels and two sample seals (containing the clothes of S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 12 of 28 the deceased, blood sample and vaginal swab) to the IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/A. 34 The PW23, ASI Ishwar Singh, was posted as duty officer at PS Rani Bagh at the relevant time and had recorded the case FIR in the present case. He proved the carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW23/A and the endorsement made by him on rukka as Ex.PW23/B. He further deposed that he had recorded DD No.3A (kaimi) regarding registration of FIR and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW23/C. 35 The PW24, SI Ved Prakash, had joined investigations of the present case with the IO on 05.03.2010, at the time of arrest of the accused Hema @ Dolly. He proved the seizure memo of the mobile phone having last digits of its IMEI number 79430 as Ex.PW24/A and the seizure memo of the mobile phone having last digits of its IMEI number 260 as Ex.PW24/B. He also identified his signatures on Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B i.e. the arrest and personal search memos of the accused. He further deposed that on 06.03.2010 he had again joined investigations of the present case with the IO and that on that day detailed disclosure statement of accused Hema @ Dolly was recorded vide Ex.PW24/C. He then deposed that on 07.03.2010 accused Hema @ Dolly, who was on PC remand, was again interrogated in his presence by the IO and that she made disclosure statement Ex.PW24/D. He also deposed about statement made by PW8 Jagdish Chander when accused Hema @ Dolly was taken to the place of incident i.e. house No.1789, First Floor, Multani Maullah, Rani Bagh, Delhi.
36 The PW24 further deposed about the recoveries alleged to have been effected from the house of accused Hema @ Dolly on 07.03.2010. He identified the case property i.e. S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 13 of 28 one unstitched ladies suit (shirt, salwar and chunni), recovered from the house of accused Hema @ Dolly as Ex.P1 ; two mobile phones as Ex.P2 (colly) ; one jewelery purse containing pair of paijeb as Ex.P3 ; and clothes of accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband as Ex.P4 (colly).
37 The PW25, SI Ramesh Kumar, had taken the accused Hema @ Dolly to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital on 09.03.2010 for getting her hair sample taken and deposed regarding the same. He proved the ME of accused Hema @ Dolly as Ex.PW25/A and the seizure memo of the sealed parcel of hair of accused Hema @ Dolly as Ex.PW25/B. 38 The PW26 HC Sunil Kumar, was posted as MHCM at PS Rani Bagh at the relevant time. He produced the original register No.19 and proved the relevant entries regarding the deposit of exhibits in Malkhana and sending them to FSL Rohini as Ex.PW26/A to Ex.PW26/K. 39 The PW27, Inspr. Ajay Kumar, is the investigating officer of the present case. He deposed about the investigations carried out by him and the documents prepared by him during the course of investigations. He proved his signatures on various documents prepared by him, during the course of investigations, which had already been proved by other witnesses during their deposition in the Court. Besides the said documents, he proved rukka as Ex.PW27/A ; site plan as Ex.PW27/B ; brief facts and form 25:35(1)(B) filled in by him at the time of postmortem examination as Ex.PW27/C and Ex.PW27/D respectively ; the seizure memo of the washing machine purchased by accused Hema @ Dolly as Ex.PW27/E ; and the FSL reports as Ex.PW27/F and Ex.PW27/G respectively. The case property was also identified by the witness as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 i.e. one unstitched ladies suit S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 14 of 28 (shirt, salwar and chunni), recovered from the house of accused Hema @ Dolly as Ex.P1 ; two mobile phones as Ex.P2 (colly) ; one jewelery purse containing pair of paijeb as Ex.P3 ; and clothes of accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband as Ex.P4 (colly) ; the clothes, which the deceased was wearing at the time of incident, were proved as Ex.P5 (colly) ; the blood stained black coloured shawl of deceased as Ex.P6 ; blood stained bedsheet as Ex.P7 ; blood stained towel as Ex.P8 ; and washing machine as Ex.P9.
40 After recording of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. Accused stated that she was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Accused further stated that she had nothing to do with the alleged offence and that nothing was recovered from her or at her instance and that alleged recovery had been planted upon her. The accused did not lead any evidence in her defence. 41 Arguments have been put forward by Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. defence counsel for the accused.
42 Learned Additional PP has stated that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that from the testimony of the witnesses examined by it, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) had gone to the house of deceased Manjeet Kaur with intention to rob her and that when deceased Manjeet Kaur resisted their acts, both the accused brutally murdered her. She has relied upon recovery of mobile phones of the deceased from the possession of accused Hema @ Dolly as well as the CDRs of the said phones to contend that the accused Hema @ Dolly had put her own sim card in the mobile phone of the deceased, soon after the incident, and this act of accused S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 15 of 28 Hema @ Dolly was reflected from the record produced by the mobile phone companies and that this by itself is sufficient to draw conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused. She has also relied upon the payment receipts, proved by PW3 Kuldeep Singh, to state that the said documents clearly reflect how accused Hema @ Dolly, who was facing financial hardship, paid two installments of television to PW3 Kuldeep Singh and also purchased a new washing machine from him with the robbed money. The recovery of blood stained clothes of accused of accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband, blood stained purse containing a pair of paijeb and unstitched ladies suit at the instance of accused Hema @ Dolly is again stated to be an important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution and on the basis of the evidence placed on record, duly proved by the witnesses examined by it, learned Additional PP has contended that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused Hema @ Dolly beyond reasonable doubt and hence accused be held guilty of the charged offences.
43 On the other hand learned counsel for accused has contended that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Hema @ Dolly. It is stated that there is no direct evidence against accused Hema @ Dolly and that the prosecution has failed to link the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused Hema @ Dolly. It is further contended that none of the public witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and that alleged recovery has been planted upon the accused Hema @ Dolly which is evident from the fact that FSL result is negative in report of biological samples. The fact that the finding of finger print expert and FSL findings of comparison of strands of hair of accused Hema @ Dolly and recovered from fist of deceased do not support case of prosecution has also been pressed for as ground for acquittal of accused. It is further contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case without any effort being made by the IO to nab the actual S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 16 of 28 culprits and it is accordingly, prayed that accused Hema @ Dolly be acquitted of the charged offences in the present case.
44 I have heard the arguments put forward by ld. Addl. PP and learned defence counsel for the accused Hema @ Dolly and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case.
45 In the present case accused is alleged to have acted in furtherance of her common intention with her coaccused / husband Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) to rob Manjeet Kaur (since deceased) of cash in sum of Rs.8 / 9,000/, jewelery, one ladies suit and two mobile phones on 23.02.2010. Further she and her coaccused are alleged to have committed murder of said Manjeet Kaur with knife. While coaccused Gopal Aggarwal, husband of accused Hema @ Dolly, absconded, some articles belonging to deceased i.e. one blood stained ladies suit, one blood stained purse containing silver paijeb and one mobile phone, were allegedly recovered from accused Hema @ Dolly on 05.03.2010 and 07.03.2010.
46 In order to prove that deceased Manjeet Kaur had died homicidal death, prosecution has examined Dr. K.Goel as PW18. This witness had conducted the postmortem examination on the deadbody of deceased Manjeet Kaur and found four injuries on her person as detailed by him in his report which was proved as Ex.PW18/A. He also deposed that all the injuries were antemortem in nature and had been caused by sharp edged cutting weapon and that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock consequent upon injuries to neck vessels and that mode of death was homicidal and that injury no. 1 and 2 were S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 17 of 28 sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, individually or collectively. Thus from the testimony of PW18 Dr. K. Goel, prosecution has succeeded in proving that deceased Manjeet Kaur had died an unnatural homicidal death.
47 It is further the case of the prosecution that the said homicidal death of Smt. Manjeet Kaur had been caused by accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) as they were facing financial crisis and had planned to rob deceased Manjeet Kaur, who unfortunately resisted their attempts to rob her and they both murdered her. 48 There is no direct evidence against accused Hema @ Dolly in the present case and the prosecution is relying upon following pieces of circumstantial evidence to claim that it was accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband Gopal Aggarwal (since PO), who were responsible for robbing deceased Manjeet Kaur and murdering her and that some of the articles belonging to deceased Manjeet Kaur were recovered from possession of accused Hema @ Dolly, who retained them knowing or having reason to believe that they were robbed / stolen property : 1 That deceased was living alone and was running a matrimonial bureau from her house i.e. house No.1789, first floor, Multani Mauhalla, Rani Bagh. 2 That accused Hema @ Dolly knew deceased.
3 That accused Hema @ Dolly had solemnized a love marriage with accused Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) about one and a half years prior to the incident and was facing financial crunch.
4 That due to the said financial crunch, accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) planned to rob deceased Manjeet Kaur. S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 18 of 28 5 That on the day of incident i.e. 23.02.2010 accused Hema @ Dolly gave call from her mobile phone No.965443380 to deceased Manjeet Kaur on her mobile phone No. 9871228500 and fixed a meeting.
6 That accused Hema @ Dolly and accused Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) went to the house of deceased and after engaging her in conversation proceeded to rob her and their said attempt was resisted by deceased Manjeet Kaur.
7 That accused Hema @ Dolly and accused Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) murdered Manjeet Kaur, with a knife from her own kitchen when she resisted them. The deceased, however, managed to catch hold of hair of her assailant which were recovered from her fist later on by the IO.
8 That accused Hema @ Dolly and accused Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) took away one unstitched ladies suit, one purse containing silver paijeb, jewelery, cash and two mobile phones belonging to deceased Manjeet Kaur after ransacking her almirah. 9 That while accused Hema @ Dolly and accused Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) were coming out the house of deceased, with stolen articles in a polythene bag, they were seen by PW8 Jagdish Chander.
10 That after the dead body of the deceased was found by her son PW2 Kuldeep Singh, Police was informed and during investigations crime team was called to the spot and lifted three chance prints from the spot.
11 That the IO traced out call details of the two mobile phones, belonging to deceased, which had been robbed during the incident, and found that there had been calls from mobile phone No.965533480 (IMEI No.356597029079430) on the mobile phone No. 9871228500 (IMEI No.356941031855260) belonging to deceased and that after the incident the sim card of mobile phone No.965533480 was used on mobile phone with IMEI No. 356941031855260 (of deceased).
S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 19 of 28 12 That on being traced out the mobile phone No. 965533480 was found to be issued to Karmawati, mother of accused Hema @ Dolly, who had given the said mobile phone to accused Hema @ Dolly for use.
13 That accused Hema @ Dolly was apprehended on 05.03.2010 and at that time she tried to hide mobile phone of deceased which she was carrying. Ultimately two mobile phones were recovered from possession of accused Hema @ Dolly. 14 That accused Hema @ Dolly made two disclosure statements i.e. Ex.PW24/C on 06.03.2010 and Ex.PW24/D on 07.03.2010, wherein she disclosed about the manner in which she had committed the crime along with her husband / coaccused Gopal Aggarwal (since PO).
15 That accused Hema @ Dolly was taken by the police to the house of deceased / place of incident at house No.1789, first floor, Multani Mauhalla, Rani Bagh, and as she was being taken there, PW8 Jagdish Chander identified her to be the same girl whom he had seen coming down the stairs, from the house of deceased, with a boy and who had been carrying a polythene bag in her hand.
16 That accused Hema @ Dolly thereafter led the police party to her house at I1/65, Budh Vihar, and got recovered one blood stained purse containing silver paijeb, one blood stained plastic bag containing blood stained unstitched ladies suit and blood stained clothes belonging to her and her husband, which they were wearing at the time of the incident.
17 That during the course of investigations, IO had seized one blood stained towel from the spot i.e. Ex.P8 which was stated to have been used by accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) to wipe their blood stained hands after the incident. 18 That accused Hema @ Dolly disclosed that she had used the robbed cash to pay installments of television and to purchase a washing machine and PW3 Kuldeep Singh, S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 20 of 28 owner of the shop, from where accused had purchased said television and washing machine was examined and deposed regarding payments made by the deceased. 19 That the chance finger prints recovered from the spot were developed and sent for examination.
20 That the blood stained clothes of the deceased, along with other exhibits lifted from the spot and those got recovered by accused Hema @ Dolly were sent to FSL for biological analysis.
21 That the strands of hair recovered from the fist of the deceased were sent along with the samples of hair of accused Hema @ Dolly to FSL for analysis. 22 That one mobile phone and one gold chain belonging to deceased as well as weapon of offence, namely the knife, were in possession of accused Gopal Aggarwal, husband of accused Hema @ Dolly, and he absconded after the incident. 49 In light of these circumstances relied upon by prosecution, it would be relevant to scrutinize the evidence brought on record, by the prosecution, to see whether only conclusion that can be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the present case is of the guilt of accused Hema @ Dolly.
50 As observed hereinabove the first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the deceased was living alone and was running a matrimonial bureau from her house. As far as the fact that deceased was living alone is concerned, the same stands proved from the testimony of PW1 Harwinder Singh and PW2 Kuldeep Singh, both sons of the deceased, who have deposed that their father was living separately from their mother / deceased Manjeet Kaur and that they too were having separate households as was their married sister Amandeep Kaur. However, as regards the alleged business of marriage S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 21 of 28 bureau run by deceased is concerned, no document has been placed on record by the prosecution in this regard. There is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution, save and except that some phone calls were exchanged between mobile phone No.987228500 (of deceased) and mobile phone No.9654433480 (alleged to be in the name of mother of accused Hema @ Dolly), to show that deceased Manjeet Kaur knew accused Hema @ Dolly from before. Further even though marriage between accused Hema @ Dolly and accused Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) has not been disputed, there is nothing placed on record by the prosecution which may enable the Court to draw conclusion that accused Hema @ Dolly was going through such financial difficulty, at the time of incident, which may have compelled her to adopt path of criminality.
51 Considerable reliance has been made by the prosecution on the call record of the two mobile phones i.e. mobile phone No.965533480 (IMEI No.356597029079430) alleged to be issued to mother of accused Hema @ Dolly and mobile phone No.9871228500 (IMEI No.356941031855260) belonging to deceased. It is claimed that after the incident the sim card of mobile phone No.965533480 was used on mobile phone with IMEI No. 356941031855260. In fact these call details form the basis of case of prosecution against the accused Hema @ Dolly. In this regard Karmawati, mother of accused Hema @ Dolly, was examined as PW7, however, she denied that she had got issued mobile phone No. 9655433480 in her name by filling up application form Mark 'A' (later proved as Ex.PW14/A by PW14 Israr Babu) by giving photocopy of her voter identity card Mark 'B' (later proved as Ex.PW14/B by PW14 Israr Babu). She in fact denied that she could even sign and stated that she was illiterate. Her deposition as PW7 was also thumb impressioned by her instead of putting her signatures. Nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution to establish identity of PW7 Karmawati, as the person who had got issued mobile phone No.9655433480 S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 22 of 28 by examining the concerned distributer / retailer from whom the said phone connection was taken. During his crossexamination, PW14 Israr Babu, alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone, clearly stated that as per directions of Central Government of India it was incumbent upon the service provider to verify the address of subscriber. He, however, volunteered to state that this process was done by the distributor / retailer. He further stated that in case of a prepaid connection, original documents are verified and in case of post paid connection, address of subscriber is verified. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the prosecution to examine the concerned distributer / retailer to establish that it was only PW7 Karmawati and no other person who had been issued mobile phone connection No.9654433480 and that the same was issued to her after due verification of her documents / address but the prosecution has failed to do so. Thus it cannot be concluded that PW7 Karmawati, mother of accused Hema @ Dolly, had got issued mobile phone No.9654433480 and had given the same to accused Hema @ Dolly which in turn was used by her to call on mobile phone No. 9871228500, belonging to deceased, to fix up a meeting with her. Moreover, PW8 Sh. Jagdish Chander, who is stated to have seen deceased Manjeet Kaur on 23.02.2010 at about 11:30 AM and spoken to her and later seen accused Hema @ Dolly coming out from house No.1789, first floor, Multani Mauhalla, Rani Bagh (house of deceased) with a panny (polythene bag) accompanied by a boy, denied having said so to the police on 07.03.2010 when police claims that they had taken accused Hema @ Dolly to the house of deceased. Even otherwise the fact that statement of PW8 Sh. Jagdish Chander was recorded only on 07.03.2010, after about 12 days of the incident which had taken place on 23.02.2010, creates considerable doubt that PW8 was a planted witness. Since PW8 Jagdish Chander is stated to be running a shop on the ground floor of the same premises in which deceased was residing, there was no reason why he would not have come forward and disclosed this fact to the police earlier.
S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 23 of 28 52 Further as per the case of the prosecution, clothes of both accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) were smeared with blood when they allegedly murdered Smt. Manjeet Kaur and thereafter they both walked out of the house of deceased in the same very clothes, which by then were smeared with blood. In these circumstances it is difficult to comprehend how accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) could have walked away from the house of deceased, without being noticed by anyone, in the locality of the deceased to their house in Budh Vihar. 53 Moreover, the chance finger prints lifted from the spot were apparently sent to Finger Print Bureau of Crime Branch for analysis and as per report Ex.PW27/H, the same were partially smudged and did not disclose sufficient details for comparison and were returned with finding of being 'unfit' for comparison / search and thus presence of accused Hema @ Dolly at the scene of offence is neither established by the evidence of PW8 Jagdish Chander nor by the other evidence lifted from the spot by the IO. 54 Coming to the recovery of the mobile phones Ex.P2 (colly) (also exhibited as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 in the statement of PW10 W/Ct. Kiran), there is considerable discrepancy in the testimony of PW's regarding the said mobile phones. As per PW1 Harvinder Singh, his mother Manjeet Kaur was having two mobile phones out of which mobile phone No. 9810472356 was in his name. Both the mobile phones, seized from the possession of the accused Hema @ Dolly, were shown to PW1, who failed to identify either of the two mobile phones. On the other hand, PW2 Kuldeep Singh identified both of the said mobile phones to be that of his mother. In contradiction PW10 W/Ct. Kiran claimed that when she apprehended accused Hema @ Dolly, she produced one mobile phone, of blue and grey S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 24 of 28 colour, which she had in the first instance tried to conceal, saying that the same was of deceased and that accused Hema @ Dolly also produced another mobile phone saying that it belonged to her. The PW10 further went on to state that both the mobile phones were handed over by her to the IO, who sealed them with the seal of 'AK' in two separate pullandas. It was only on being put a leading question by learned Additional PP that PW10 admitted that none of the mobile phones, alleged to have been seized from the possession of accused Hema @ Dolly, had been sealed by the IO. It is also surprising that the seizure memos of the said mobile phones i.e. Ex.PW24/A and Ex.PW24/B respectively were not signed by PW10 as a witness even though it was she who claims to have recovered the same from accused Hema @ Dolly and handed them over to the IO. The fact that none of the two mobile phones, alleged to have been seized from the possession accused Hema @ Dolly, were sealed by the IO after their recovery and no TIP of the mobile phones was got conducted from the sons of the deceased, casts considerable doubt upon the recovery of the said mobile phones from the possession of accused Hema @ Dolly. 55 Coming to the disclosure statements Ex.PW24/C and Ex.PW24/D and recovery of articles as detailed vide recovery memo Ex.PW2/E, it is seen that as per case of the prosecution one unstitched blood stained ladies suit was recovered at the instance of accused Hema @ Dolly and was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/C. The blood stained clothes of accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband Gopal Aggarwal (since PO) were seized vide memo Ex.PW2/D and the jewelery purse (blood stained) containing a pair of paijeb also recovered at the instance of accused Hema @ Dolly was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/E. The PW2 Kuldeep Singh in whose presence these recoveries are stated to have been effected could give details thereof only after he was declared hostile by the learned Additional PP. In these circumstances, it was necessary to look for some independent corroboration of testimony of S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 25 of 28 PW2 and for this prosecution has examined Smt. Krishna Devi, landlady of accused Hema @ Dolly, as PW9. This witness, however, failed to support the prosecution case and denied that on 07.03.2010 police had brought accused Hema @ Dolly to her house and searched the room in which accused Hema @ Dolly was residing as her tenant. She also denied that any stolen articles were recovered from the said room. Considering the contradictory version given by two public witnesses i.e. PW2 Kuldeep Singh and PW9 Smt. Krishna Devi, in order to draw any firm conclusion the report of FSL Ex.PW27/F was considered since as per case of the prosecution, all the recovered articles were having blood stains and were sent to FSL for comparison. The perusal of the FSL report Ex.PW27/G shows that blood could not be detected on exhibits 6b (one cloth piece - salwar) and exhibits 7a to 7g i.e. the blood stained clothes of accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband Gopal Aggarwal (since PO). Further even though Exhibits 8a and 8b (purse and paijeb) were detected with blood, they did not show any reaction for blood grouping and could not be corelated with 'B' group blood of the deceased. Thus neither the recovery nor the biological report qua the recovered articles come to the aid of the prosecution in establishing its case against the accused Hema @ Dolly. Further in absence of there being conclusion proof of alleged recovery at the instance of accused Hema @ Dolly, pursuant to disclosure statement Ex.PW24/C dated 06.03.2010 and Ex.PW24/D dated 07.03.2010, no reliance can be placed upon the said disclosure statements, as claimed by the prosecution, and the same cannot be read upon in evidence against accused Hema @ Dolly as a piece of incriminating evidence. 56 Learned Additional PP has also placed reliance on the recovery of the strands of the hair from the fist of the deceased to contend that it was only accused Hema @ Dolly and her husband Gopal Aggarwal (since PO), who were the authors of the crime, however, in this regard again the FSL report Ex.PW27/F shows that no conclusive opinion was given by FSL S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 26 of 28 expert thereupon as the quantity of hair seized from the fist of the deceased was found insufficient to compare with the sample hair taken from accused Hema @ Dolly. 57 Coming to the receipts issued by PW3 Kuldeep Singh, though it is claimed by the prosecution that accused Hema @ Dolly was going through financial crisis and soon after the incident she had paid two installments of television and also purchased a washing machine from the robbed cash, the testimony of PW3 Kuldeep Singh belies this assertion. During his crossexamination, PW3 Kuldeep Singh has categorically stated that accused Hema @ Dolly had purchased television from his shop on 07.07.2009 and that after receiving complete payments / installments of the said television, he financed a washing machine to her. He further stated that accused Hema @ Dolly used to pay installments regularly and her credit was good in his books and that is why he further financed for her washing machine. Thus it cannot be concluded that accused Hema @ Dolly was in such difficult financial condition that she had to resort to crime to fulfill her requirements. 58 Another noteworthy factor which has emerged from the prosecution case is that at the time of incident accused Hema @ Dolly was about six / seven months pregnant. It would require special and exceptional circumstances for a six / seven months old pregnant woman to murder someone. Since the prosecution has failed to show any such special or exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons for accused Hema @ Dolly to resort to any criminal activities, let alone robbery and murder, it is difficult to conclude that accused Hema @ Dolly would have indulged in such adventurous acts in her advance stage of pregnancy which, if gone wrong could have caused injury to her and may have had an adverse consequence on her unborn child.
S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 27 of 28 59 Thus after detailed appreciation of the documents placed on record and the evidence led by the prosecution, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence against accused Hema @ Dolly to prove her guilt. Rather there are glaring kinks and gaps in the chain of events / circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution which create doubt as to the case put forth by the prosecution and entitle accused Hema @ Dolly to be acquitted of the charged offences u/s. 392/302/34 IPC r/w Section 411 IPC.
60 Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I acquit accused Hema @ Dolly of the charged offences, giving her the benefit of doubt.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 31.08.2013) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 28 of 28
FIR No. 60/10
P.S. Rani Bagh
29.08.2013
Present : Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC with counsel Sh. Hemant Kumar.
Further arguments addressed by counsel for accused heard.
Learned Additional PP prays for an adjournment to address arguments. At request, be listed for further arguments on 31.08.2013.
ASJ (NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
29.08.2013
31.08.2013
Present : Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC with counsel Sh. Hemant Kumar.
Arguments heard.
Judgment shall be passed during the course of the day.
ASJ (NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
31.08.2013
At 4:30 PM
Present : As before.
Vide separate judgment, announced today in the open Court, accused Hema @ Dolly has been acquitted of the charged offence.
She is in J.C. She be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 29 of 28 case or proceedings.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Illa Rawat) Addl. Sessions Judge (NorthWest)01 Rohini/Delhi 31.08.2013 S.C. No. 36/10 : State vs. Hema @ Dolly : Page 30 of 28