Delhi District Court
Decisions. (Jaffar Hussain Dastagir vs . State Of on 29 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPALI SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLET01-000818-2013
SC No. 621/2016
FIR No. 313/2013
U/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC
P.S. Mandawali
In the matter of :
State
Versus
1. Santosh,
S/o Budhan Singh,
R/o. H.No. D-49, Ganesh Nagar,
Pandav Nagar Complex,
Delhi.
2. Ghanshyam,
S/o Ramdeo Pandit,
R/o H.No. 253/A, CR Road,
Second Floor, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
3. Kiran @ Kinni,
W/o Rinku,
R/o H.No. D-49, Ganesh Nagar,
Pandav Nagar Complex,
Delhi-92.
..... Accused persons
Date of Institution : 19.09.2013
Date of reserving Judgment : 15.04.2023
Date of pronouncement : 29.04.2023
SC No. 621/2016 Page 1 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
Appearances
For the State : Ms. Parul Singh, Ld.
Addl.Public Prosecutor.
For the accused persons : Sh. Sudhakar Singh, Adv.
Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for
the accused Santosh and
Ghanshyam.
Sh. Yashashvi Sharma, Adv.,
Ld. Counsel for the accused
Kiran @ Kinni.
JUDGMENT
1) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that on 25.05.2013 an information was received at PS Mandawali by DD No. 15A through Const. Mukesh that something was wrapped in a blanket from which foul smell was emanating. Police reached the spot and the blanket was unfolded in which one male dead body in decomposed condition was found wrapped in two bed- sheets. The dead body had a scarf (chunni) wrapped around the neck. The bed-sheet also contained a black colour lower and one ladies top, two currency notes of Rs. 10/- and Rs. 5/-. One cotton mattress (gadda) was also found there. The dead body was taken to LBS Hospital. A case under section 302/201 IPC was registered. During investigation site plan was prepared and the Crime Team lifted exhibits from the spot. Efforts were made to identify the dead body. ZIP net search was conducted and it matched one missing person from Gazipur. The complainant Dev Karan was called and he identified the dead body to be of his son Rinku. After post-mortem the dead body was handed over to the SC No. 621/2016 Page 2 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi relatives of deceased.
2) During investigation it was revealed that the marriage of the deceased Rinku was solemnized with accused Kiran d/o Ram Lal on 03.09.2007 and a son was begotten out of the said wed lock. There were differences between the deceased Rinku and his wife accused Kiran and as such accused Kiran was living separately from the deceased. On 19.05.2013 deceased Rinku alongwith his friend Nirmal Gautam went to meet his wife i.e. accused Kiran at H.No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, at around 10.00 - 11.00 pm, where accused Santosh and Ghanshyam were already present. All of them consumed liquor and thereafter Rinku had an altercation with his wife Kiran. Rinku asked his friend Nirmal Gautam to leave, at which Nirmal Gautam left for his home. Since Rinku did not return on 19.05.2013, a missing report was lodged on 21.05.2013 at PS Gazipur vide DD No. 33B. Upon inquiry from Nirmal Gautam, he pointed out Flat No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where he had left Rinku. During investigation it was revealed that the said house had been rented out by one Durgesh Maheshwari to Tippu Pandit @ Ghanshyam on 10.03.2013. Subsequently, accused Tippu Pandit @ Ghanshyam and Santosh were arrested. Their disclosure statements were recorded. They pointed out the place of occurrence to be H.No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, and the blood stained bed in the said house, an exhibit of which was taken and seized. Accused Kiran also got recovered the blood stained Tawa and blood stained jeans of SC No. 621/2016 Page 3 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi accused Ghanshyam from house at D-49, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi. Accused Santosh got recovered the Aadhar Card of father of deceased Rinku, which was taken from the purse of deceased Rinku, and thrown away. The blood sample of the mother of the deceased Rinku was also taken for his proper identification. The seized exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini, for their evaluation and analysis.
3) After the necessary investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Santosh, Ghanshyam and Kiran @ Kinni under section 302/201/120B/34 IPC.
4) On the basis of charge-sheet and the documents submitted with it, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Karkardooma Court, took cognizance of offence under Section 302/201/120B/34 IPC and after complying with the provisions contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C, vide order dated 05.09.2013 committed the case to the Court of Session for 19.09.2013.
Charge :
5) After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the accused persons, charge was framed against accused Santosh, Ghanshyam and Kiran @ Kinni under section 120B read with Section 302/201 IPC, Section 302/34 IPC and Section 201/34 IPC. The accused persons did not plead guilty to the said charge and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence :
SC No. 621/2016 Page 4 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
6) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 26 witnesses. The brief summery of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is as under :
i) PW1 HC Adesh Tyagi, Duty Officer, who proved DD No. 15A vide Ex. PW1/A, his endorsement on the rukka Ex.
PW1/B and the FIR bearing no. 313/2013 Ex. PW1/C.
ii) PW2 Const. Mukesh, who was on beat duty and reached near South Ganesh Nagar, near Railway Line Transformer, Garbage House, at about 10.30-10.45 am on 25.05.2013 and got foul smell and noticed that something was lying wrapped in a blanket and bed-sheet from which bad smell was emanating. He informed the Duty Officer about the same, who recorded DD No. 15A. After sometime SI Luvkesh alongwith Const. Dharampal reached there. SI Om Prakash, SI Naveen and SHO also reached there. The blanket was unfolded and was found containing a dead body. Crime Team was called at the spot, who inspected the spot and took the photographs. The dead body was sent to LBS Hospital in custody of Const. Dharampal and SI Luvkesh and the case was got registered. He deposed that during investigation it was revealed that it was the dead body of one Rinku. The dead body was identified by one Nirmal, father and other relatives of the deceased at the mortuary. Postmortem was conducted on 26.05.2013. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem, handed over the exhibits to the IO, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. The receipt of handing over of the dead body is Ex. PW2/B. SC No. 621/2016 Page 5 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
iii) PW3 Sh. Durgesh Maheshwari, landlord of Flat No. CR-253-A, front side, second floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. He deposed that accused Tippu Pandit @ Ghanshyam, who was correctly identified by him before the court, came to him and took the said flat on rent in the month of March 2013 for 11 months. The rent agreement Ex. PW3/A was executed.
iv) PW4 Nirmal Gautam - public witness, friend of deceased Rinku.
v) PW5 Const. Satya Narain, photographer Crime Team, deposed that on 25.05.2013 he accompanied the Crime Team and took the photographs of the spot at Electricity Transformer, Railway Bridge, South Ganesh Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter he took photographs of H.No. CR-253-A, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. He exhibited total 13 photographs Ex. P-2 collectively and 13 negatives of the photographs as Ex. P-1 collectively.
vi) PW6 SI Karamvir, Crime Team Incharge, deposed that on 25.05.2013 he visited the spot near Railway Bridge, South Ganesh Nagar, where Insp. Om Prakash alongwith other police officials were present. He inspected the spot and directed the IO to seize the exhibits. His report is Ex. PW6/A. On the same day, he again received a request from Insp. Om Prakash to visit H.No. CR-253, second floor, Lalita Park. He reached there alongwith his team members and inspected the said spot and SC No. 621/2016 Page 6 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi directed the IO to seize the blood stained part of the wooden bed. His report in this regard is Ex. PW6/B.
vii) PW7 Const. Dharampal, who was part of the investigation. He reached the spot near Transformer, Ganesh Nagar Flyover, Slip Road alongwith SI Lokesh. He stated that the Crime Team was also called at the spot. Photographs were taken. Upon opening the mattress a decomposed dead body of a male aged 25 - 30 years was found. A chunni was wrapped around the neck of the dead body and there was a black thread on the neck of the body. Dead body was sent to LBS Hospital in custody of SI Lokesh and Const. Mukesh. He took the rukka prepared by the SHO, to the police station and got the case registered and handed over the copy of the FIR to the SHO at LBS Hospital. The relatives of the deceased disclosed that Rinku had left the house on 19.05.2013 with one Nirmal Gautam. Thereafter, he came back to the police station alongwith other staff. Nirmal Gautam also came to the police station. SHO made inquiries from Nirmal Gautam. Thereafter, the police officials alongwith Nirmal Gautam went to H.NO. CR-253A, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. When they reached there, Nirmal Gautam pointed at two boys, who were stated to be with the deceased. The said boys namely accused Santosh and Ghanshyam were arrested. Their disclosure statements were recorded. They disclosed that after committing murder they had kept the dead body inside the bed for one day. The bed was inspected and there was blood found on the lower ply of the bed. Crime Team was called and it took the photographs of the bed/ply stained with the SC No. 621/2016 Page 7 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi blood. Pieces of the ply of the bed containing blood were cut and converted in a sealed pullanda and IO took possession of the same.
viii) PW8 Const. Rajeshwar, who joined the investigation on 26.05.2013 deposed that the accused Santosh and Ghanshyam took the police party to the house of one Hari Ram Sharma at Village Sarafabad, Sector-73, Greater Noida, and took them to the ground floor where accused Kiran was found present and was apprehended. A disclosure statement of accused Kiran was recorded. She was arrested and her personal search was got conducted. Thereafter, all three accused persons took the police party to D-49, Ganesh Nagar, ground floor, i.e. rented premises of accused Kiran and got recovered one iron Tawa, blood stained blue colour jeans, which were converted into sealed parcels and taken into possession. Thereafter, the accused persons took the police party to the flyover and pointed out the spot where they all had thrown away the body of Rinku and to this effect a pointing out memo was prepared by the IO. The accused persons were got medically examined. Accused Santosh also took the police party to Metro Station near Nala, Service Road where he had thrown away the Aadhar Card of Dev Karan i.e. father of the deceased, and the same was recovered at his pointing. The Aadhar Card was also taken into police possession. He correctly identified the accused persons.
ix) PW9 W/Const. Ramwati, who joined the investigation on 26.05.2013 and was involved in the arrest of SC No. 621/2016 Page 8 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi accused Kiran from Village Sarafabad, Sector-73, Noida. Accused Kiran was interrogated and her disclosure statement Ex. PW9/A was recorded. She was arrested vide the arrest memo Ex. PW9/B and her personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW9/C. PW9 was present alongwith the police party when accused Kiran took the police party to the house of accused Santosh at Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar, and also to the spot Ganesh Nagar Service Road, near flyover, Railway Line, where she alongwith her associates had thrown away the dead body and regarding which IO prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW9/D. The Tawa and blood stained jeans pant that were got recovered were seized by he IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/E. The blood stained jeans was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/F. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana. PW9 identified the iron Tawa and the blue jeans as Ex. P-8 and P-9 restively.
x) PW10 SI Naveen Kumar. He had also reached the spot on 25.05.2013 alongwith Insp. O.P.Sinha and other police officials near Railway Line, South Ganesh Nagar, near garbage house. He was the part of the initial investigation when the dead body was found. He also deposed that the IO seized the Gadda (mattress), one green colour blanket, one ladies top, one bed- sheet and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A. One currency note of Rs. 10/- denomination and another currency note of Rs. 5/- denomination were also found and were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/B. He deposed that site plan was prepared. He came to know that the particulars of the dead body resembled with the particulars of DD No. 33B dated SC No. 621/2016 Page 9 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi 21.05.2013 of PS Gazipur and the information was directed to be sent to family members of the missing person in DD No. 33B to reach LBS Hospital. The relatives of the missing person Rinku regarding DD No. 33B, identified the dead body to be of his son Rinku. The said person namely Dev Karan informed them that on 19.05.2013 one person namely Nirmal Gautam, resident of their neighbourhood had taken his son to Laxmi Nagar at the house of one Kiran @ Kinni i.e. wife of deceased Rinku. Upon this information Nirmal Gautam was called and was interrogated. He informed that he had left Rinku at H.No. CR-253, second floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where accused Kiran alongwith accused Ghanshyam and Santosh was present. Thereafter, they went to H.No. CR-253A, second floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, which was found locked. After some time, accused Santosh and Ghanshyam came there and they were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW4/A and PW4/B respectively and their disclosure statements were recorded vide Ex. PW10/D and Ex. PW10/C respectively. Both the accused persons led the police party to South Ganesh Nagar near Railway Line, where the dead body of the deceased was dumped and the pointing out memo Ex. PW10/E was prepared by the IO. The accused persons took the police party to H.No. CR-253, second floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where the cut portion of the bed was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/F at the pointing of the accused persons.
PW10 was also part of investigation regarding arrest of accused Kiran @ Kinni from Village Sarfabad, Sector-73, SC No. 621/2016 Page 10 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi Noida, who was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/B and whose disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW9/A. On the basis of the disclosure statements of the accused persons, the Tawa i.e. weapon of offence, was seized from H.No. D-49, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex, Delhi, which was the rented accommodation of accused Santosh and Kiran. The said blood stained Tawa was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/G from the said house at Pandav Nagar at the pointing out of accused Kiran. One blood stained blue colour jeans belonging to accused Ghanshyam was also recovered at the instance of accused Kiran and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/F. Subsequently, pointing out memo of the spot Ex. PW9/D, where the dead body was found, was prepared at the pointing of accused Kiran. The dead body was sent for post-mortem. PW10 was also involved in the recovery of Aadhar Card of Dev Karan, father of deceased, at the instance of accused Santosh from a place near Mayur Vihar Metro Station, which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/H. On 28.05.2013 the landlord of H.No. CR-253A, second floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where accused Ghanshyam was residing as a tenant, reached the police station and handed over the rent agreement between him and accused Ghanshyam, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/J. PW10 identified Rs. 10/- and another note of Rs. 5/- as Ex. P-1 and P-2 respectively. He also identified one bed-sheet Ex. P-3, one blanket Ex. P-4, one ladies top Ex. P-5, mattress Ex. P-6, plywood having dirty stains Ex. P-7, iron Tawa with a wooden SC No. 621/2016 Page 11 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi handle Ex. P-8, blue colour jeans Ex. P-9, chunni Ex. P-9A, which were collected during investigation.
xi) PW11 SI Sanjeev Kumar deposed that on 21.05.2013 he was posted at PS Gazipur and at about 01.20 pm one Dev Karan informed the PCR at 100 number about missing of his son namely Rinku regarding which DD No. 17A was registered and was assigned to him. Subsequently, the complainant came to the police station and a missing report was recorded vide DD No. 33B in DD register.
xii) PW12 HC Sonu Kaushik was posted as Draftsman, Crime Branch. On 27.07.2013 he alongwith the police officials went to H.No. CR-253, front side, second floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, and took his rough notes and measurements and prepared a scaled site plan Ex. PW12/A. He also prepared a scaled site plan of the spot at Railway Bridge, South Ganesh Nagar, where the dead body of the deceased Rinku was found, vide Ex. PW12/B.
xiii) PW13 HC Hari Om, Duty Officer at PS Gazipur on 21.05.2013, who received a call at PS regarding missing of one Rinku. The call was made by Dev Karan, father of missing Rinku. On the same day, at 01.20 pm Dev Karan reached PS Gazipur and reported about missing of his son Rinku since 19.05.2013 at around 08.00 pm. He recorded the information vide D.D. No. 33B Ex. PW13/A. SC No. 621/2016 Page 12 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
xiv) PW14 Const. Chuklesh Sharma, who received nine sealed parcels, one viscera box and a sealed jar from MHC(M) PS Mandawali vide RC No. 77/21/13 and 78/21/13 for depositing the same at FSL Rohini. He deposited the same at FSL Rohini in intact condition and handed over the receipt to MHC(R).
xv) PW15 Dr. Suminder Kumar, Sr. Forensic/Chemical Examiner, FSL Delhi, who proved the FSL report Ex. PW15/A. xvi) PW16 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Specialist, Forensic Medicine, LBS Hospital, conducted postmortem of deceased Rinku and proved postmortem report Ex. PW16/A and subsequent opinion Ex. PW16/B. xvii) PW17 Sh. Santosh Tripathi, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, who proved the FSL report Ex. PW17/A. xviii) PW18 HC Rakesh Kumar, MHC(M) of the case at PS Mandawali, who proved different entries made in register no. 19, road certificates and acknowledgement receipts of FSL, Rohini, as Ex. PW18/A to Ex. PW18/K. (xix) PW19 lady Const. Sadhana, who accompanied Chandrawati, w/o Dev Karan, to LBS Hospital where Chandrawati's sealed blood sample was handed over to her by the doctor and the same was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/A. SC No. 621/2016 Page 13 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi xx) PW20 SI Vijay Kumar, Duty Officer at PS Gazipur in the intervening night of 9-10/11/11. He registered FIR No. 324/2011 under section 341/363/366/376(2G)/307/326/420/ 506/34 IPC vide Ex. PW20/A. xxi) PW21 Smt. Chanderwati, w/o Sh. Dev Karan, deposed that she went to LBS Hospital on 17.08.2013 when her blood sample was taken by the doctor in the hospital with her consent on the MLC Ex. PW21/A. xxii) PW22 Dev Karan, father of deceased.
xxiii) PW23 Const. Shiv Ram collected exhibits of the case from MHCR on 19.08.2013 vide RC No. 109/21/13 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini.
xxiv) PW24 SI Om Prakash deposed that on 25.05.2013 in pursuance of DD No. 15A he alongwith Insp. O.P.Sinha and SI Naveen reached the spot i.e. South Ganesh Nagar, near Electric Transformer, by the side of Railway Track, where dead body of a male was found wrapped with a bed-sheet and blanket. The body was infested with maggots. A Chunni was tied around the neck of the body and had knots. There was a tattoo mark in English "Geeta" on the chest. One black colour shirt, white pant and white Banyan were found on the dead body. The Crime Team was called and the exhibits were seized. During investigation, dead body was found to be resembling with the facts in DD No. SC No. 621/2016 Page 14 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi 35B dated 21.05.2013 PS Gazipur in respect of Rinku s/o Dev Karan. Subsequently, the dead body was identified to be of Rinku s/o Dev Karan.
Since Dev Karan informed that deceased Rinku was having disputes with his wife accused Kiran @ Kinni and his son Rinku had left home on 19.05.2013 with Nirmal Gautam, hence, Nirmal Gautam was called and his statement was recorded as per which he alongwith the deceased had gone to H.No. CR-253, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where accused Kiran was present alongwith two persons namely Ghanshyam and Santosh. An altercation took place between Santosh and Rinku and then Rinku directed Nirmal Gautam to leave the place. Nirmal Gautam left the said place and since then he was not aware about the whereabouts of deceased Rinku.
On the basis of the said information, the police went to H.No. CR-253, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, near which accused Santosh and Ghanshyam were arrested and the other arrest proceedings were conducted. The accused persons took the police to the place where the dead body of deceased was found vide pointing out memo Ex. PW10/E. The accused persons also led the police party to H.No. CR-253, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where the Crime Team conducted the necessary investigation and also seized blood stained portion of the bed vide Ex. PW10/F. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. The above said accused persons also took the police to Sector-73, Sarafabad, Noida, from SC No. 621/2016 Page 15 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi where accused Kiran @ Kinni was interrogated and arrested and other arrest proceedings were conducted. Accused Kiran led the police to H.No. D-49, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex, where accused Santosh used to reside. The blood stained Tawa and one blue colour jeans were recovered at the instance of accused Kiran from the said premises and seized. Subsequently, a pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of accused Kiran, who led the police to the place where the dead body was found. Subsequently, one Aadhar card was also recovered at the instance of accused Santosh and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/H. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. The IO PW24 also identified the notes of Rs. 10/- and Rs. 5/- denomination as Ex. P-1 and P-2 respectively, one bed sheet Ex. P-3, blanket Ex. P-4, ladies top Ex. P-5 and mattress Ex. P-6, a piece of plywood, which was cut from the bed lying in the room at H.No. CR-253, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, as Ex. P-7, Iron Tawa with wooden handle lifted from H.No. D-49 as Ex. P-8, one chunni which was found ties around the neck of dead body as Ex. P-9A.
xxv) PW25 SI Lokesh, part of investigation. He joined the investigation on 25.05.2013 in pursuance of DD No. 15A and reached the spot from where the dead body was recovered. The necessary investigation was conducted and the IO called the Crime Team and the exhibits were seized. The custody of the dead body was handed over to him and the MLC got prepared. The dead body was got preserved in the Mortuary at LBS Hospital and thereafter PW25 came back to police station and SC No. 621/2016 Page 16 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi Const. Mukesh Hooda was left to stand guard of the dead body.
xxvi) PW26 Insp. Om Prakash Sinha, IO of the case, who investigated the case. He proved the documents already exhibited by the other witnesses. Besides the said documents he also proved the rukka prepared by him as Ex. PW26/A, the site plan from where the dead body of Rinku was recovered Ex. PW26/B, recovery memo of Tawa and jeans Ex. PW26/C and the site plan of place where deceased Rinku was killed Ex. PW26/D. He also identified the case property already Ex. P-1 to P-9A and Ex. P-11. He also proved Ex. PW26/E, superdarinama vide which the Aadhar Card was released to Dev Karan pursuant to the order of the court Ex. PW26/F.
7) The statement of the accused persons was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the incriminating evidence put to them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and the exhibits and articles had been planted and no recovery was effected at their instance. Accused Santosh further stated that he was residing with his brother Ranjeet Singh and he had no connection with the co- accused persons. Accused Ghanshyam further stated that at the relevant time from 10.05.2013 onwards he was looking after his pregnant wife at East Uttam Nagar, Siddharth Hospital, Delhi, where she was admitted and was at an advanced stage of pregnancy. Accused Kiran further stated that she was earlier residing with her mother at C-2/22A, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi and in the year 2012 they shifted to Noida and she never SC No. 621/2016 Page 17 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi visited and resided in Delhi afterwards. All the accused persons choose to lead evidence in their defence and lead the evidence of the following witnesses:
i) Smt. Arti Devi, w/o accused Ghanshyam, who was examined as D2W1. It is recorded in the order dated 22.11.2018 that D2W1 was not present for her further cross-examination on behalf of State, as such her deposition shall not be read in evidence.
ii) D3W1 Smt. Usha, mother of accused Kiran.
After recording the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, the DE was closed vide order dated 22.11.2018.
8) It is contended by ld. Counsel for the accused persons that PW22 father of the deceased in the initial missing complaint lodged by him on 21.05.2013 vide DD No. 33B Ex. PW13/A has not stated that his son deceased Rinku had gone to meet his wife i.e. accused Kiran on the date of incident. Even in the identification statement dated 25.05.2013 Ex. PW22/A, it is mentioned that PW Nirmal had told him that he had left Rinku at Laxmi Nagar and that Rinku was in custody in another case. It is also stated that though the body of the deceased is stated to have been recovered on 25.05.2013, however, the previous involvement report of deceased Rinku was retrieved on 24.05.2013 at 01.25 pm thereby indicating that there was foul play in the investigation. It is also contended that the recoveries have been planted upon the accused persons. It is stated that no SC No. 621/2016 Page 18 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi videography of the recovery proceedings has been conducted. Allegedly the incident took place on the night of 19/20.05.2013 and the dead body was recovered on 25.05.2013 and it was in a decomposed state and therefore it was not possible to identify the dead body. It is argued that deceased Rinku has other previous involvements and he had enmity with many persons, who could have killed him and the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case to solve the same. The contentions of the accused persons have been dealt with and discussed in detail hereinbelow. It is accordingly urged on behalf of the accused persons that they are liable to be acquitted for the offences they are charged with.
9) On the other hand it is contended by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that the testimony of last seen witness PW4 and the testimony of father of the deceased alongwith recoveries effected at the instance of the accused persons as well as medical and forensic evidence on record clearly established the complicity of the accused persons in the murder of deceased Rinku and therefore they are liable to be held guilty and convicted for the offences they are charged with.
10) I have heard arguments of ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The place of recovery of the dead body and articles recovered:
11) It is to be noted that as per the testimony of witness SC No. 621/2016 Page 19 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi PW2, who was on beat duty on 25.05.2013, at about 10.30/10.45 am, when he reached near South Ganesh Nagar, near Railway Line Transformer, Garbage House, he noted a foul smell and saw something lying wrapped in a blanket and bed sheet from which foul smell was emanating. He informed the Duty Officer vide DD No. 15A and after some time SI Lokesh alongwith Const.
Dharampal reached there. SI Om Prakash, SI Naveen and SHO also reached there. When the blanket was unfolded, it was found containing a dead body. The said fact of recovery of dead body from the place i.e. near South Ganesh Nagar, near Railway Line Transformer, Garbage House, has also been confirmed from the testimony of PW25 SI Lokesh, PW24 SI Om Prakash Sinha, PW10 SI Naveen and other police witnesses. Crime Team was also called and it took photographs Ex. P-2 (colly) and the negatives are Ex. P-1 (colly). The unscaled site plan of place of recovery of the dead body Ex. PW26/B was also prepared by IO/Insp. Om Prakash Sinha (PW26) which indicates that the dead body was recovered from near South Ganesh Nagar, near Railway Line Transformer, Garbage House.
12) As deposed by PW7, PW10, PW24 SI Om prakash, PW25 SI Lokesh and other police witnesses, upon opening the blanket and bed sheet, a decomposed dead body of a male aged 25-30 years was found. The body was infested with maggots. A Chunni Ex. P-9A was tied around the neck of the body and had knots. There was a tatoo mark in English "Geeta" on the chest. One black colour shirt, white pant and white Banyan were found on the dead body. IO seized the Gadda (mattress) Ex. P-6, one SC No. 621/2016 Page 20 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi green colour blanket Ex. P-4, one ladies top Ex. P-5, one bed- sheet Ex. P-3 and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A. One currency note of Rs. 10/- (Ex. P-1) denomination and another currency note of Rs. 5/- (Ex. P-2) denomination were also found and were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/B.
13) Since the dead body was resembling with the details mentioned in DD No. 33B dated 21.05.2013 PS Gazipur Ex. PW13/A, the informant PW22 Dev Karan, father of the deceased, was called at the mortuary and he identified the dead body of the deceased vide Ex. PW22/A. PW22 also deposed that he had identified the dead body of his son and he stated that there was a tatoo of 'Geeta' on the chest of his son. The dead body recovered from near South Ganesh Nagar, near Railway Line Transformer, Garbage House, also had a tatoo of 'Geeta' on the chest. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to PW22 Dev Karan, father of the deceased, vide Ex. PW2/B.
14) It is also relevant to note that the IO took blood sample of PW21 Smt. Chanderwati, wife of Sh. Dev Karan, mother of deceased Rinku, and the same was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/A. The same was also sent to FSL for evaluation and analysis. The FSL report Ex. PW15/A mentions that DNA profile generated from the soure of Ex. 8 (blood gauze of deceased) indicates that the source of exhibit 10 (blood sample of mother) is the biological mother of source of Ex. 8 (blood gauze of deceased). Accordingly, it is proved on record that the dead body found near South Ganesh Nagar, near SC No. 621/2016 Page 21 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi Railway Line Transformer, Garbage House, was of deceased Rinku.
Homicidal Death of Deceased Rinku :
15) As regards the fact that the death of deceased Rinku was homicidal death, the prosecution has relied upon the post-
mortum report Ex. PW16/A, which has been duly proved by Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh. He deposed that on examination following external injuries were found on the body of deceased :
1. Ligature mark, 28x4-4.5 cm present over all around neck 6.5 cm below right ear, 5.4 cm below chin and 5.5 cm below left ear.
2. Lacerated wound 3x1.5 cm present over left parietal region of head.
3. Abrasion 9.5x1 cm over outer aspect of left forearm.
4. Abrasion 14x7.5 cm over front of left knee joint.
PW16 also seized and sealed the viscera, blood sample in gauze piece, clothes and ligature material with seal and handed over the same to the IO alongwith the sample seal. On 25.11.2013 upon receipt of an application alongwith photocopy of post-mortum report and chemical analysis report of viscera bearing no. FSL-2013C-5274, he gave subsequent opinion regarding cause of death to be due to asphyxia due to ligature strangulation, all injuries were opined to be ante-mortem in nature. Injury no. 1 was opined to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The subsequent opinion was proved by him vide Ex. PW16/B. There is no cross-examination on this aspect regarding the opinion given by PW16 and hence, SC No. 621/2016 Page 22 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi the cause of death remains uncontroverted. The above said clearly establishes that the deceased has suffered a homicidal death.
16) As discussed herein above, dead body of deceased Rinku was recovered wrapped in a blanket and a bed sheet at near South Ganesh Nagar, near Railway Line Transformer, Garbage House. The said dead body was in decomposed condition. It also had a chunni wrapped around its neck. The said chunni alongwith other exhibits were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A. The chunni was identified and exhibited as Ex.P-9A and was stated to have been found tied around the neck of the dead body. It is noteworthy that PW16 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh deposed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. He also stated that all injuries were ante mortem in nature and injury no. 1 i.e. Ligature mark, 28x4-4.5 cm present over all around neck 6.5 cm below right ear, 5.4 cm below chin and 5.5 cm below left ear, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Hence, the cause of death as per the post-mortem report is the strangulation, which fact is corroborated by the fact that a chunni was found tied around neck of the deceased indicating thereby that the said chunni was used to strangulate the deceased and the said injury was the cause of death of the deceased Rinku.
Testimony of public witnesses:
17) PW4 Nirmal Gautam deposed that he used to do the work of making Aadhar Cards and was residing in Delhi since SC No. 621/2016 Page 23 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi the past one year. He developed friendship with the deceased Rinku. He deposed that on 19.05.2013 Rinku was with him and they had gone to Punjabi Dhaba at about 10.00 - 10.30 pm and then they went to Noida. When they reached Noida, Rinku received a telephonic call from his wife and Rinku asked PW4 to accompany him to CR-253A, front side, second floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where his wife was residing. When they reached there wife of Rinku namely accused Kiran @ Kinni and accused Santosh and Ghanshyam were present there.
Accused Kiran arranged whisky Mcdowell No. 1. They all consumed liquor. Thereafter some heated exchange took place between Rinku and Santosh. Rinku told PW4 to leave and that he would follow. PW4 left from there and went to his room and slept.
18) PW4 further deposed that next day he woke up at around 12.00 noon and went to his office. He made a call to accused Ghanshyam and inquired about Rinku as he had not returned to his house. At that accused Santosh took the mobile phone and threatened PW4 to go otherwise PW4 would be sent to Tihar Jail in a false rape case as he had already sent Rinku to Tihar Jail in a false rape case. PW4 narrated the entire story to father of Rinku. They searched for Rinku but he could not be found and thereafter a missing report of Rinku was lodged at the police station. He further deposed that after 3-4 days the dead body of Rinku was found under the bridge of Pandav Nagar near railway track. Police officials of PS Mandawali reached at his centre and took him to PS Mandawali. Thereafter PW4 took the SC No. 621/2016 Page 24 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi police to H.No. CR-213, second floor, Laxmi Nagar and pointed out the same to the police. None of the accused was found present there and the premises was found locked. They waited there for about an hour. Subsequently, all three accused persons came there. PW4 pointed out the accused persons to the police and then all the accused were apprehended. Accused Santosh and Ghanshyam were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW4/A and PW4/B respectively. The accused persons were correctly identified by PW4 before the court.
19) Dev Karan, father of the deceased, was examined as PW22 and he deposed that he was working as a gatekeeper at Sanjay Market. He had four sons and three daughters. The deceased Rinku was his eldest son and was married with accused Kiran @ Kinni, whom PW22 correctly identified before court. He stated that it was a love marriage. PW22 came to know about this fact in the year 2007-2008 when their son was born.
20) PW22 further deposed that he performed Kuan Pujan ceremony after the birth of the child. After some days, accused Kiran left the company of his son leaving behind her new born child. They took care of the child of accused Kiran. His son Rinku was living separately from his wife. Lastly they were residing at the house of one Sanjay Chaudhary, near Sanjay Market. He deposed that his son Rinku informed him that accused Kiran started residing with accused Santosh after performing marriage with him. Rinku started residing with them. A dowry case was also lodged by accused Kiran against them. SC No. 621/2016 Page 25 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
21) On 19.05.2013 his son Rinku left home around 7.00 pm with one Nirmal saying that he was going to meet accused Kiran @ Kinni but he did not return home. Thereafter, he inquired about his whereabouts but when he did not return, PW22 lodged a missing report at the PS on 21.05.2013.
22) PW22 further deposed that on 25.05.2013 he received information from PS Gazipur for identification of a dead body. Subsequently, he identified the dead body to be of his son Rinku vide his statement Ex. PW22/A at Mortuary LBS Hospital. The dead body of Rinku was handed over to him after postmortem vide receipt Ex. PW2/B. His brother-in-law Raj Kumar had also reached the hospital. He deposed that there was a tatoo of 'Geeta' on the chest of his son.
Arrest of the accused persons and recoveries effected at their instance:
23) In order to prove the arrest of the accused persons namely Santosh and Ghanshyam, the prosecution has examined PW7 Const. Dharam Pal, PW10 SI Naveen Kumar, PW24 SI Om Prakash and PW26 Insp. Om Prakash Sinha. It is deposed by PW26, PW24, PW10 and PW7 that on 25.05.2013 at the instance of PW4 Nirmal Gautam they reached at H.No. CR-253, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar. The said house was found locked. They waited outside the house for some time.
After some time accused Ghanshayam and Santosh reached there SC No. 621/2016 Page 26 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi and they were identified by Nirmal Gautam PW4 as the person, who were present at the said house alongwith deceased Rinku when he went to meet Kiran. Both accused Ghanshayam and Santosh were apprehended. They were interrogated and they disclosed their involvement in the present case. The house was opened with the key provided by accused Santosh. The accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A of accused Santosh, his personal search memo is Ex. PW4/D and disclosure statement is Ex. PW10/D. Accused Ghanshyam was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/B, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW4/C and his disclosure statement Ex. PW10/C was recorded. It is deposed by the said police witnesses i.e. PW10, PW24 and PW26 that the accused persons disclosed that they had concealed the dead body of Rinku in the bed, which was lying inside the room. After investigation at the said premises, the house was locked by the IO.
24) It is deposed by the abovesaid police witnesses that thereafter both the accused persons led the police party to the place where dead body of deceased Rinku was found and they pointed out the place where they had dumped the dead body of the deceased vide pointing out memo Ex. PW10/E.
25) Thereafter the police alongwith both the aforesaid accused persons reached at H.No. CR-253, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar. It is deposed by PW10 that the house was opened by the IO. The accused persons pointed out towards the SC No. 621/2016 Page 27 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi bed and disclosed that they had killed deceased Rinku and kept the dead body in the bed. Crime Team officials reached there and inspected the room. The photographs of the room including the bed were taken by the photographer. Blood stains were found present inside the said bed as well as outside. IO seized the blood stained portion of the bed after cutting the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/F. The photographs of the blood stained bed are Ex. P-2 (colly).
26) It is also deposed by PW24 and PW26 that the owner of the abovesaid house, Sh. Durgesh Maheshwari PW3 was also called there and he produced the rent agreement and BSES bills which were seized vide seiure memo Ex. PW10/J (colly). The rent agreement is Ex. PW3/A and it bears the signatures of PW3 Durgesh Maheshwari as well as accused Ghanshyam also known as Tippu Pandit.
27) It is argued that the alleged rent agreement between landlord and accused Ghanshyam does not mention the name of accused Ghanshyam and is a rent agreement with one Tippu Pandit s/o Ramdev Pandit and it is not proved by the prosecution on record that the said Tippu Pandit is accused Ghanshyam. PW3 in his testimony recorded before the court identified accused Ghanshyam @ Tippu Pandit and stated that he had come to him for taking the flat on rent in the month of March 2013 and the said flat was let out to him at a monthly rent of 9800 for eleven months in terms of rent agreement Ex. PW3/A. Hence, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the accused persons that SC No. 621/2016 Page 28 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi accused Ghanshayam is not the same person, who had entered into the rent agreement with PW3 is without any basis. Moreoever, the wife of accused Ghanshyam namely Aarti Devi was examined as D2W1 and she described herself as Aarti Devi, w/o Ghanshyam Pandit @ Tippu Pandit.
28) Hence, it is urged by ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that accused Ghanshyam and Santosh were arrested at the instance of PW Nirmal Gautam from H.No. CR-253, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, which was taken on rent by accused Ghanshyam @ Tippu Pandit from PW3 Durgesh Maheshwari. It is urged that they also pointed out the place where the dead body was dumped by them vide pointing out memo Ex. PW10/E. Pursuant to their disclosure statements, the IO seized blood stained sample of the bed vide Ex. PW10/F from the above said house. Photographs of the room and blood stained bed are Ex. P2(colly). All the exhibits seized by the IO on 25.05.2013 were deposited with the MHC(M) HC Rakesh PW18 vide Ex. PW18/A.
29) As regards arrest of accused Kiran, the prosecution has examined PW8, PW9, PW10, PW24, PW26, who have deposed that in the morning of 26.05.2013 both the accused persons led the police party to village Sarfabad at the house of Pandit Ji located at Sector 73, Noida, for apprehension of accused Kiran @ Kinni. They reached the house of accused Kiran @ Kinni where she was found present alongwith other family members. She was apprehended and was arrested vide SC No. 621/2016 Page 29 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi arrest memo Ex. PW9/B. Her personal search memo is Ex. PW9/C. Her disclosure statement was recorded by the IO vide Ex. PW9/A. In pursuance to disclosure statement of the accused persons it was revealed that the weapon of offence i.e. a tawa was kept at H.No. D-49, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex, Delhi, which was the rented accomodation of accused Santosh and Kiran. They reached the said address and at the instance of the accused persons, the said room was opened. Accused Kiran pointed out the Tawa, which was lying in the said room near the wall. It was blood stained. Accused Kiran also got recovered one blood stained blue colour jeans belonging to accused Ghanshyam, from the said room. The said articles i.e. tawa and jeans were seized by the IO vide seizure memos Ex. PW9/E and Ex. PW9/F. Thereafter accused Kiran @ Kinni led the police team to the place from where the dead body was recovered and in this regard a pointing out memo Ex. PW9/D was prepared. Thereafter they returned to the police station and the IO deposited the exhibits collected on 26.05.2013 in the malkhana vide Ex. PW18/B.
30) IO also took one day PC remand of accused Santosh, who got recovered Aadhar card of Sh. Dev Karan, father of deceased Rinku, from near Mayur Vihar metro station, service road. Accused Santosh disclosed that the purse of deceased Rinku was taken out by him and he had taken out money from the purse and thrown it near Mayur Vihar Metro Station. The purse could not be recovered. However, Aadhar card of Dev Karan, father of deceased, was recovered. The said Aadhar card SC No. 621/2016 Page 30 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/H.
31) It is urged by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that accused Kiran was accordingly arrested at the instance of accused Santosh and Ghanshyam from village Sarafabad, Noida. In pursuance of her disclosure statement Ex. PW9/A, she got recovered one Tawa Ex. P-8 i.e. weapon of offence and one blood stained jeans of accused Ghanshyam Ex. P-9 from D-49, Pandav Nagar, Ganesh Nagar Complex, Mandawali, Delhi. Subsequently, one Aadhar Card belonging to Dev Karan, father of deceased, was also got recovered by accused accused Santosh from near Mayur Vihar Metro Station.
FSL Result :
32) On 26.06.2013 HC Chaklesh PW14 took nine sealed parcels, one viscera box and a sealed jar vide RC No. 77/21/13 (Ex. PW18/F) and 78/21/13(Ex. PW18/D) for depositing the same at FSL Rohini, vide entry in register no. 19 vide Ex.
PW18/C. The acknowledgement receipt are Ex. PW18/G and PW18/H respectively. On 15.05.2015 ten sealed parcels sealed with the seal of FSL and FSL report were received vide entry in register no. 19 Ex. PW18/J.
33) On 17.08.2013 the blood sample of Smt. Chandrawati was taken vide MLC Ex. PW21/A. IO also seized blood sample of mother of the deceased Smt. Chandrawati - PW21 vide Ex. PW19/A. On 19.08.2013 PW23 Ct. Shiv Ram collected the exhibit vide RC No. 19/21/13 and deposited the SC No. 621/2016 Page 31 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi same at FSL Rohini and handed over the acknowledgement to MHC(R).
34) PW15 Dr. Sumender Kumar, Sr. Forensic Chemical Examiner, FSL Delhi, proved the FSL report Ex. PW15/A and deposed that upon biological examination blood was detected on exhibits '1A' (Rs. 10/- note); '1B' (Rs. 5/- note); '2A' (bed-sheet); '2B' (blanket); '2C' (ladies top); '2D' (mattress); exhibit '3' plywood (58/44 cm) having dirty stains; '4' (iron tawa with wooden handle); '5' (blue jeans); '8' (blood gauze of deceased); '9' (Sternum bone of deceased) and '10' (blood sample gauze of Chandrawati - mother of deceased Rinku). However, blood could not be detected on exhibits '6' (few cut pieces of dirty clothes having fungal stains alongwith maggots mentioned as 'clothes of deceased' and exhibits '7' (ligature material).
35) As per Ex, PW15/A , on the basis of DNA examination the following conclusions were drawn :
"CONCLUSION:
The DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that
1. DNA profile generated from the source exhibit '3' (gauze from plywood), exhibit '4' (Iron Tawa) is similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit '8' (Blood gauze of deceased).
2. DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit '8' (blood gauze of deceased) indicates that the source of exhibit '10' (blood sample of Chandrawati ; Mother of deceased) is the Biological Mother of source of DNA profile of exhibit '8' (Blood gauze of deceased)."
SC No. 621/2016 Page 32 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
36) PW17 Sh. Santosh Tripathi, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, proved the FSL report Ex. PW17/A and on the basis of chemical & TLC examination of viscera samples of deceased following conclusion was given :
"On Chemical & TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits '1A', '1B' & '1C"
37) Accordingly, from the FSL result discussed hereinabove it emerges that the dead body belonged to deceased Rinku s/o Dev Karan PW22 and Smt. Chandrawati PW21. It is also revealed that the blood stains found on the Tawa Ex. P-8 recovered at the instance of accused Kiran belonged to the deceased. Additionally, the blood found on the plywood (taken from the bed found at the spot) Ex. P-7 also belonged to the deceased. Though blood was detected on Ex. '5' i.e. blue jeans, however, DNA could not be isolated from it.
38) It is contended by ld. Counsel for the accused persons that as per the FSL result Ex. PW17/A, no Ethyle Alcohol was detected in the viscera sample of the deceased, thereby contradicting the version of PW4 that the accused persons alongwith deceased Rinku and him had consumed alcohol after they reached H.No. CR-253A, Second Floor, Lalita SC No. 621/2016 Page 33 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. In this regard it is relevant to note that the death of deceased Rinku occurred on the intervening night of 19/20.05.2013. The exact time of death was not known. The postmortem was conducted on 26.05.2013 at 12.30 pm. The time since death as indicated in postmortem report Ex. PW16/A is 4-6 days. Hence, the postmortem was conducted approximately 4-6 days after the death of the deceased Rinku and his body was already in decomposed state. Hence, the fact that no alcohol was detected in the postmortem report would not be of much significance . Moreover, during the cross-examination of the doctor, who conducted the postmortem i.e. PW16 no question was put to him to clarify the same.
39) As discussed hereinabove, as per the post mortem report Ex. PW16/A, a lacerated wound of 3x1.5 cm present over left parietal region of head. In the disclosure statement of accused persons namely Santosh, Kiran and Ghanshyam (Ex. 9/A, Ex. PW10/C & Ex. PW10/D), they have stated that an injury was caused on the head of the deceased with the help of a Tawa Ex. P-8. Recovery of Tawa was affected at the instance of the accused persons. The said recovered Tawa was found to be stained with blood of deceased in terms of the FSL report Ex.PW15/A. Hence, the fact that injury on the head of deceased was caused with the help of Tawa stands corroborated with the fact that the blood stains on the Tawa were found to be of the deceased. The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. A chunni Ex. P-9A was also found recovered tied around the neck of the dead body at the time of its SC No. 621/2016 Page 34 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi recovery.
40) It is also noteworthy that in the disclosure statement of the accused persons Ex. 9/A, Ex. PW10/C & Ex. PW10/D they have stated that the body of the deceased was kept in a bed in the room at H.No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Blood stains were found on the lower ply of the bed and the said blood stained piece of plywood was also seized by the IO and the same was also sent for evaluation and analysis at FSL Rohini. As per FSL result Ex. PW15/A blood stains found on the plywood were the blood of the deceased.
41) It is also argued by ld. Counsel for accused persons that the recovery of blood stained 'tawa' and jeans was effected on 26.05.2013 and it is unlikely that the accused persons would have kept a blood stained 'tawa' and jeans in the house to be recovered after one week from there and no effort was made to remove the blood stains from the said articles. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the witnesses of recovery of the blood stained plywood from H.No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi at the instance of accused Santosh and Ghanshyam i.e. PW7 Const. Dharampal, PW10 SI Naveen Kumar, PW24 SI Om Prakash and PW26 Insp. Om Prakash Sinha have corroborated each other on all material points. Similarly the witnesses of recovery of blood stained Tawa Ex P8 and blood stained jeans Ex. P-9 ie PW8, PW9, PW10, PW24, PW26 have also corroborated each other on material points. They have deposed that the Tawa was found lying near the wall in the SC No. 621/2016 Page 35 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi room at H.No. D-49, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex, Delhi, which admittedly was the rented accommodation of accused Santosh. Accused Kiran also got recovered one blood stained blue colour jeans belonging to accused Ghanshyam, from the said room from a shelf. No major contradiction could be pointed out in the testimony of recovery witnesses. The fact that the blood stains were not removed from the said articles by the accused persons cannot be read in favour of the accused persons as being not in the normal course of conduct in as much as the said recoveries have been proved as a fact and moreover the said articles had in fact been removed from the place of incident by the accused persons and taken to the house of accused Santosh in order to hide them and the said articles were not left at the place of incident. Merely because the recovery witnesses were police officials does not lead to a conclusion that their testimony is liable to be discarded, (Kalpnath Rai v. State(supra) and Tahir v. State, (supra), referred to). In these circumstances the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the said recoveries have been planted upon the accused persons is untenable.
42) As regards recovery of Aadhar card of father of the deceased at the instance of accused Santosh, it is deposed by IO that during his PC remand, accused Santosh got recovered Aadhar card of Sh. Dev Karan, father of deceased Rinku, from near Mayur Vihar metro station, service road. Accused Santosh disclosed vide Ex PW 10/D that the purse of deceased Rinku was taken out by him and he had taken out money from the purse and thrown it near Mayur Vihar Metro Station. The purse could not SC No. 621/2016 Page 36 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi be recovered. However, Aadhar card of Dev Karan, father of deceased, was recovered. The said Aadhar card was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/H.
43) In State of H.P. v. Jeet Singh, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1293, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :
"There is nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of the articles was made from any place which is "open or accessible to others". It is a fallacious notion that when recovery of any incriminating article was made from a place which is open or accessible to others. It would vitiate the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in places which are open or accessible to others. For Example, if the article is buried on the main roadside or if it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in a public office, the article would remain out of the visibility of others in normal circumstances. Until such article is disinterred its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who hid it alone knows were it is until he discloses that fact to any other person. Hence the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible to others.
It is now well settled that the discovery of fact referred to in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not the object recovered but the fact embraces the place from which the object is recovered and the knowledge of the accused as to it. (Pulikuri Kottaya AIR 1947 PC 67). The said ratio has received unreserved approval of this Court in successive decisions. (Jaffar Hussain Dastagir vs. State of Maharashtra (1969 2 SCC 872), K.Chinnaswamy Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1788), Earabhadrappa @ Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka (1983 2 SCC 330), Shamshul Kanwar vs. State of U.P. (1995 4 SCC 430), State of Rajasthan vs. Bhup Singh 1997 10 SCC 675)."
44) In the present case though accused Santosh disclosed vide Ex PW 10/D that the purse of deceased Rinku was taken out SC No. 621/2016 Page 37 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi by him and he had taken out money from the purse and thrown it near Mayur Vihar Metro Station, however the purse could not be recovered and only Aadhar card of father of deceased was recovered. Hence, though the purse of the deceased were thrown by accused Santosh, however, it was not recovered and only Aadhar card of father of deceased was recovered from there, thereby indicating that someone else had accessed that place and thus only the alleged contents of the purse ie Aadhar card was found at that spot, Therefore the purse of the deceased did not remain in an hidden state or unhampered state and the said purse had been retrieved and also opened by someone else. Therefore, the said recovery of Aadhar card made pursuant to disclosure by accused Santosh is not admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
45) In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is manifest on record that there is no direct evidence regarding the involvement of the accused persons in the crime. The case of the prosecution is hence based on circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in a catena of decisions that the factors to be taken into account in adjudication of cases of circumstantial evidence are the following:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned "must" or "should" and not "may be" established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only SC No. 621/2016 Page 38 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi 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 consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487 SCC p. 185, para 153; M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 para 18.; Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam, (2017) 14 SCC 359 , para 14 referred to)"
46) In the present case following incriminating evidence against the accused persons are as to be dealt with in order to arrive at the finding of guilt or otherwise of the accused persons:
i) Testimony of Nirmal Gautam PW4 ie witness of last seen
ii) Recovery of blood stained plywood Ex P-7 from the H.No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi at the instance of accused Ghanshyam and Santosh. The blood stains on the plywood of bed Ex SC No. 621/2016 Page 39 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi Ex P-7 having similar DNA profile as of deceased.
iii) Recovery of blood stained Tawa Ex. P-8 and jeans Ex.
P-9 at the instance of the accused Kiran from the H.No. D-49, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi. The blood stains on the Tawa Ex P-8 having similar DNA profile as of deceased.
47) PW4 Nirmal Gautam stated that on 19.05.2013 deceased Rinku was with him and deceased Rinku had asked him to acccompany him to H.No. CR-253A, front side, second floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where his wife accused Kiran @Kinni had called him. When they reached there, accused Kiran @ Kinni and accused Santosh and Ghanshyam were present. After some time some heated talks exchanged between deceased and Santosh and thereafter deceased Rinku told Nirmal Gautam to leave and he would follow. PW4 Nirmal Gautam thereafter left and went to his room. Next day deceased had not returned. In this regard PW22 Dev Karan, father of deceased Rinku, deposed that on 19.05.2013 his son Rinku had left home around 07.00 pm alongwith PW4 Nirmal Gautam saying that he was going to meet accused Kiran @ Kinni and thereafter he did not return home. PW22 Dev Karan also deposed that when his son did not return even after inquiring about his whereabouts, he lodged a missing report on 21.05.2013 at PS Gazipur vide DD No. 33B. Hence, the testimony of PW22 Dev Karan also corroborates the testimony of PW4 Nirmal Gautam, who had gone alongwith deceased to meet his wife accused Kiran @ Kinni. PW4 Nirmal Gautam had left the deceased at H.No. CR- SC No. 621/2016 Page 40 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi 253A, front side, second floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, alongwith accused Kiran @ Kinni, Santosh and Ghanshyam. Accused Santosh and Ghanshyam were arrested at the instance of PW4 Nirmal Gautam and their arrest memo Ex. PW4/A and PW4/B respectively bear the signatures of PW4 Nirmal Gautam. All the accused persons were correctly identified by PW4 Nirmal Gautam before court. Though the witness PW4 Nirmal Gautam was confronted with his previous statement Ex. PW4/DA made to the police, however, the contradictions mentioned are not significant so as to discredit his testimony which is consistent with his statement recorded by the police on all material aspects. Furthermore, there are no material contradictions in the testimonies of PW4 Nirmal Gautam and PW22 Dev Karan.
48) It is stated that though PW22 has deposed that he was informed by PW4 Nirmal Gautam that he had left the deceased with the accused persons on 20.05.2013, however, despite the same the said fact is not mentioned in the missing report dated 21.05.2013, thereby indicating that PW4 is a planted witness. It is further argued that the IO has not verified the fact that accused Kiran had made a call to the deceased Rinku on the night of 19.05.2013 and no CDRs of Rinku or Kiran has been placed on record to prove the said fact. It is stated that accordingly the said statement is an afterthought in order to rope in the accused persons. In this regard PW4 Nirmal Gautam has deposed that on the night of 19.05.2013 when he was with Rinku and they had reached at Noida, at around 10.00-10.30 pm Rinku received a call from his wife i.e. accused Kiran, and Rinku asked SC No. 621/2016 Page 41 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi him to accompany him to H.No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. It may be noted that the initial missing report DD No. 33B Ex. PW13/A is only the initial information given to the police regarding missing of the son of PW22 and the fact that it does not contain the other details cannot be given undue significance and doesn't lead to an inference that the testimony of PW22 is not worthy of reliance. The fact that the IO did not collect the CDR of the conversation between accused Kiran @ Kinni and deceased Rinku cannot accrue to the benefit of the accused persons as it is settled law that deficiencies during investigation cannot be read in favour of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dayal Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal, 2012 (8) SCC 263, while dealing with cases of omission and commissions by the investigating officer and duty of the court in such cases observed as follows :
"22. Now, we may advert to the duty of the Court in such cases. In the case of Sathi Prasad v. The State of U.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 613], this Court stated that it is well settled that if the police records become suspect and investigation perfunctory, it becomes the duty of the Court to see if the evidence given in Court should be relied upon and such lapses ignored. Noticing the possibility of investigation being designedly defective, this Court in the case of Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. v. State of Punjab [(2004) 3 SCC 654], held, "in the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.
23. Dealing with the cases of omission and commission, the Court in the case of Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar [AIR 1999 SC 644], enunciated the principle, in conformity with the previous judgments, that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency, negligently or otherwise, the prosecution evidence is required to be SC No. 621/2016 Page 42 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi examined de hors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand in the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts, otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party."
49) The facts and other details deposed by PW22 in his testimony recorded before the court are not in contradiction with the contents of DD No. 33B, which was simply a missing report and hence not much can be deduced from missing of the above said detail that deceased Rinku had gone to meet his wife Kiran @ Kinni in the evening of 19.05.2023.
50) It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that as per the prosecution version the investigation in the present case began on 25.05.2013 at 11.00 am after the dead body of deceased Rinku was found by PW1 HC Aadesh Tyagi and information regarding the same was sent vide DD No. 15A. It is urged that perusal of the charge sheet filed by the prosecution reveals that the previous involvement report of SCRB, Delhi in respect of deceased Rinku filed alongwith the charge-sheet, was retrieved on 24.05.2013 at 01.25 pm. It is contended that from the aforesaid it is apparent that the police was aware of the present case even prior to 25.05.2013 and the entire investigation and the witnesses in the present case were concocted by the police.
51) In this context it is noteworthy that the missing report regarding the deceased was lodged at PS Gazipur vide DD SC No. 621/2016 Page 43 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi No. 33B Ex. PW13/A on 21.05.2013. The said previous involvement report of SCRB Delhi has also been downloaded by SHO PS Gazipur. Considering the fact that a missing report had already been lodged at PS Gazipur regarding Rinku on 21.05.2013, therefore, the fact that the aforesaid previous involvement report regarding Rinku was downloaded by SHO PS Gazipur on 24.05.2013, regarding whom a missing report was already pending, is not anomalous or surprising and does not lead render the investigation doubtful.
52) In the present case, PW4 Nirmal Gautam who is the witness of last seen has consistently stated that he had left the deceased alongwith the accused persons at H.No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Only a bald suggestion has been given to PW4 that he alongwith the deceased had not visited at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and that nothing happened in his presence. PW 4 was not cross-examined in detail on the said aspect to reveal the defence of the accused persons. The testimony of PW4 is consistent with the previous statements given to the police. There are no major contradictions in his statement given to the police and his testimony recorded before the court. PW4 was also confronted with his previous statement made to the police, however, contradictions mentioned therein are not so significant so as to discard the testimony of PW4 Nirmal Gautam and his testimony is consistent on material aspects. The fact that there is some variation in the two statements would not lead to the conclusion that his testimony is liable to be discarded. PW4 has been cross-examined by ld. SC No. 621/2016 Page 44 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi Counsel for the accused persons and nothing is revealed in his cross-examination to show that he is not worthy of reliance or that he is a planted witness.
53) In this regard it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 11 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations:
"65. Thus, the prosecution is required to bring home the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is open to an accused to raise such reasonable doubt by cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses to discredit such witness in respect of truthfulness and veracity. However, where the statement of prosecution witnesses cannot be doubted on the basis of the touchstone of truthfulness, contradictions and inconsistencies, and the accused wants to assert any particular fact which cannot be made out from the prosecution evidence, it is incumbent upon the accused to cross-examine the relevant witnesses to that extent. The witness, in order to impeach the truthfulness of his statement, must be cross-examined to seek any explanation in respect of a version, which accused wants to rely upon rather to raise an argument at the trial or appellate stage to infer a fact when the opportunity given was not availed of as part of fair play while appreciating the statement of the witnesses. Thus, we hold that a party intending to bring evidence to impeach or contradict the testimony of a witness must give an opportunity to explain or answer when the witness is in the witness box."
(emphasis supplied)
54) Accordingly, if the accused wishes to assert any fact which is not elicited in the prosecution evidence, the accused ought to cross-examine the relevant witnesses to that extent. The witness, must be cross-examined to seek any explanation in SC No. 621/2016 Page 45 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi respect of a version, which accused wishes to rely upon.
55) Though it has been argued by ld. Counsel for the accused persons that PW4 is a planted witness, however, nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to show as to why PW4 would give false evidence at the behest of the police or father of deceased and even no suggestion in that regard has been put to PW4. In these circumstances, the testimony of PW4 merits acceptance.
56) Mere suggestions given to PW4 that he alongwith the deceased had not visited at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and that nothing happened in his presence are not sufficient to dislodge the otherwise consistent version of PW4 that he had left the deceased with the accused persons at H.No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi in the intervening night of 19/20.05.2013.
57) Additionally, it has been argued that in the identification statement Ex PW22/A and in his statement recorded by the police, PW22 Dev Karan, father of the deceased, has stated that Nirmal Gautam had informed him that his son had been detained in connection with some case. The father of the deceased, PW22 was not confronted with the said statement during his cross-examination and he was only confronted with the missing report DD no.33B wherein PW22 had not mentioned the fact that the deceased told him that he was going to meet accused Kiran @ Kinni, which is not in the nature of a SC No. 621/2016 Page 46 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi contradiction. Moreover, PW22 is not a witness of last seen whereas PW4 is a witness of last seen who had accompanied the deceased and hence much weight cannot be attached to version of PW22 regarding whereabouts of his son.
58) In the present case the dead body of deceased Rinku was recovered on 25.05.2013 at about 10.30 am. The postmortem was conducted on 26.05.2013 at 12.30 pm. The time since death as indicated in postmortem report Ex. PW16/A is 4-6 days. As per the testimony of PW4, the deceased received a call from his wife i.e. accused Kiran at around 10.00-10.30 pm on 19.05.2013 and thereafter they went to Laxmi Nagar to meet accused Kiran, where accused Santosh and Ghanshyam were also present and they all consumed liquor and thereafter some heated exchange took place between deceased Rinku and accused persons, when the deceased asked PW4 to leave. This indicates that the time of incident was intervening night of 19/20.05.2013 thereby approximating the time of death as indicated in the postmortem report. It is also noticeable that when the dead body was recovered, the same was found wrapped in a gadda (mattress) Ex. P-6, one green colour blanket Ex. P-4 and one bed-sheet Ex. P-3, a chunni Ex. P-9A was also found wrapped around neck of dead body, a blue/purple colour ladies top Ex. P-5 was also found alongwith dead body thereby indicating that the death had occurred in a household environment.
59) It would also be relevant to consider Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in facts of the present case based on SC No. 621/2016 Page 47 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi circumstantial evidence. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides as follows :
"106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.--When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him."
60) In this context it would also be worthwhile to refer to the judgments of the Apex courts for guidance regarding burden of proof upon the accused regarding facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in such cases in Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 11 SCC 1 and made the following observations:
"(iii) Applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act
79. The most important aspect in the present appeals is presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
This Court has examined the scope of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer [Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794] , State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar [State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1516] , Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab [Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 375 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 717] , Rajender v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Rajender v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 10 SCC 623 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 63] . In Shambu Nath Mehra [Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794] , this Court held that Section 106 must be SC No. 621/2016 Page 48 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi considered in a commonsense way; and the balance of convenience and the disproportion of the labour that would be involved in finding out and proving certain facts balanced against the triviality of the issue at stake and the ease with which the accused could prove them, are all matters that must be taken into consideration. The section cannot be used to undermine the well- established rule of law that, save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts. This Court held as under : (AIR p. 406, para 11) "11. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre- eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It is evident that that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalle v. King [Attygalle v. King, 1936 SCC OnLine PC 20 : AIR 1936 PC 169] and Seneviratne v. R. [Seneviratne v. R., (1936) 3 All ER 36] , All ER at p.
49."
80. The Mir Mohammad Omar case [State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1516] was a case of abduction. This Court after finding that the accused have abducted the deceased, held as under : (SCC p. 392, paras 30-31 & 33-34) "30. The abductors have not given any explanation as to what happened to Mahesh after he was abducted by them. But the learned Sessions Judge after referring to the law on circumstantial evidence concluded thus:
'On a careful analysis and appreciation of the evidence I think that there is a missing link in the chain of events after the deceased was last seen together with the SC No. 621/2016 Page 49 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi accused persons and the discovery of the dead body of the deceased at Islamia Hospital. Therefore, the conclusion seems irresistible that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of murder against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt.'
31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty.
***
33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, etc. in relation to the facts of the case.
34. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that Mahesh was abducted by the accused and they took him out of that area, the accused alone knew what happened to him until he was with them. If he was found murdered within a short time after the abduction the permitted reasoning process would enable the Court to draw the presumption that the accused have murdered him. Such inference can be disrupted if the accused would tell the Court what else happened to Mahesh at least until he was in their custody."
81. This Court in Sucha Singh [Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 375 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 717] held as under : (SCC p. 381, para 19) SC No. 621/2016 Page 50 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi "19. We pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference."
82. This Court in Rajender [Rajender v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 10 SCC 623 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 63] was examining the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act when the place of the murder of the deceased was a secluded area. The deceased was last been seen with the accused. The explanation in her statement under Section 313 CrPC was that she parted company with the deceased, when the deceased got down from her car at the inter-State bus terminus ("ISBT"). This explanation has been disbelieved by the trial court and the High Court. This Court held that the time-gap between the last seen and the time of the death of the deceased is so small so as to make it impossible for the deceased to come in the contact of any other person. It was held as under : (Rajender case [Rajender v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 10 SCC 623 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 63] , SCC p. 632, para 12) "12.2.4. Having observed so, it is crucial to note that the reasonableness of the explanation offered by the accused as to how and when he/she parted company with the deceased has a bearing on the effect of the last seen in a case. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the burden of proof for any fact that is especially within the knowledge of a person lies upon such person. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company with the deceased. In other words, he must furnish an explanation that appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory, and if he fails to offer such an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, the burden cast upon him under Section 106 is not discharged. Particularly in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, such failure by itself can provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. This, however, does not mean that Section 106 shifts the burden of proof of a criminal trial on the SC No. 621/2016 Page 51 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi accused. Such burden always rests on the prosecution. Section 106 only lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his/her knowledge and which cannot support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce an explanation as an additional link which completes the chain of incriminating circumstances."(emphasis in original)
61) In Kalu v. State of M.P., (2019) 10 SCC 211 the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations:
"15. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 80] , this Court was considering a similar case of homicidal death in the confines of the house. The following observations are considered relevant in the facts of the present case: (SCC pp. 690-91 & 694, paras 14-15 &
22) "14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions [Stirland v.
Director of Public Prosecutions, 1944 AC 315 (HL)] -- quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. In State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh [State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 135] .) The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some SC No. 621/2016 Page 52 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads:
'(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.'
15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character.
In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. ***
22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime."
16. In view of our conclusion that the prosecution has clearly established a prima facie case, the precedents cited on behalf of the appellant are not considered relevant in the facts of the present case. Once the prosecution established a prima facie case, the appellant was obliged to furnish some explanation under Section 313 CrPC with regard to the circumstances under which the deceased met an unnatural death inside the house. His failure to offer any explanation whatsoever therefore leaves no doubt for the conclusion of his being the assailant of the deceased." (emphasis supplied)
62) Accordingly, in a case of circumstantial evidence, the SC No. 621/2016 Page 53 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi reasonableness of the explanation offered by the accused as to how and when he/she parted company with the deceased has a bearing on the effect of the last seen in a case. As held in Rajender v. State (NCT of Delhi)(supra), Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the burden of proof for any fact that is especially within the knowledge of a person lies upon such person. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company with the deceased and he must furnish an explanation that appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he fails to offer such an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, the burden cast upon him under Section 106 is not discharged. Pertinently, it was further held that particularly in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, such failure by itself can provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. This, however, does not mean that Section 106 shifts the burden of proof of a criminal trial on the accused. Such burden always rests on the prosecution. Section 106 only lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his/her knowledge and which cannot support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce an explanation as an additional link which completes the chain of incriminating circumstances.
63) Accordingly, as held in in Rajender v. State (NCT of Delhi)(supra), if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must SC No. 621/2016 Page 54 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company with the deceased and he must furnish an explanation that appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he fails to offer such an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, the burden cast upon him under Section 106 is not discharged. In the present case it is proved on record that PW4 had left the deceased at H.No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, alongwith the accused persons, which was the rented accommodation of accused Ghanshyam, however the accused persons have not stated that deceased had left the spot or had gone elsewhere from the spot after an interval of time or had parted with their company. The accused persons have failed to raise a probable defence or to give any plausible explanation. In the present case based on circumstantial evidence, the accused persons have failed to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on them and such failure accordingly provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against them in light of law discussed hereinabove.
64) Moreover, after the arrest of the accused Ghanshyam and Santosh, their disclosure statements were recorded while in police custody vide Ghanshyam PW10/C and Santosh PW10/D in which they revealed that they had kept the dead body of deceased Rinku in the bed at the spot i.e. H.No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. It has also been proved on record that said house was taken on rent by accused Ghanshyam from PW3 Durgesh Maheshwari. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Ghanshyam admitted SC No. 621/2016 Page 55 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi the fact that he was residing at the given address in the year 2013. Pursuant to their disclosure statement, the crime team was called at the spot where the Crime Team took photographs of the house and the bed, which had blood stains on it. The said photographs are Ex. P-2 (colly). The IO got cut the blood-stained plywood Ex. P-7. As per FSL result Ex. PW15/A, DNA profile generated from the bloodstains on the said ply wood was similar to the DNA profile of the deceased. As discussed hereinabove, Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the burden of proof for any fact that is especially within the knowledge of a person lies upon such person. The said photographs of the blood- stained bed and plywood as well as the FSL result Ex. PW15/A were put to the accused persons in their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., however, no explanation was forthcoming from the accused persons as to how the blood stains were found inside the bed at H.No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where PW4 had left the deceased with the accused persons. The only explanation furnished by the accused persons regarding the said blood stains is that blood stains were planted by the police, however, no further explanation has been given by the accused persons in this regard. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Ghanshyam has simply stated that the said fact was incorrect. The other two accused persons have also not explained anything further and they stated that the said exhibits were planted. Hence, no cogent explanation regarding blood stains found on the plywood of the bed has been furnished by the accused persons.
SC No. 621/2016 Page 56 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
65) Additionally, a blood-stained tawa Ex P-8 was also recovered at the instance of accused Kiran and no explanation was forthcoming on behalf of the accused persons in this regard. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, it can be safely concluded that the deceased had remained with the accused persons on the intervening night of 19/20.05.2013 after which he was found dead.
Motive/Circumstances leading to death of Rinku:
66) It is contended by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that the motive in the present case is manifest in the fact that the deceased Rinku did not have cordial relations with accused Kiran @ Kinni and on the date of incident an altercation took place between accused Santosh and deceased Rinku as deposed by PW4, when the deceased asked PW4 to leave and subsequently deceased Rinku was found dead. It is urged that owing to differences between accused Kiran @ Kinni, who was the wife of deceased Rinku, he was murdered by her alongwith the co-
accused persons. On the other hand it is contended by ld. Counsel for the accused persons that accused Kiran and deceased Rinku admittedly had got separated after their son was born in the year 2009 and accused Kiran is stated to have married accused Santosh. Since they had been living separately for a long period of time, there was no compelling reason for accused Kiran to conspire to kill Rinku and hence, there is no apparent motive to kill the deceased.
SC No. 621/2016 Page 57 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
67) In this connection PW22 deposed that accused Kiran @ Kinni and the deceased Rinku got married to each other and it was a love marriage. A son was born out of the wed-lock. PW22 also deposed that the deceased Rinku was residing separately from his wife. She had left the company of deceased Rinku after the birth of their child. He also deposed that accused Kiran was residing with accused Santosh after performing marriage with him as was informed to him by his son Rinku. In fact, PW22 in his cross-examination has affirmed the suggestion that he had not lodged any complaint regarding the fact that accused Kiran had performed marriage with accused Santosh, thereby indicating that a marriage had taken place between accused Kiran with accused Santosh. PW22 also deposed that a dowry case had also been lodged by accused Kiran against them. He further deposed that a case of rape had been lodged by accused Kiran against his deceased son.
68) It is also noteworthy that D3W1 Smt. Usha, mother of accused Kiran deposed that accused Kiran was married to Rinku on 03.09.2007 against their wishes and they made a complaint against him and an FIR was also registered against Rinku for raping her daughter. On 16.09.2009 Rinku was arrested and sent to Dasna Jail and thereafter her daughter Kiran shifted and started living with her at Mayur Vihar-III, Janta Flats, No. C-2/22A, Pocket C-2. When Rinku was released from jail on 02.04.2011 he stabbed her daughter at Mayur Vihar address for which a complaint was made and an FIR was registered. SC No. 621/2016 Page 58 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
69) The aforesaid facts indicate that the relations between the deceased and his wife accused Kiran were not cordial and accused Kiran was living separately from the deceased. Accused Kiran was residing with accused Santosh after performing marriage with him. Pertinently, as deposed by PW4, on the date of incident some heated exchange took place between Rinku and accused Santosh after which Rinku asked deceased to leave. Thus heated exchange also took place in presence of PW4 himself after which Rinku asked PW4 to leave and subsequently Rinku was found dead, thereby pointing to the circumstances in which the death of Rinku was caused.
70) As regards the importance to be assigned to proof of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mulakh Raj Etc vs Satish Kumar And Others, 1992 AIR 1175, observed as under :
"Undoubtedly in cases of circumstantial evidences motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused and some time it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non-existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a mater of law. Proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case."
71) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Amitava Banerjee Alias Amit Alias Bappa Banerjee v. State of SC No. 621/2016 Page 59 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi West Bengal, (2011) 12 SCC 554, held as under :
"41. Motive for the commission of an offence no doubt assumes greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of the offence is available. And yet failure to prove motive in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself. All that the absence of motive for the commission of the offence results in is that the court shall have to be more careful and circumspect in scrutinizing the evidence to ensure that suspicion does not take the place of proof while fining the accused guilty.
42. Absence of motive in a case depending entirely on circumstantial evidence is a factor that shall no doubt weigh in favour of the accused, but what the courts need to remember is that motive is a matter which is primarily known to the accused and which the prosecution may at times find difficult to explain or establish by substantive evidence.
43. Human nature being what it is, it is often difficult to fathom the real motivation behind the commission of a crime. And yet experience about human nature, human conduct and the frailties of human mind has shown that inducements to crime have veered around to what Wills has in his book Circumstantial Evidence said :
"The common inducements to crime are, the desire of revenging some real or fancied wrong; of getting rid of a rival or an obnoxious connection; of escaping from the pressure of pecuniary or other obligation or burden; of obtaining plunder or other coveted object; of preserving reputation, either that of general character or the conventional reputation of profession or sex; or of gratifying some other selfish or malignant passion."
72) In light of law discussed above, though in a case of circumstantial evidence motive assumes importance, however, failure to prove motive does not signify its non-existence. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive is proved.
73) In the present case even though motive has not been SC No. 621/2016 Page 60 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi proved as a fact, however on the date of incident some heated exchange took place between deceased Rinku and accused Santosh, with whom accused Kiran used to live at the time when Rinku asked PW4 to leave, viewed in the background of the sour relations between accused Kiran and the deceased, would be relevant facts and throw light on the circumstances in which the death of rinku was caused.
Defence of the accused persons:
74) In their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied the incriminating evidence put to them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and the exhibits and articles had been planted and no recovery was effected at their instance.
75) Accused Santosh further stated that he was residing with his brother Ranjeet Singh and he had no connection with the accused persons. In this regard it is noteworthy that accused Santosh was a resident of D-49, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-92, from where the blood stained Tawa was recovered at the instance of accused persons. He however stated that he was residing with his brother Ranjeet Singh at the said premises and had no connection with the co-accused persons before this case.
However, no suggestion in that regard has been given to any of the witnesses. Infact PW22 specifically deposed that accused Kiran was residing with accused Santosh after performing marriage with him as was informed to him by his son Rinku. SC No. 621/2016 Page 61 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi PW22 in his cross-examination has affirmed the suggestion that he had not lodged any complaint regarding the fact that accused Kiran had performed marriage with accused Santosh. No suggestion was put to PW22 that accused Kiran was not married to accused Santosh. Moreover it is proved on record that accused Santosh, Ghanshyam and Kiran were present at the house of accused Ghanshyam at CR-253A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Though accused Santosh had stated that he had no connection with the accused persons before the present case, however, the said statement is contrary to the testimony of PW22 and PW4 and no evidence has been led by accused Santosh to prove the defence taken by him. In these circumstances the defence sought to be raised by accused Santosh is a bald defence.
76) In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Ghanshyam further stated that at the relevant time from 10.05.2013 onwards he was looking after his pregnant wife at East Uttam Nagar, Sidharth Hospital, Delhi, where she was admitted and was at an advanced stage of pregnancy. In his defence he examined Smt. Arti Devi, w/o accused Ghanshyam, who was examined as D2W1. Hence, accused took the plea of alibi and in support of his plea D2W1 deposed that her daughter was born on 11.05.2013 at Sidharth Hospital, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, and she was discharged from the hospital on 12.05.2013 and she stated that her husband Ghanshyam remained with her at the house of her sister at 398, A Block, J.J.Colony, Hastsal, Delhi, till 25.05.2013. He left for giving rent of their rented SC No. 621/2016 Page 62 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi accommodation at Lalita Park, Delhi, and thereafter he never returned.
77) It is recorded in the order dated 22.11.2018 that D2W1 was not present for her further cross-examination on behalf of State, as such her deposition shall not be read in evidence. Accordingly, accused Ghanshayam sought to raise a plea of alibi in his defence. The onus to prove the plea of alibi is a heavy one. It is settled law that it is for the accused to prove alibi with absolute certainity so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the spot at the time of commission of offence. (Rajesh Kumar v. Dharamvir, AIR 1997, Supreme Court 322). In the present case, the evidence of D2W1, whom the accused examined to prove the plea of alibi, remained unconcluded and therefore it was directed not to be read in evidence vide order dated 22.11.2018. Accordingly, accused Ghanshaym has failed to prove the plea of alibi taken by him in his defence.
78) In her statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Kiran further stated that she was earlier residing with her mother at C-2/22A, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi and in the year 2012 they shifted to Noida and she never visited and resided in Delhi afterwards. In her defence she has examined her mother D3W1 Smt. Usha, who deposed that her daughter accused Kiran had been residing at the house of Haria Pandit, Sector -73, Sarfabad, Noida, for the last six years. She stated that accused Kiran was married to Rinku on 03.09.2007 against their wishes and they made a complaint against him and an FIR was also SC No. 621/2016 Page 63 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi registered against Rinku for raping her daughter. On 16.09.2009 Rinku was arrested and sent to Dasna Jail and thereafter her daughter Kiran shifted and started living with her at Mayur Vihar-III, Janta Flats, No. C-2/22A, Pocket C-2. When Rinku was released from jail on 02.04.2011 he stabbed her daughter at Mayur Vihar address for which a complaint was made and an FIR was registered. On 25.05.2013 the police officials reached her address at Noida and took her daughter with them.
79) Accordingly, though accused Kiran has taken a plea of alibi in her statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and stated that after shifting to Noida, at Sector-73, she never visited and resided at Delhi, however, as discussed hereinabove it is settled law that it is for the accused to prove alibi with absolute certainity so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the spot at the time of commission of offence. D3W1 has nowhere stated that after shifting to Noida, her daughter never visited Delhi or that she did not visit Delhi on the date of incident i.e. on 19.05.2013. No suggestion was put to PW4 in that regard. Hence, plea of alibi is not proved by the evidence of D3W1 and accused Kiran has miserably failed to discharge the onus to prove the said plea.
80) Hence, while summing up all the incriminating circumstances against the accused persons, the prosecution has been able to prove following chain of circumstances in evidence against the accused persons:
SC No. 621/2016 Page 64 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
(i) That accused Kiran and and deceased were separated and accused Kiran had later married accused Santosh and was living with him. A rape case had been filed by accused Kiran against deceased Rinku and hence they were not on cordial terms.
(ii) PW4 had left the deceased at the house of accused Ghanshyam at CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi where accused persons were present in the intervening night of 19-20.05.2013 and at that time a heated exchange took place between deceased and Santosh and deceased asked PW4 to leave from there.
(iii) That deceased had died homicidal death by strangulation and an injury was also caused on his head.
(iv) Recovery of blood stained plywood Ex P-7 from the H.No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi at the instance of accused Ghanshyam and Santosh. The blood stains on the plywood of bed Ex Ex P-7 having similar DNA profile as of deceased.
(v) Recovery of blood stained Tawa Ex. P-8 and jeans Ex.
P-9 at the instance of the accused Kiran from the house of Santosh at H.No. D-49, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi. The blood stains on the Tawa Ex P-8 having similar DNA SC No. 621/2016 Page 65 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi profile as of deceased. Lacerated wound was also found on the left parietal region of the head of the deceased.
(vi) Absence of any explanation from the accused persons regarding the aforesaid recoveries effected at their instance and the blood stains found on them or regarding if and when the deceased parted with their company on the intervening night of 19-20.05.2013, thereby failing to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on them, which itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against the accused persons.
81) Hence, in these circumstances the prosecution has been able to prove complete chain of aforesaid circumstances, which conclusively established the guilt of the accused persons and rules out the possibility that except accused persons any other person had caused the death of deceased Rinku. Therefore, it is proved on record that accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had caused the death of deceased by strangulation.
82) In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is emerges that the accused Santosh, Ghanshyam and Kiran @ Kinni committed murder of deceased Rinku in furtherance of their common intention and accordingly they are held guilty and convicted for the offence under section 302/34 IPC.
SC No. 621/2016 Page 66 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
83) The accused persons have also been charged for offence of criminal conspiracy to commit murder of deceased Rinku and to dispose of his dead body under section 120B IPC read with Section 302/201 IPC. Considering that the accused persons have been held guilty under section 34 IPC for having committed the murder of deceased Rinku in furtherance of their common intention and all were present at the time of commission of the offence, there being no separate evidence of formulation of a conspiracy between the three accused persons, the charge of criminal conspiracy under section 120B IPC is not proved against the accused persons.
84) The accused persons have also been charged for the offence under section 201 IPC. Section 201 IPC envisages that the person, who causes evidence of commission of an offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment would be held liable for the offence under section 201 IPC. Considering that in the present case the accused persons after committing the murder of deceased Rinku had hidden the dead body of deceased Rinku in the bed box at H.No. CR-253/A, Second Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, and had also taken away the blood stained Tawa Ex. P-8 and jeans pant Ex. P-9 and kept it at H.No. D-49, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex, Delhi, where articles were recovered at their instance, with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence of murder and thereby they are held guilty for the offence under section 201 IPC.
SC No. 621/2016 Page 67 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
85) Accordingly, accused persons namely Santosh, Ghanshyam and Kiran @ Kinni are held guilty for the offence under section 302/201/34 IPC and are convicted for the offences.
order
DEEPALI Digitally signed by DEEPALI
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.04.29 16:47:38
+0530
(Pronounced in the open Court (Deepali Sharma)
on 29.04.2023) Additional Sessions Judge-04
East District, Court No. 10,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
SC No. 621/2016 Page 68 of 68 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi