Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Sharma @ Bunti And Others on 29 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-07,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KKD COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
(Sessions Case No. 98/2016)
CNR No. DLSH01-000113-2014
FIR No. 475/2013
Police Station Jafrabad
Charge-sheet filed Under Sections U/S 302/201/34 IPC
Charges framed against accused Amit U/S 302/34 IPC
Sharma @ Bunti and Meeta @ Meera
STATE VS. (1) Amit Sharma @ Bunti
S/o Sh. Ram Karan @ Pandit Ji @
Prabha Shankar.
R/o K-545, Gali No. 4, Gautam Vihar, Ghonda
Delhi.
(2) Meeta @ Meera
W/o Sh. Ram Karan @ Pandit Ji @
Prabha Shankar.
R/o K-545, Gali No. 4, Gautam Vihar, Ghonda
Delhi.
.... Accused persons
Date of Institution of case 29.03.2014
Date of case reserved for Judgment 22.02.2024
Judgment Pronounced on 29.02.2024
Decision Acquitted
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 1 of 68
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, on 10.12.2023 an information was received at 1.25 AM at PS Jafrabad that someone had left a burnt lady near the car of the caller at Gali No. 1, Arvind Nagar, near the house of Lal Bihari Tiwari and lady had died and car had also burnt. It was registered vide DD No. 4A in the Roznamcha. IO had reached the spot at V-263, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi, where one white Santro car bearing no. DL7CC 1359 was parked, whose rear bumper and glass as well as rear left side tyre were found burnt. There were burn marks on the rear gate of the car (Dikki). On the back side of the car, in the gali, dead body of one lady was lying and it had burn marks and was not identifiable. On the dead body of deceased, there was green colour half burnt salwar and white and black colour stripped underwear.
2. The crime team was called at the spot, which took photographs and lifted the exhibits. In the mean time, it came out that missing report of one lady was registered at PS Karawal Nagar, by Rajender and Rajender along with his daughter Varsha and neighbour Pushpa had identified the dead body of his wife in the mortuary of GTB Hospital, Delhi on the basis of her wearing cloths, bangles (Kadda) and chutki. During investigation, it was revealed that deceased Sunita had illicit relations with Ram Karan Pandit for the last two years, due to which there was enmity between the two families, but they did not State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 2 of 68 understand and continued with their relations and previously accused Meera had a quarrel with deceased Sunita.
3. On 09.12.2013 at about 11 AM, deceased Sunita had left her house by telling her neighbour Pushpa that she was going to the house of Ram Karan for buying cloths for his son and return by evening. When Sheetal, daughter of deceased, called her at her mobile phone, then she told that she was at the house of Ram Karan and return by evening, but when she did not return till next day, then husband of deceased tried to inquire from Ram Karan, but of no avail and then he lodged her missing report vide DD No. 32A on 10.12.2013. Ram Karan also confirmed that he called deceased on 09.12.2013 for buying jacket for his younger child and deceased had come to his house at 12 noon and soon his wife had picked a quarrel with Sunita and after calming the things, he left his house and when he returned, house was found locked and later his wife i.e. accused Meera told that Sunita had gone back to her home. There are allegations against Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Meera that they had murdered the deceased Sunita for having illicit relations with Ram Karan Pandit.
4. An FIR was registered vide FIR No. 475/2013 dated 10.12.2013 in PS Jafrabad u/s 302/201 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons namely Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Meeta @ Meera u/s 302/201/34 IPC and after filing of charge sheet, cognizance of offences was taken against the accused persons namely Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Meera by the Court.
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 3 of 68CHARGE
5. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC was framed against accused namely Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Meeta @ Meera by Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 06.06.2015. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
6. Admission/denial of documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C. was conducted on 06.06.2015. Ld. Counsel for accused persons admitted the following documents :
(a) DD No. 4-A dt. 10.12.2013 Ex.A-1.
(b) FIR Ex.A-2, Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.A-3,
(c) DD No. 8A dt. 10.12.2013 Ex.A-4.
(d) DD No. 7A dt. 10.12.2013 Ex.A-5,
(e) Scaled site plan Ex.A-6;
(f) Scene of crime team report Ex.A-7;
(g) Postmortem report Ex.A-8;
(h) Inquest proceedings Ex.A-9;
(I) MLC of Varsha Ex.A-10;
(j) Emergency card of Varsha Ex.A-11;
(k) FSL report dt. 11.02.2015 given by Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra Ex.A-12;
(l) FSL report dt. 11.12.2014 prepared by Sh. Adesh Kumar Ex.A-13.
(m) FSL report dt. 31.07.2014 prepared by Sh. Kaushal Kumar Ex.A-14.
In view of abovesaid admission, the requirement of evidence of following witnesses was dispensed with :
(a) Dr. Neha Gupta,Senior Demonstrator GTB Hospital (mentioned at Sl. No. 13 in the list of witnesses)
(b) Dr. Badri N Sharma, CMO GTB Hospital (mentioned at Sl. No. 14 in the list of witnesses) State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 4 of 68
(c) SI Ravi Kumar, I/C Crime Team, NE Delhi (mentioned at Sl. No. 15 in the list of witnesses)
(d) HC Mahipal Singh, DO (mentioned at Sl. No. 24 in the list of witnesses)
(e) Insp. Mahesh Kumar, (mentioned at Sl. No. 32 in the list of witnesses)
(f) Sh. Indresh Mishra, SSO FSL (mentioned at Sl. No. 33 in the list of witnesses)
(g) Sh. Adesh Kumar, SSO FSL (mentioned at Sl. No. 34 in the list of witnesses)
(h) Sh. Kaushal Kumar, SSO FSL (mentioned at Sl. No. 35 in the list of witnesses) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. Prosecution examined thirty one (31) witnesses in its favour to prove the case.
8. PW1 Rajender deposed that Sunita (since deceased) was his wife and he has four children, two daughters namely Sheetal and Varsha and two sons namely Nakul and Nikhil. He knew Ram Karan Pandit, who used to work as a Halwai. He further deposed that his wife Sunita used to work with Ram Karan Pandit in marriage parties and other functions and his wife used to help Ram Karan Pandit in preparing Roti. He further deposed that some other ladies also used to work with Ram Karan Pandit in marriage parties and other functions and he only knew about this professional relation of his wife (Sunita) and Ram Karan Pandit and nothing else and that Ram Karan Pandit used to visit his house in his presence as well as in his absence for giving wages for her work.
9. PW1 Rajender further deposed that Meera is wife of Ram Karan Pandit and 10-11 months prior to the date of death of his wife, Meera along with some ladies and gents came at his house and quarreled State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 5 of 68 with his wife Sunita and gave beating to her. Accused Meera was saying to Sunita that she (Sunita) had illicit relationship with her husband (Ram Karan Pandit) and also threatened Sunita that if she again met her husband, then she would kill her or throw Acid on her. A call was made to the Police in this respect and police reached and both the parties went to PS, where matter was pacified by the Police officials being matter of petty nature. He did not know whether even thereafter his wife Sunita and Ram Karan Pandit continued their meeting or not.
10. PW1 further deposed that on 09.12.2013, he was not present at his house but his youngest daughter Sheetal was present. He left his house on that day at 7 AM for his work and returned at about 10 PM. His wife was not found present in the house, hence he inquired from his daughter Sheetal. Sheetal told him that at about 11 AM a phone call was received from accused Meera and she had called his wife Sunita for purchasing cloths as there was marriage of accused Meera's daughter. He further deposed that Sheetal also told him that thereafter Sunita left the house for going to house of accused Meera. All these facts were told by Sunita to his daughter Sheetal on phone when Sheetal returned from School at about 12:00-12.30 PM. Sheetal again made a call at about 2- 2.30 PM to Sunita as till then she had not returned, then the phone was found switched off. Even he made a call to his wife Sunita on her mobile number, but he did not remember the same. However, he had told the said number to the Police. He further deposed that on the next morning, he searched his wife Sunita in his relation, but she could not be traced even there.
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 6 of 6811. PW1 further deposed that he made a call to Ram Karan Pandit, Halwai, who told him that his wife Sunita had come to his house and he left for his work after leaving her at his house. Thereafter, he made a call to Meera, who told that she had no dispute with Sunita then and she also told that Sunita had come to her house and had met her 2-3 months ago.
12. PW1 further deposed that he contacted the company (service provider) of phone number, which was used by his wife Sunita and that he told them that the number of his wife Sunita was found switched off and requested them to tell that on which phone number talks were held from the phone number of Sunita, prior to switching off her phone. The said company official told him about three numbers, he did not remember those three numbers, however one phone number was of his cousin Jitender and two phone numbers were of Ram Karan Pandit and his wife Meera (accused). Thereafter he lodged a missing report Mark PW1/A of Sunita at PS Karawal Nagar.
13. PW1 further deposed that on 11.12.2013 his cousin Jitender orally informed him after reading the newspaper that one burnt dead body of a lady was lying in the mortuary of GTB Hospital. Thereafter, he along with Jitender went to PS Jafrabad and from there he along with Jitender and Police officials went to mortuary of GTB Hospital. He further deposed that the dead body was in burnt condition, however, he identified the same as of Sunita on the basis of toe ring (bichhua) worn by his wife in her one of the leg fingers. The middle leg finger of right leg of his wife was in bended position from beginning and he also observed the same State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 7 of 68 thing from the dead body. PW1 identified the dead body on the basis of Kadas worn by Sunita in her both hands. He identified the dead body of his wife vide Ex. PW1/A.
14. PW1 further deposed that on the next day i.e. 12.12.2013, he along with his daughter Varsha and one neighbor namely Pushpa went to mortuary GTB Hospital. Pushpa identified the dead body of his wife Sunita on the basis of Bichhua and Kada worn by the dead body, which were earlier brought by Pushpa and were given to his wife Sunita. Police had made inquiries from him and recorded his statement. He further deposed that he did not remember the phone number of his wife Sunita, accused Meera and Ram Karan Pandit. However, he had told the said number to the Police in his statement. Accused Meera and Ram Karan Pandit had two sons and one daughter, however, he did not know the name of any child. PW1 further deposed that after post mortem examination, the dead body of his wife Sunita was handed over to him vide handing over memo Ex. PW1/B. PW1 correctly identified accused Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Meera in the court.
15. PW2 Vishal deposed that he had worked as a Driver in Delhi Cluster Bus Service from August 2013 to February/March 2015 and he was working as a private photographer and registered owner of Santro Car no.DL7CC 1359. On 10.12.2013 at about 1-1.30 AM, he was sleeping in his house and one boy namely Praveen called him from outside that "teri gaadi mein aag lag rahi hai". He came out of his house and saw that his car was on fire, which was parked in the gali at a distance of around 10-12 steps from his house. He along with other local State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 8 of 68 residents put off the fire and he had also seen that something was lying on the ground about 2-3 steps away on the backside from his car and that thing was also burning. He further deposed that they put off that fire also and found that there was a dead body of a lady. He immediately called at 100 number with his landline number 22863582 and thereafter PCR van followed by local police reached there and they cordoned off the area around the car and dead body.
16. Local police recorded his statement and in the morning, police took his vehicle in their possession. PW2 had applied for release of his car on Superdari and he took it on superdari on furnishing his Superdarinama Ex. PW2/B. Photocopy of receiving was exhibited as Ex.PW2/A(OSR). PW2 had brought said vehicle and original RC of the same, whose copy is Ex. PW2/C(OSR). Accused Amit Sharma @ Bunti had not disputed the photographs of car bearing No. DL7CC 1359 and the same were exhibited as Ex. PW2/D1 to PW2/D5.
17. During cross-examination by Ld. APP, PW2 identified his signature at seizure memo of vehicle bearing No. DL7CC 1359 Mark P2 and the said vehicle is Ex.PW2/Article1.
18. PW3 Praveen Gupta deposed that on 10.12.2013, he was residing in a house situated in the same locality, but he did not remember the house number of that house. He came to reside in that house prior to 1-1.5 months of 10.12.2013. He further deposed that on 10.12.2013 at about 12 midnight-1 AM, he was sleeping in his house where he was residing. All of sudden, he felt smoke coming inside the room and he also saw some light out of fire. He immediately came out and saw that one State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 9 of 68 four wheeler belonging to Vishal, in burning condition. He called Vishal by saying that " Vishal tumhari gaadi mein aag lag rahi hai". Thereafter, Vishal also came out of his house. Many other persons from the locality also gathered there. They put off fire by throwing water on it, then he also saw one lady (in sitting posture) in burnt condition on the road, behind the car, near tyre of the car. Vishal made a call on 100 number and police reached at the spot.
19. PW4 Ct. Unit Ranjan deposed that on 10.12.2013, he was posted at PS Jafrabad. On that day at about 1:20-1:30 AM, duty officer had called him and gave him copy of DD no. 4A for handing it over to SI Nitin and he handed over the said DD to SI Nitin at Ghonda Chowk. Thereafter, he along with SI Nitin and Ct. Manish went near to house no. V-32/6, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi and they found one Santro car of white color having registration No. DL7CC 1359 in the street, near house no. V-263, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi. The backside bumper and backside left tyre of Santro car were found in burnt condition and one dead body of a lady in burnt condition was found behind the Santro car.
20. PW4 further deposed that SI Nitin prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for taking it to PS Jafrabad for registration of FIR. He went to PS Jafrabad and got the FIR registered through duty officer. After registration of FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of rukka and FIR to SI Nitin. SHO/Insp. Anil Kumar was also present at the spot, when he returned there along with rukka and copy of FIR. They tried to establish the identity of dead body, but the identity could not be established at that time.
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 10 of 6821. PW5 Ct. Mukesh Kumar deposed that on 10.12.2013, he was posted at PS Jafrabad. On that day, at around 04:30-5:00 AM, duty officer gave him three envelops containing FIR of this case for delivery of the same to senior officers. He delivered one envelop at the residence of Joint C.P. Eastern Range at Lucknow Road, Kingsway Camp, Delhi, another envelop at the residence of Addl. CP(N/E) at Hauz Khas, New Delhi and third envelop at the residence of Ld. MM at Karkardooma Court, Residential Complex. He had gone on Government Vehicle bearing No. DL1-SS3424.
22. PW6 Suraj Sharma deposed that he was in the business of supplying milk for last 4-5 years and he had a shop in the name and style of M/s C.P. Milk Agency, for this business at U-23, Chaudhary Fateh Singh Marg, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi-53. He used to supply milk by TVS Vicky (Luna) and motorcycle and not by rickshaw and he did not know accused Amit Sharma's family members.
23. PW6 further deposed that once around a year back, he received phone call from PS Jafrabad and he was asked about accused Amit Sharma. He had informed police officials that accused Amit Sharma used to come to him to purchase milk. He was also asked, if he had received any phone call from accused Amit Sharma on a day, which he did not remember. He had replied that he had not received phone call as he used to go to sleep by 10.30 PM. That call was received by him from PS during evening time. Police had not made inquiry from him regarding murder of a lady. After receiving the phone call from PS Jafrabad, he went to PS, where police asked his name and address. Amit Sharma did State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 11 of 68 not ask him for any rickshaw because he did not have any rickshaw with him. PW6 knew accused Amit Sharma and correctly identified him, as accused Amit Sharma used to purchase milk from his shop. PW6 was declared hostile and cross-examined by Ld. APP, but not cross-examined by both the accused persons.
24. PW7 Divya Sharma @ Varsha deposed that Sunita was her mother (deceased). She came to know about her mother's death on 11.12.2013 and prior to that they had been searching for her mother. On 12.12.2013, she went to mortuary GTB hospital along with her father and one neighbour namely Smt. Pushpa and identified the dead body of her mother on the basis of green colour salwar, red colour suit, under garments and Bichhiya (an ornament worn in the finger of leg). She identified the identification memo of dead body Ex. PW7/A.
25. PW7 further deposed that on 06.02.2014, she along with her father visited GTB Hospital on call of police and her blood sample was taken by the doctor at GTB Hospital for DNA matching test.
26. PW8 Israr Babul deposed that he had brought the summoned record i.e. original customer application form of mobile number 8585989412 in accused Amit Sharma's name Ex PW8/B(OSR) and photocopy of ID proof i.e. Election I-Card, which was filed along with CAF marked as Mark PW8/A. PW8 also brought the certified copy of the call details pertaining to mobile number 8585989412 for period from 01.12.2013 to 12.12.2013 (running into 03 pages). The computerized call details duly attested by him are Ex. PW8/A (colly 3 pages).
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 12 of 68PW8 further deposed that he also issued the certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act Ex. PW8/C, in respect of the call details of the aforesaid number. PW8 had brought original customer application form of mobile number 9873849257 in the name of Sh. Prabha Shankar, S/o Sh. Nathi Lal Ex.PW8/B (OSR) and photocopy of ID proof i.e. Election I-Card of Sh. Prabha Shankar marked as Mark PW8/A. The certified copy of the call details pertaining to mobile number 9873849257 for period from 01.12.2013 to 12.12.2013 (running into 2 pages) duly attested by him are Ex.PW8/A (colly 2 pages).
27. PW8 further deposed that the certified/computer print out copy of cell-ID Chart i.e. location chart of Vodafone of Delhi NCR is Ex.PW8/C (colly 3 pages). PW8 had also issued the certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act is Ex.PW8/D, in respect of the call details of the aforesaid number.
28. PW9 Naresh Kumar deposed that in the year 2013, he was working in a factory of Jeans belonging to one Mr. Naresh, situated at Maujpur. In the year 2013 during winter season, a 'Bhandara' was organized by his employer. The contract for preparing food was given to one person known as 'Pandit Ji' and he did not know his complete name. The preparation of food started at about 09:00 PM a day prior to the day of 'Bhandara'. The work of preparing food was performed in the night alone by Pandit Ji and he was not assisted by any other person. Police had met him after around 3-4 days of that Bhandara and had made inquiry from him and recorded his statement.
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 13 of 6829. PW9 was cross-examined by Ld. APP in which he stated that factory of jeans was situated in the property of Sunil, wherein PW9 was working in 2013 and Bhandara had taken place on 10.12.2013.
30. PW10 Ram Karan @ Pandit Ji @ Kripa Shankar deposed that he was residing at Karawal Nagar address since 1-11/4 years. Earlier to this, he was residing at house no. K-545, Gali No. 4, Gautam Vihar, Delhi. He resided in house no. K-545 for around 2-3 years. At the time of incident, he was residing at the address of house no. K-545 and he had no permanent shop and he used to perform the work of cook in parties and he used to take help from helpers. PW10 did not know any Sunita, W/o Rajender and no lady used to work with him while cooking in parties and police never met him for any inquiry regarding murder of Sunita. PW10 correctly identified accused Amit Sharma and Meera as his son and wife.
31. In cross-examination by Ld. APP PW10 admitted that Meera and Amit Sharma were arrested in his presence vide memos Ex. PW10/A and PW10/B respectively, having his signatures at Point X.
32. PW11 Ajit Singh deposed that he had brought the summoned record i.e. original customer application form of mobile number 9911041363 in the name of Sh. Vishal Kumar, S/o Sh. Rajendra Kumar. He had also brought the certified copy of the call details pertaining to mobile number 9911041363 for period from 01.12.2013 to 12.12.2013 (running into two page). The computerized call details Ex.PW11/A were duly attested by him. The certified copy of CAF of Sh. Vishal Kumar exhibited as Ex.PW11/B(OSR). Photocopy of ID Proof of Sh. Vishal State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 14 of 68 Kumar i.e. Election I-Card marked as Mark P11/A, was furnished by him. PW11 further deposed that the certified/computer print out copy of cell-ID Chart i.e. location chart of Idea Cellular Pvt. Ltd. Delhi NCR of above mentioned number exhibited as Ex.PW11/C (running into 58 pages) and he had also issued the certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act Ex.PW11/D, in respect of the call details of the aforesaid number.
33. PW12 Roshan Lal deposed that Sunita (deceased) was his youngest sister. On 12.12.2013, he along with his brother-in-law Rajender reached mortuary, GTB Hospital. After the postmortem of Sunita, her dead body was handed over to his brother-in-law Rajender (husband of Sunita). He had signed the dead body receipt Ex. PW1/B at point Y.
34. PW13 ASI Krishan Pal deposed that on 10.12.2013, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as ASI. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present case with Inspector Anil Kumar SHO PS Jafrabad. They reached at mortuary of GTB Hospital. The dead body was identified by one Rajender vide identification memo Ex. PW1/A, his daughter Varsha vide identification memo Ex. PW7/A and one neighbour Pushpa vide identification memo Ex. PW13/A, prepared by the IO. He further deposed that on 12.12.2013, he joined the investigation of the present case along with SHO/Inspector Anil Kumar, PS Jafrabad and they both reached at GTB Hospital mortuary. SHO Jafrabad got conducted the postmortem of deceased Smt. Sunita Devi and after the postmortem doctor handed over sealed exhibits to the SHO, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/B. State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 15 of 68
35. PW13 further deposed that on 14.12.2013, he again joined the investigation of the present case. He told that accused Amit Sharma was interrogated by the SHO, who disclosed regarding the murder of deceased Sunita and he was arrested in the present case and his personal search was conducted. He further deposed that arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Amit Sharma prepared by IO are Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/D respectively. Information of the arrest was given to the accused Amit Sharma's father Ram Karan, who was present at the PS. After that accused Amit Sharma @ Bunti led them to his house at house no. K-545, Gautam Vihar, Delhi and got recovered one cycle and 'one lakdi ka fatta' from his house. Accused Amit Sharma had stated that he had used the cycle and 'lakdi ka fatta' for taking the body of the deceased Sunita to Arvind Nagar. PW13 correctly identified the 'lakdi ka fatta' (wooden plank) Ex.P1 and Cycle Ex.P2, which was recovered at the instance of the accused.
36. PW13 further deposed that mother of accused Amit Sharma namely Meera, was also present at the house and she was interrogated and confessed the crime. Lady Ct. Ruby was called at the spot and arrested accused Meera and her personal search was also conducted by Lady Ct. Ruby. Accused Meera's arrest memo is Ex.PW10/A, her personal search memo is Ex.PW16/A and her disclosure statement is Ex.PW16/B .
37. PW13 further deposed that JCL 'A' was also present at the house and JWO/SI DP Singh was called at the spot, who conducted proceeding regarding JCL. After that, accused Amit Sharma and Meera State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 16 of 68 led them near house no. 263, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda and pointed out the place where the dead body was burnt. The pointing out memos Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW16/C were prepared at their instance. After that, accused Amit Sharma led them to Shastri Park Petrol Pump and pointed out the petrol pump from where he had procured petrol for the commission of offence. PW13 had expired and his examination in chief and cross could not be concluded, as reflected in order sheet dated 29.10.2021.
38. PW14 HC Manoj Kumar deposed that on 07.03.2014, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as Constable. On that day on the instructions of the IO of the present case, he along with Ct. Aswani collected the sealed exhibits from the Malkhana, PS Jafrabad and deposited the same at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 21/21, 22/21 & 23/21. The receiving of the same was handed over to the MHC(M). Till the pullandas were in his possession, the seal remained intact and no tampering was done.
39. PW15 Pushpa deposed that deceased Sunita was her neighbor. The exact date she did not remember, however 2 to 3 years back. Rajender husband of Sunita took her to GTB Hospital and she had identified the deceased at the mortuary by her cloths, which she had worn when she had gone outside her house. After that she came back to her home.
40. In her cross-examination by Ld. APP, PW15 admitted that in 2013, she was living on rent at H.No. 2, Gali No. 1, Sadatpur, in front of Neha Hospital, Karawal Nagar, Delhi and Rajender was also living in the same premises with his family adjacent to the room in which she was State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 17 of 68 staying.
41. PW16 W/Ct. Rubi deposed that on 14.12.2013, she was posted at PS Jafrabad as lady constable. On that day, she joined the investigation of the present case along with IO Inspector Anil Kumar, ASI K.P. Singh and other staff members. They all along with accused Amit Sharma reached at house No. K-454, Gautam Vihar, Ghonda, Delhi, where they met accused Meera and she was interrogated by the IO and she confessed regarding her involvement in the present case. IO arrested the accused Meera vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/A and her personal search memo is Ex.PW16/A and her disclosure statement is Ex.PW16/B. After that at the instance of the accused Meera, they reached at near House No. 263, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi, where accused Meera pointed out the place of incident and pointing out memo Ex.PW16/C was prepared. PW16 correctly identified the accused Meera and Amit Sharma @ Bunti.
42. PW17 Ms. Sheetal deposed that deceased Sunita was her mother. On 09.12.2013, when she returned back from her school, she found that her mother was not at home. She made inquiries from her neighbour Pushpa aunty and she replied that her mother had gone with Ram Karan uncle to his house. After sometime, she received call of her mother on her mobile phone, who told her that she had gone to the house of Ram Karan and she would return back after half an hour and she was at the house of Ram Karan for the purpose of purchasing clothes of Ram Karan's daughter. After one hour when her mother did not return back, she tried to contact her, but her mobile phone was switched off. She again State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 18 of 68 made call to her mother after sometime, but her phone was continuously switched off. She further deposed that in the evening, her father Rajender returned back to the house and she stated to him regarding the aforesaid matter. Her father also tried to contact her mother and also visited the house of relatives, but the whereabouts of her mother was not known. Her mother did not return back on that day and on the next day, her father made complaint at the PS.
43. PW17 further deposed that two-three months prior to 09.12.2013, the wife of Ram Karan (accused Meera) had come to her house along with her 2 or 3 friends. She had fight with her mother and stated to her mother "abki baar hua to jaan se maar dungi". After threatening her mother, they left. Her mother had made complaint to the police on the same day. PW17 correctly identified accused Meera.
44. PW17 further deposed in the cross-examination of Ld. APP that she was not sure whether her mother had made call on her mobile on 09.12.2013 and stated that she was going to the house of Ram Karan. PW17 further admitted that her mother had talked to Ram Karan on that day and he had stated to her father that her mother had come to his house and left and accused Meera had threatened her mother 8-10 months prior to 09.12.2013 and stated to her 'tu mere pati se baat karna band kar de nhi to jaan se maar dungi'.
45. PW18 Pawan Kumar deposed that he was running a grocery shop since last six years in the name and style of Atiksha at ground floor, L-37, Gautam Vihar, Delhi and 3-4 years back two police personnels started sitting in front of his house. He asked them regarding the purpose State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 19 of 68 of their sitting. They stated that a murder had been committed in the house situated in front of his shop. He did not remember the name of owner of the house and also did not know the name of tenants, who were residing there. After two days, he came to know about the facts from the police. He was not aware regarding the name of the lady, who was murdered and he had also not seen her. PW18 could identify the family members of Ram Karan as they are his wife and son. PW18 could not identify the deceased by photographs and during cross-examination by Ld. APP PW18 correctly identified accused Amit Sharma and Meera and that Ram Karan was in the business of catering (Halwai) and PW18 also admitted that after 2 days, he came to know that the lady (deceased) had been killed by Meera and Amit Sharma and Ram Karan used to visit his shop for purchasing grocery items and he was in talking terms with Ram Karan. PW18 also admitted that Amit @ Bunti had come to the house on 09.12.2013 after Ram Karan has left and shutter of the house of Ram Karan was closed.
46. PW19 HC Ashwani Kumar deposed that on 02.03.2014, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as Constable. On that day, he along with Ct. Manoj collected the sealed exhibits from Malkhanna of PS Jafrabad as per the instructions of the IO of the present case and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini, Delhi vide R/C no.21/21, 22/21 & 23/21. After depositing the same, the receipt of acknowledgement was handed over to MHC(M).
47. PW20 HC Vikas deposed that on 10.12.2013, he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar as DO and his duty hours were from 4 PM to 12 State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 20 of 68 night. At about 9 PM, one Rajender S/o Babu Ram came to PS and gave information regarding missing of his wife Sunita. The information was reduced into writing in Daily Diary Register at entry no.32A. Copy of said DD Entry is Ex.PW1/A(OSR) and the same was handed over to ASI Kavi Raj for necessary action.
48. PW21 Surender Sharma deposed that he was running a saree shop at Chandni Nagar in the name and style of "Dulhan Saree" for the last 5 years and he also stated that accused Amit Sharma was working in his shop in the year 2013. He told that he did not remember the exact date, however, he had gone to Rewari on that day and accused Amit Sharma had gone for lunch as stated by his brother. His brother later on informed that accused Amit Sharma had returned back after lunch. PW21 correctly identified accused Amit Sharma in the court.
49. PW21 was declared hostile and cross-examined by Ld. APP, in which he admitted that police had come to his shop and made inquires about Amit Sharma.
50. PW22 Shishir Malhotra deposed that he was summoned to produce the original customer application form of mobile no. 7503309178. Earlier, he had handed over the soft copies of CDR from the period 01.12.2013 to 12.12.2013 of the aforesaid mobile number (running into 5 pages), Ex.PW22/D. As per the CAF, the mobile number 7503309178 was registered in accused Amit Sharma's name. At the time of getting the connection, the customer had furnished the copy of his voter ID annexed with the CAF. He had brought the original CAF along with copy of voter ID of customer of the aforesaid mobile number. The State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 21 of 68 copy of CAF is Ex.PW22/A and the copy of voter ID is Ex.PW22/B. PW22 had also brought the certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act pertaining to CDR of aforesaid mobile number for the relevant period from 01.12.2013 to 12.12.2013, Ex.PW22/C.
51. PW23 Inspector C.L. Meena deposed that in the month of January 2015, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as SHO. The charge-sheet of the present case was earlier filed in the Court. On 01.04.2015, he had filed the supplementary charge-sheet in the present case pertaining to the FSL report regarding viscera and subsequent opinion regarding cause of death. On 06.06.2015, he had filed the supplementary charge-sheet regarding DNA profile of deceased and her daughter Varsha.
52. PW24 SI Nitin Singh deposed that on 10.12.2013, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as SI. On that day, he was on duty and his duty hours were from 8 PM to 8 AM. On that day, he was in the area of Ghonda, PS Jafrabad to attend a call DD no. 36A dated 09.10.2012 along with Ct. Manish and Ct. Unit Ranjan came there along with copy of DD no.4A and handed over to him as directed by the DO.
53. PW24 further deposed that on receiving DD no.4A, he along with Ct. Manish and Ct. Unit Ranjan went to H.No. V-32/6, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi and found one Santro car of white colour having registration no. DL-7CC 1359 in the street near H.No. V-263, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi. The back side bumper and back side left tyre were found in burnt condition. One dead-body of a lady in burnt condition was found behind the Santro Car. He prepared rukka with a request to send the crime team at the spot on DD no.4A, Ex.PW24/A and handed over the State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 22 of 68 same to Ct. Unit Ranjan at 2.50 AM for registration of the case.
54. PW24 further deposed that he informed the situation to SHO PS-Jafrabad, who came there and took over the investigation and inspected the scene of incident and efforts were made by the SHO to get identify the burnt body and also regarding the incident, but none came forward. SHO called the Crime Team at the spot. SI Ravi Kumar, I/C crime team, N/E district along with crime team reached there. The SOC was inspected by the crime team and photographs were taken by the photographer Ct. Sanjay of the crime team. Ct. Unit Ranjan came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SHO.
55. PW24 further deposed that initially inadvertently he had mentioned right tyre burnt in the rukka, but it was left back tyre. Near the dead body, ashes were lying, which included small parts of semi burnt clothes. One semi burnt sweater of a small child was also lying near the dead body having red and blue colour design made on it. One piece of white colour semi burnt baniyan was also lying there near the head of the dead body. One semi burnt piece of bed -sheet having knot was also there. The hair of the body was found glued with the piece of bed-sheet and when the body was moved, one white colour semi burnt bra and part of red colour cloth semi burnt were also lying there. It appeared that red colour piece of semi burnt cloth of suit was of the deceased, which she was wearing. The back portion of the body was not burnt. IO/Inspector Anil Kumar prepared rough site plan and called vehicle to carry the dead body to the mortuary.
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 23 of 6856. PW24 further deposed that the dead body was kept in a dead body bag along with the semi burnt green colour salwar, semi burnt white and black colour underwear, kara (bangle), chutki, semi burnt piece of bed-sheet having knot, semi burnt bra white colour and piece of red colour semi burnt cloth. The dead body bag along with body was sent to GTB Mortuary through Ct. Manish in order to preserve the body at the mortuary for 72 hours. After that IO lifted three exhibits from the spot i.e.
i) ashes ii) semi burnt sweater of small child having red and blue design and iii) white colour semi burnt baniyan. He further deposed that some ashes, which were lying near the dead body lifted from the spot was kept in a white plastic bag and the same was wrapped in a cloth and pullanda was prepared and sealed with the seal of AKY. The semi burnt small child's sweater having red and blue design was also kept in a separate plastic bag and the same was wrapped in white cloth and a pullanda was prepared and sealed with the seal of AKY. The semi burnt piece of white colour baniyan was kept in a polythene bag separately and was wrapped in a white cloth and pullanda was prepared and sealed with the seal of AKY. All the three sealed pullandas were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.24/B.
57. PW24 further deposed that the semi burnt Santro car bearing no. DL-7CC 1359 was also taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW24/C. The house adjacent to the car of Mr. Praveen Gupta and he was present. His H.No. was V-263, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi. One Vishal R/o H.No. V-32/6 was also present there. Inspector Anil Kumar recorded the statements of both witnesses. Crowd had assembled State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 24 of 68 there. Public persons were asked regarding missing of any lady from the area, but no clue was found. The identity of the body was not established till time he remained there and after that he returned back to PS.
58. PW25 Inspector Anil Kumar deposed that on 10.12.2013, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as SHO. On that day, he was on duty and on receiving DD no.4A, he along with Ct. Manoj left the PS for the spot and on way SI Nitin had telephonically informed him regarding the spot. They reached at the spot i.e. near H.No. V-32/6, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi where he met SI Nitin, Ct. Manish and Ct. Unit Ranjan. He saw one Santro car of white colour having registration no. DL-7CC 1359 in the street near H.No. V-263, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi. He further deposed that the back side bumper and back side left tyre were found in burnt condition. One dead-body of a lady in burnt condition was found behind the Santro car. SI Nitin prepared rukka with a request to send the crime team at the spot on DD no.4A, Ex. PW24/A and handed over the same to Ct. Unit Ranjan at 2.50 AM for registration of the case. Then investigation was taken over by him and he inspected the scene of incident and efforts were made by him to get identify the burnt body and also regarding the incident, but none came forward. Then he called the Crime Team at the spot.
59. PW25 further deposed that SI Ravi Kumar, I/C Crime Team, N/E district along with crime team reached there. The SOC was inspected by the crime team and photographs were taken by the photographer Ct. Sanjay of the crime team. Ct. Unit Ranjan came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. Near the dead-
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 25 of 68body, ashes were lying, which included small parts of semi burnt cloth. One semi burnt sweater of a small child was also lying near the dead body having red and blue colour design made on it. One piece of white colour semi burnt baniyan was also lying there near the head of the dead body. He further deposed that one semi burnt piece of bed-sheet having knot was also there. The hair of the body was found glued with the piece of bed-sheet and when the body was moved, one white colour semi burnt bra and part of red colour cloth semi burnt were also lying there. It appeared that red colour piece of semi burnt cloth of suit was of the deceased, which she was wearing. The back portion of the body was not burnt. He prepared rough site plan Ex.PW25/A and called vehicle to carry the dead body to the mortuary.
60. PW25 further deposed that the dead body was kept in a dead body bag along with the semi burnt green colour salwar, semi burnt white and black colour underwear Kara (bangle), chutki, semi burnt piece of bed-sheet having knot, semi burnt bra white colour and piece of red colour semi burnt cloth. The dead body bag along with body was sent to GTB Mortuary through Ct. Manish in order to preserve the body at the mortuary for 72 hours.
61. PW25 further deposed that he lifted three exhibits from the spot i.e. i) ashes ii) semi burnt sweater of small child having red and blue design and iii) white colour semi burnt baniyan. Some ashes, lying near the dead body lifted from the spot were kept in a white plastic bag, wrapped in a cloth and pullanda was prepared and sealed with the seal of AKY. The semi burnt small child's sweater having red and blue design State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 26 of 68 was also kept in a separate plastic bag, wrapped in white cloth and pullanda was prepared and was sealed with the seal of AKY and semi burnt piece of white colour baniyan was kept in a polythene bag separately, wrapped in a white cloth and pullanda was prepared and sealed with the seal of AKY. All the three sealed pullandas were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW24/B. The semi burnt Santro car bearing no. DL-7CC-1359 was seized vide memo Ex.PW24/C.
62. PW25 further deposed that the house adjacent to the car was of Mr. Praveen Gupta and he was present. His H.No. was V-263, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi. One Vishal, R/o H.No. V-32/6 was also present there and he recorded the statements of both witnesses. Crowd had assembled there and pubic persons were asked regarding missing of any lady from the area, but no clue was found and identity of the body was not established till time he remained there.
63. PW25 further deposed that during the proceedings at the spot, when the dead body was about to sent to the mortuary for preservation, he had filled up form 25.35(1)(D) Ex.A9 and during the proceedings, he had also recorded the statement of crime team staff, who had produced the SOC report Ex.A4 at the spot. Despite best efforts, identity of the dead body, could not be established.
64. PW25 further deposed that on 13.12.2013, in the morning time one phone call was received to him from mobile no. 9891964647 and the caller told his name as Jitender Sharma, who got in some news channel and Jitender Sharma informed him that one lady from his State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 27 of 68 neighbourhood was missing from 09.12.2013 and he wanted to bring the family members of the lady for showing the dead body. Thereafter, he along with ASI K.P. Singh, HC Ashok, Ct. Madan reached at GTB Hospital in the mortuary. He further deposed that in the mortuary, the said person namely Jitender Sharma met him along with one another person whose name was revealed as Rajender, his daughter Varsha and their neighbour Smt. Pushpa.
65. PW25 further deposed that the dead body was shown to all three of them and after seeing the chutki, kada and the clothes over dead body, they identified the body as of Sunita wife of Rajender. The dead body identification statements of Rajender Ex.PW1/A, Smt. Pushpa Ex.PW13/A and Kumari Varsha Ex.PW7/A were recorded by him.
66. PW25 further deposed that he wrote application for conducting the autopsy of the dead body, Ex.PW25/B and he had also recorded statements of Rajender, Varsha and Smt. Pushpa under section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein they had told that on 09.12.2013, deceased Sunita went to the house of Ram Karan, who used to work as Halwai and the deceased used to work with him and thereafter Sunita did not return back. Although, they have inquired about Sunita from Ram Karan, who told them that Sunita had already left, but she did not return back home and thereafter, on 10.12.2013 missing report of Sunita was lodged in PS Karawal Nagar. These witnesses had also provided the contact number of Ram Karan, Meera and Amit Sharma as well as the contact number of deceased.
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 28 of 6867. PW25 further deposed he sent those numbers to special staff of North East District with a request to provide the CDRs of those numbers. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by the Autopsy Surgeon. The dead body was handed over to husband of deceased i.e. Rajender vide handing over memo Ex.PW1/B. He collected the exhibits of the deceased in sealed condition from mortuary including viscera and in this regard he prepared seizure memo Ex.PW13/B. Thereafter, they came back to PS and he deposited the case property in malkhana.
68. PW25 further deposed that during course of investigation, he received the CDR of the contact numbers of family of accused Amit Sharma and deceased and analyzed them. On 13.12.2013, he along with his staff went to the house of Ram Karan and inquired him, who told him that the deceased lady came to his house on 09.12.2013 and thereafter, she had left his house. Thereafter, Ram Karan and accused Amit Sharma were brought to the PS Jafrabad and he interrogated both of them.
69. PW25 further deposed that during interrogation, accused Amit Sharma disclosed that on 09.12.2013, he went to his work in Chandni Chowk and he received a phone call of his mother Meera, who told him that Sunita had come to his house and lesson was to be taught to Sunita and thereafter, he returned back to his house and he closed the shutter of his house. PW25 further deposed that thereafter, accused Amit Sharma along with his mother and younger brother (CCL) made Sunita fall on ground and his mother caught hold the deceased hand and he along with his mother strangulated Sunita with dupatta of deceased, while the CCL also helped him and thereafter, the dead body was tied in a bed sheet and State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 29 of 68 was concealed under bed so that the dead body could be disposed of in night.
70. PW25 further deposed that accused Amit Sharma also disclosed that he had broken the mobile phone of deceased into pieces and thrown the same in Yamuna and thereafter, he went back to his place of work in Chandni Chowk and thereafter, in the evening he returned back home and procured petrol cane to burn the body and he had talked to a rickshaw puller for carrying the dead body by telling him that some (bardana) halwai utensils were to be taken, but the rickshaw could not be available and therefore, they all three put the dead body into a plastic bag and some cloths were also filled along with dead body so that dead body could not be revealed to anybody and they all tied wooden patta on cycle and thereafter, he along with his mother carried the dead body on cycle to Arvind Nagar, where dead body was thrown by them to a place and his mother poured the petrol over dead body and thereafter, accused Amit Sharma sat fire on it and they returned back home.
71. PW25 further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Amit Sharma on computer after arresting him. His arrest memo is Ex.PW10/B and personal search memo is Ex.PW13/C. PW13 correctly identified accused Amit Sharma in the court.
72. PW25 further deposed that after arrest of accused Amit Sharma, he led them to his house at K-545, Gautam Vihar, Delhi and he got recovered one bicycle with wooden plank, which was used by him to dispose of the dead body. The bicycle and wooden plank were taken into police possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW25/C. Accused Meera was State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 30 of 68 also present at home and she was interrogated and arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex. PW10/A and her personal search is Ex.PW16/A was also conducted through W/Ct. Ruby and her disclosure statement is Ex.PW16/B, in which accused Meera disclosed that the deceased was having illicit relations with her husband and on 09.12.2013, deceased visited her house and a quarrel had taken place between her and deceased and she called her son accused Amit Sharma and confessed that she along with her son Amit Sharma had committed murder of Sunita. Accused Amit Sharma and Meera separately pointed out the place of incident and separate pointing out memos Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW16/C respectively were prepared. During further interrogation, accused Amit Sharma could not identify the petrol pump from where he procured petrol. The separate proceedings regarding CCL were conducted by SI Dharmender Pratap Singh.
73. PW25 further deposed that the blood sample of Varsha, daughter of deceased was obtained on 06.02.2014 for purpose of DNA which was taken into police possession vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW25/D. He also examined independent public witnesses about the fact that one of them had stated that deceased visited the house of accused Amit Sharma on the day of incident and one witness stated from whom cycle-rickshaw was demanded from him. During investigation, PW25 also got prepared scaled site plan from Inspector Mahesh Kumar. The exhibits were sent to FSL by Ct. Ashwani and Ct. Manoj. He had prepared the charge-sheet against both accused Amit Sharma and Meera, but by that time opinion regarding the cause of death and FSL result was State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 31 of 68 also awaited, which was filed vide supplementary statement by some other IO.
74. PW25 correctly identified the bicycle Ex.P1, and wooden plank Ex.P2, from the house of accused Amit Sharma at this instance. PW25 correctly identified accused Amit Sharma and Meera. PW25 filed initial charge-sheet in the present case after completion of investigation on 12.03.2014 and subsequent charge-sheet were filed by Inspector C.L. Meena in the present case.
75. PW26 Dr. Kaushal Kumar deposed that on 07.03.2014, he was posted as Junior Scientific Officer/Chemical Examiner at FSL, Rohini. On that day, two sealed parcels along with other documents at FSL, Rohini was received in connection with case FIR No. 475/13 dated 10.12.13 u/s 302 IPC PS-Jafrabad. He further deposed that the case was marked to him for analysis. Parcel-1 was one sealed paper envelop sealed with the seal of NG containing Ex.1. The parcel-1A was one sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of NG contained Exhibits 1A1, 1A2 and 1A3. The seal on the parcels were tallied and found correct and cut open. They contained 1A as cotton wool swab on a long wooden stick kept in a plastic tube. Parcel Ex. 1A1 contained cotton wool swab on a long wooden stick kept in a plastic tube and Ex. 1A2 and Ex.1A3 as two micro slides wrapped in gauge cloth piece. The exhibits were further analyzed for presence of semen but the same could not be detected on either of the exhibits. PW26 prepared the detailed report in this regard Ex. A-14 (admitted).
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 32 of 6876. PW27 Dr. Adesh Kumar deposed that on 07.03.2016, he was posted at FSL as Senior Scientific Officer, Chemistry. One sealed wooden box and six sealed parcels were received in his office in case FIR No. 475/13 PS Jafrabad and same were marked to him for chemical examination. All the parcels were properly sealed and intact and sample seals were tallied as per specimen seals. The parcels were opened and analyzed and prepared detailed report Ex. A13 (colly).
On chemical, Microscopic, TLC and Gas Chromatography examination
(i) Exhibits 1A, 1B & 5 were found to contain residue of petrol,
(ii) Residue of Petrol/Kerosene/Diesel could not be detected in exhibits 2, 3 & 4 and,
(iii) Metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phophide, alkaloids, barbiturate, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in Exhibits 6A, 6B, 6C and 6D. He further deposed that after the examination, the remnants of the exhibits have been sealed with the seal of "AY FSL DELHI".
77. PW28 Dr. Indresh Kumar Mishra deposed that on 07.03.2014, he was posted at FSL as Senior Scientific Officer (biology). On that day, four sealed parcels were received in their office i.e. FSL, Rohini along with sample seals and same were marked to him for biological and DNA examination. All the parcels were properly sealed and intact and sample seals were tallied as per specimen seals. The parcels No. 1 & 4 were opened and analyzed for biological and DNA examination and prepared detailed report and the parcel no. 2 & 3 were State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 33 of 68 returned in original to the forwarding authority.
78. PW28 deposed that on biological examination, blood was detected on exhibits 1 & 4. On DNA examination, the DNA profile (STR analysis) performed in the source of exhibit "1" (i.e. blood of deceased on gauze) and "4" (i.e. sample blood of Ms. Varsha on gauze) were sufficient to conclude that the source of Ex. "1" (blood of deceased on gauze) was biological mother of the source of Ex. "4" (i.e. sample blood of Ms. Varsha on gauze).
After examination, remnants of the exhibits have been sealed with the seal of 'IKM FSL DELHI'. His report is Ex.A12.
79. PW29 HC Satish Kumar deposed that he had brought the original register no. 19 pertaining to the entry no. 768/13, 771/13 and 774/13 in the present case FIR made by then MHC(M) HC Mahipal. He further deposed that on 10.12.2013, three sealed exhibits bearing the seal of AKY were deposited in the malkhana of PS Jafrabad in case FIR No. 475/13 by Inspector Anil Kumar. Entry to the said effect was made in register no. 19 by the then HC Mahipal Singh. The entry was made at Sl. No. 768/13 in the register no. 19 and he brought the same. Copy of the same is Ex.PW29/A (OSR).
80. PW29 further deposed that on 12.12.2013, seven sealed exhibits were deposited in the malkhana of PS Jafrabad in case FIR No. 475/13 by Inspector Anil Kumar. Entry to the said effect was made in register no. 19 by the then HC Mahipal Singh. The entry was made at Sl. No. 771/13 in the register no. 19 and copy of the same is Ex.PW29/B (OSR).
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 34 of 6881. PW29 further deposed that on 14.12.2013, one bicycle and one piece of wood (lakdi ka fatta) was deposited in the malkhana of PS Jafrabad in case FIR No. 475/13 PS by Inspector Anil Kumar. Entry to the said effect was made in register no. 19 by the then HC Mahipal Singh. The entry was made at Sl. No. 774/13 in the register no. 19 and copy of the same is Ex. PW29/C (OSR). He further deposed that on 07.03.2014 on the instructions of IO, sealed pullandas were sent to FSL, Rohini in the present case through Ct. Manoj and Ct. Ashwini vide R/C bearing no. 21/21, 22/21 and 23/21 in this respect. Entry to the said effect was made in register no. 19 which is from point A to A of Ex.29/A, B to B and C to C of Ex.PW29/B by MHC(M) HC Mahipal.
82. PW29 further deposed that on 19.12.2014, 6 sealed parcels were deposited in Malkhana from FSL Rohini through Ct. Pradeep in the present case and entry was made in Register No. 19 from Point D to D of Ex. PW29/A by MHC(M) HC Mahipal. On 28.11.2014, five sealed parcels were deposited in the malkhana from FSL Rohini by HC Mahipal in the present case and entry was made in Register No. 19 which is from point E to E of Ex.PW29/B by MHC(M) HC Mahipal. All the entries were made by HC Mahipal Singh and he could identify MHC(M) HC Mahipal signature and writing in his official capacity as he had worked with MHC(M) HC Mahipal and seen his writing and signing. HC Mahipal was transferred and he was working in the capacity of MHC(M) PS Jafrabad currently.
83. PW30 Dr. Arvind Kumar deposed that he was working in GTB Hospital since year 2001 in the Department of Mortuary. Dr. Neha State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 35 of 68 Gupta had worked in the Mortuary Department under his supervision. Dr. Neha Gupta conducted postmortem on the body of one Smt. Sunita, W/o Rajender aged about 40 years, female on 12.12.2013 vide PM No. 1671/13. The PM report was exhibited as Ex.A8 and Ex.PW30/A, as per which the final opinion regarding cause of death was kept pending due to FSL Report.
84. PW30 further deposed that later on subsequent opinion was taken on receipt of FSL report Ex.PW30/B, as per which, Dr. Neha Gupta had opined that cause of death in the present case was asphyxia as a result of pressure on neck. PW30 identified the signature of Dr. Neha Gupta on both the documents at Point A. He further deposed that he was conversant with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Neha Gupta as she had worked under his supervision.
85. PW31 Retd. Inspector C.L. Meena deposed that in the year 2015, he was working as SHO PS Jafrabad. In the month of January, 2015, FSL result regarding viscera of deceased was received from FSL Rohini. He moved an application for obtaining subsequent opinion regarding cause of death vide his request Ex.PW31/A. After obtaining subsequent opinion, he filed supplementary charge-sheet in the present case and later on he filed another supplementary charge-sheet in the month of June, 2015 after receipt of DNA report. The prosecution has examined Inspector C.L. Meena twice as PW 23 and PW31.
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 36 of 68STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
86. Statement of the accused persons namely Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Meera u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24.01.2024 and they have denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and stated that all the public witnesses falsely deposed against them as per the story of the prosecution and rest of the witnesses i.e. doctors, are the formal witnesses and other police witnesses deposed against them in a false manner as they were falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials on the basis of work out theory of the cases and they have nothing to do as alleged by the Investigating Officer and they are innocent.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING Arguments of Ld. Counsel for accused
87. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and no motive to commit the crime has been proved by the prosecution. The material witnesses i.e. PW6 Suraj Sharma, PW10 Ram Karan, PW18 Pawan Kumar and PW21 Surender Sharma have turned hostile and nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination against the accused persons. The presence of deceased Sunita at the house of accused persons on 09.12.2013 could not be proved and the CDR is inconclusive. At the time of alleged offence, accused Amit Sharma @ Bunti was at his work place at Chandni Chowk, Delhi which was far away from his house and PW21 has not deposed that he had gone to his house in the afternoon and returned in the evening as prosecution wanted to prove the fact that accused Amit Sharma received State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 37 of 68 call from Meera and gone to his house and committed the murder of Sunita.
It is also argued that the version of prosecution is self- contradictory regarding calling of Sunita to the house of accused persons as no call allegedly made or receipt by daughter of Sunita namely Sheetal to prove her location at the house of accused, could be proved by the prosecution as there is no CDR in this regard. It is also submitted that no neighbour has been examined as to whether anybody had seen Sunita going or coming out or near the house of accused persons, particularly, when she had gone there during the day time and PW10 and PW18 are completely hostile on this point. The police had mentioned that the Sunita had died due to the pressing of neck and that she was strangulated by chunni/dupatta, but there are no antemortem injuries in the PM report and there is no witness, who had heard the shouts of deceased when the alleged crime was committed during the day time and police had mentioned that the accused persons had taken the body on the bicycle having wooden plank and threw it on the street and set the dead body after pouring petrol brought from Shastri Park, Petrol Pump, but neither any such petrol pump was identified nor any witness was examined in this regard. Dead body of deceased was recovered beside white Santro car, whose rear bumper and left side tyre was burnt, but nobody had seen them carrying the body at night and no PW has deposed so. PW6 has denied that accused Amit Sharma asked for rickshaw from him that night . It is further argued that there is no CCTV footage and the chain of circumstances, pointing towards the guilt of the accused has not been State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 38 of 68 proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and there are many gaps in the prosecution story and prosecution has not been able to prove the motive or the previous and subsequent conduct of accused leading to crime.
Arguments of Ld. Addl. P P for the State
88. Ld. APP for State has argued that PW1 Rajender, who was the husband of deceased Sunita has proved the motive of the crime that deceased was having illicit relations with husband of accused Meera and 10-11 months ago, Meera had come to their house and quarreled with Sunita. It is argued that dead body was identified to be of Sunita, whose missing report was lodged by PW1 and PW17 Sheetal has proved that she had gone to the house of accused persons on 09.12.2013 to purchase clothes for the son of Meera and it was told by deceased to PW17 and thereafter, her phone was switched off. It is also argued that as per CDR, Amit Sharma was not at his work place as his location was near his house at 02:10 pm. The CDR also showed the call between Meera and Amit Sharma, which proved that Sunita was called by Meera and after her husband had gone outside, she called Amit Sharma from his work place and along with his younger son CCL, they committed murder of Sunita by strangulation which is evident from the postmortem report and they burnt the dead body by using petrol procured by accused Amit Sharma so that her body could not be identified. The wooden plank and bicycle used in the crime were got recovered at the instance of accused Amit Sharma. The chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 39 of 6889. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.
90. There is no eyewitness in the present case and it is based on the circumstantial evidence and the motive assumes importance in such cases and chain of circumstances has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt without any gaps.
91. The prosecution has to prove the following circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to prove its case:-
i)The dead body was of Sunita
ii). There was motive to murder Sunita.
iii). Sunita was called by Meera/Ram Karan to their house to buy cloths for their children.
iv). Sunita had gone to the house of accused persons on 09.12.2013.
v). Accused Meera had called Amit Sharma to home on that day and he had come to his home in the afternoon from his work place.
vi). Accused Meera, Amit Sharma and CCL had caused death of Sunita by strangulating her with dupatta/chunni.
vii). Accused persons had taken the dead body at night on a bicycle having wooden plank to Arvind Nagar, Ghonda.
viii). Accused Amit Sharma had procured petrol from Petrol Pump and the same was poured on the dead body of Sunita and it was burnt by accused persons.
92. As per the prosecution case, accused Amit Sharma and Meera along with her son CCL 'A' had murdered deceased Sunita at their home on 09.12.2013 and later disposed of her dead body by burning it with petrol and thrown it in the street. The prosecution has examined 31 State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 40 of 68 witnesses to prove its case.
93. PW1 Rajender had lodged the missing complaint of Sunita vide DD No. 32A dated 10.12.2013 at PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi, Ex.PW21/A (Mark PW1/A), vide which it was informed by him that Sunita was missing since 09.12.2013 at 11 AM.
94. PW2 Vishal proved the fact that he was owner of Santro Car No. DL7CC 1359 and on 10.12.2013 at about 1-1.30 AM when he was sleeping one Parveen called him and told him that his car had caught fire and he saw fire in his car, which was parked near 10-12 steps from his house at V-32/6, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi and after fire was put off, he found dead body of a lady and called police and he identified the Santro Car, whose RC is Ex.PW2/C and car is Ex. PW2/Article1 and he had taken the same on Superdari and the defence counsel had not objected to the said car, whose photographs are Ex.PW2/D1 to PW2/D5. PW3 Parveen Gupta has corroborated the version of PW2. PW4 Ct. Unit Rajan also found the said car, near H. No. V-263 and back side bumper and back left tyre of Santro Car was found in burnt condition with the body of a lady, but at that time its identity was not established and he admitted in his cross that there was no light in the gali. It shows that dead body of the deceased was burnt near V-32/6 Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi by using petrol.
IDENTIFICATION OF DEAD BODY
95. PW1 had deposed that on 11.12.2013, on the information of his cousin Jitender, he had gone to GTB Hospital to identify one burnt dead body of a lady and on the basis of toe ring (bhichua) worn by his State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 41 of 68 wife in one of the leg fingers, kara worn by her in both hands, he had identified it to be the body of his wife Sunita vide identification memo Ex.PW1/A. PW7 Varsha and PW15 Pushpa, neighbour, have also identified the dead body of Sunita on the same basis as that of PW1 and also on the basis of her green colour salwar, red colour suit and undergarments. PW7 and PW15 had identified the dead body of Sunita vide identification memos Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW13/A respectively, which is corroborated by PW13. After postmortem examination, the dead body of Sunita was handed over to PW1, vide memo Ex.PW1/B.
96. On 06.02.2014, blood sample of PW7 was taken by doctor at GTB Hospital for DNA matching and same was seized by IO vide Ex. PW25/D and as per the FSL report, Ex.A12, deceased was the biological mother of PW7 Varsha. PW12 only proved the fact that dead body of Sunita after postmortem was handed over to his brother-in-law i.e. PW1 Rajender and he signed the dead body receipt Ex.PW1/B. Thus, prosecution has proved that the dead body recovered at Arvind Nagar, Ghonda was of Sunita.
MOTIVE
97. In case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes importance as held in Wakkar Vs. State of UP (2011) 3 SCC 306. In Munish Mubar Vs. State of Haryana AIR (2013) SC 912, it was held that in case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence indicating the guilt of accused becomes untrustworthy and unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who has knowledge of the circumstances that prompted into adopt State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 42 of 68 ascertain course of action, leading motive to commit a crime, it may be conceived that accused had committed the crime.
Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act: Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.- Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any persons an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
98. As per the prosecution case, the motive of the crime is the illicit relationship between deceased Sunita and husband of accused Meera namely Ram Karan Pandit and PW1 is a witness regarding this fact.
99. PW1 has deposed that Sunita was his wife and he has two daughters namely Sheetal and Varsha and Sunita used to work with Ram Karan Pandit in marriage parties and helped him in preparing rotis as he was Halwai by profession and other ladies also worked with Ram Karan and PW1 only knew about professional relationship between Sunita and Ram Karan and not anything else. This shows that PW1 was not aware of any illicit relationship between Sunita and Ram Karan despite being husband.
100. Further, PW1 also deposed that 10-11 months prior to the death of Sunita, Meera along with some ladies and gents, had come at his house and quarreled with Sunita and caused beatings to her and Meera told Sunita that she was having illicit relationship with her husband Ram State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 43 of 68 Karan and threatened Sunita not to meet Ram Karan or she would kill her or throw acid on her and call was made to police and matter was pacified by the police.
101. No such gents or ladies were examined by the police. No record of the police regarding the matter of beating and threatening of Sunita or if it was reported to police, was brought on record nor any such police official was examined and in his cross-examination, PW1 stated that he was not present in his house when Meera along with some ladies and gents came in his house before 10-11 months prior to the incident and even he was not present in the PS where the matter was settled, thus, PW1 had not witnessed either beating or threatening of Sunita or any settlement in the PS and his deposition/evidence is hearsay in nature and not admissible and thus, he cannot be said to have proved the motive of the crime.
102. PW10 Ram Karan has categorically deposed that he did not know Sunita and he was also hostile and during cross-examination by Ld. APP, even after being confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Mark PW10/A, he denied that 10-11 months prior to 10.03.2014 his sister-in- law and his wife had gone to house of Sunita and quarreled with her and later matter was pacified. Thus, even PW10 could not prove any such quarrel between Meera and Sunita and his sister-in-law has not been examined by the prosecution.
103. PW15 Pushpa in her deposition turned hostile and in cross- examination of Ld. APP, she denied that Ram Karan used to visit house of Rajender in his absence, due to which there used to be quarrel in the State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 44 of 68 family of Rajender and Sunita or that Sunita used to work with Ram Karan in marriage functions. PW15 also denied that 10-11 months back, accused Meera had come to the house of Rajender in her presence along with other lady and threatened Sunita to leave the company of her husband or she would be killed. PW15 has also denied that she tried to explain Sunita not to have extra-marital affairs with Ram Karan Pandit. PW15 denied those facts even after she was confronted her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC Ex.PW15/A.
104. Neither PW7 Divya Sharma @ Varsha nor PW17 Sheetal, who are daughters of deceased Sunita have spoken a word about illicit relations between Sunita and Ram Karan. Also, PW17 deposed that 2-3 months prior to 09.12.2013, accused Meera had come to her house along with 2-3 friend and fought with her mother and stated that "abki baar hua to jaan se maar dungi" and her mother had made police complaint. On the contrary, PW1 stated that the quarrel had taken place 10-11 months ago and in her cross-examination by Ld. APP, PW17 stated that she did not remember if the said incident had taken place 2-3 months ago or 8-10 months ago and in her cross-examination by accused she stated that it might be 2-3 months and again said 5-6 months prior to 09.12.2013, which shows that PW17 was not sure of the said incident and even no complaint has been proved by the prosecution.
In Shankar Vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC Online SC 268 Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the importance of motive and relied upon Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) 5 SCC 626, where it was held in para 27:
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 45 of 68"Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstance."
Thus, from the testimony of above witnesses, it cannot be concluded that there were illicit relations between Sunita and Ram Karan and as such motive could not be proved beyond reasonable doubts.
105. PW1 has also deposed that on 09.12.2013, he was not present at his house as he had gone for work at about 07:00 am and returned at about 10:00 pm and he did not find Sunita and his daughter Sheetal told him that at about 11:00 am, a phone call was received from accused Meera, who called Sunita for purchasing clothes for the marriage of daughter of Meera, but PW10 was put a suggestion by Ld. APP after he turned hostile that on 09.12.2013, his wife asked him for purchasing a jacket for younger son on which he told her to call Sunita, who had experienced in purchasing clothes and he denied the same and confronted with his statement Mark PW10/A and PW15 Pushpa denied that on 09.12.2013 at about 11 AM Sunita told her that she was going to the house of Ram Karan to purchase the cloths of his sons. It shows that there are contradictions in the versions of PW1, PW10 and PW15 regarding whose clothes Sunita had gone to purchase and it is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 Livelaw SC 279 that suggestion made to the witness by Defence Counsel and its reply forms part of evidence and can be relied upon by the court. Similarly, the suggestion given by the State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 46 of 68 prosecutor binds the prosecution to those facts.
106. Sheetal had told him that Sunita left for the house of Meera and these facts were told by Sunita to Sheetal on phone at about 12:00- 12:30 pm, when she returned from her school. Sheetal again called Sunita at 02:00-02:30 pm, but her phone was switched off.
The entire evidence of PW1 about the above facts is hearsay in nature as he has deposed what was told to him by Sheetal and thus, his evidence is not admissible. PW1 also stated that he made a phone call to Sunita, but he did not remember her phone number and he also called Ram Karan, Halwai, who told that Sunita had come to his house and he had left for his work after leaving her at his house. PW1 also called Meera, who told that she had no dispute with Sunita and she had not come to her house and lastly, met her 2-3 months ago. There is no CDR to prove the facts stated by PW1 regarding the calls made by him or Sheetal. Thus, there is no corroboration to the deposition of facts by PW1.
107. PW1 also deposed that he contacted service providers of the phone number used by Sunita and apprised them about her phone, being switched off and sought the phone numbers on which Sunita had talked and they provided him three numbers. This version of PW1 does not inspire confidence as no service provider would give details of calls to general public person without any police intervention and there is no documents placed on record in this regard nor any service provider has been examined nor PW1 could reveal such any such number on which Sunita talked, but he stated that one was of Jitender and other two were of Ram Karan Pandit and Meera. Jitender has not been examined as witness State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 47 of 68 and Meera has denied any call with Sunita. In his cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he had not told about his talk with service provider and providing three numbers by them to police, which shows that he has made material improvement in his testimony and PW10 Ram Karan has categorically deposed that he does not know any lady Sunita.
108. PW17 Sheetal deposed that when she returned from school on 09.12.2013, she inquired from her neighbour Pushpa about her mother when she did not find her at home, then, she replied that her mother had gone to the house of Ram Karan for purchasing clothes of his daughter and she would return in half an hour, but PW15 Pushpa had denied this fact in her cross-examination by Ld. APP that on 09.12.2013 at about 11:00 am, Sunita told her that she was going to the house of Ram Karan Pandit to get purchase the clothes of his son even after her attention was drawn to her statement Ex.PW15/A. Hence, the testimony of PW17 on this aspect cannot be relied upon and is not in consonance with evidence of PW1.
109. PW17 further deposed that when her mother did not return after one hour, she tried to contact her, but her mobile phone was continuously switched off. PW17 has not deposed that at all that her mother had called her from the house of Ram Karan and told that she had gone to his house and would be back soon. The version of PW1 in this regard does not find any corroboration from the testimony of PW17 and despite the fact that Sunita had left the house at 11 AM on 09.12.2013 and was about to come by 1 PM as per the testimony of PW17, but her missing report was lodged on 10.12.2013 at 9 PM Ex.PW21/A (Mark State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 48 of 68 PW1/A), which is a considerable period and the reason given by PW1 is that he was searching her.
TECHNICAL EVIDENCE
110. PW8 Israr Babul, Nodal Officer Vodafone, proved that mobile No. 8585989412 was in the name of accused Amit Sharma and its call details from 01.12.2013 to 12.12.2013 are Ex.PW8/A and CAF is Ex.PW8/B (OSR), Election I-Card of the accused Amit Sharma is Mark PW8/A and Certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is Ex. PW8/C. PW8 also proved that CAF of Mobile No. 9873849257 was in the name of Prabha Shankar, Ex.PW8/B and its call details from 01.12.2013 to 12.12.2013 are Ex.PW8/A and Election I-Card of Prabha Shankar is Mark PW8/A. Cell ID/Location Chart of Vodafone is Ex.PW8/C and Certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is Ex. PW8/D.
111. PW11 Ajit Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular, brought the original CAF of Mobile No. 9911041363 in the name of Vishal Kumar Ex.PW11/B and its call details from 01.12.2013 to 12.12.2013 are Ex.PW11/A and its Cell ID/Location Chart is Ex.PW11/C and Certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is Ex.PW11/D and Election I-Card of Vishal is Mark PW11/A.
112. PW22 Nodal Officer, Aircel, had proved the call details of mobile no. 7503309178 from 01.12.2013 to 12.12.2013 is Ex.PW22/D and CAF was in the name of accused Amit Sharma S/o Prabha Shankar Sharma is Ex.PW22/A and his Voter ID is Ex.22/B and Certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is Ex.PW22/C. State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 49 of 68
113. The CAF of alleged mobile no. of Sunita 9911041363 was in the name of Vishal. PW25 Inspector Anil Kumar had deposed that he had recorded the statements of Rajender, Varsha and Pushpa, who told him about the contact numbers of Ram Karan, accused Meera and Amit Sharma as well as of deceased Sunita, but PW1 Rajender (husband of deceased), PW7 Varsha (daughter of deceased), PW15 Pushpa (neighbour of deceased) and PW17 Sheetal (daughter of deceased) have not deposed about the phone number being used by deceased Sunita at the time of alleged offence nor mobile phone of Sunita was recovered during investigation and even Vishal in whose name said alleged mobile number of Sunita was issued has not been examined.
114. PW25 also deposed that he had analyzed the CDRs of phone numbers of PW10, deceased and accused persons, but he had not elaborated as to what he had analyzed from the said CDRs. He has neither deposed about the location of all the persons at the relevant time on the date of offence nor he has stated about any call made between accused persons and he was not asked any question by the prosecution in this regard.
115. From Ex.PW8/B, it is established that mobile No. 8585989412 was in the name of accused Amit Sharma and he was the user of said mobile. As per CAF dated 26.09.2013, Ex.PW8/B, mobile no. 9873849257 was in the name of Prabha Shankar, who was shown as father of accused Amit Sharma, but no positive evidence has been lead in this regard by the prosecution and even the said Prabha Shankar has not been examined by the prosecution and nobody has stated if Prabha State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 50 of 68 Shankar was the real or step father of accused Amit Sharma as only PW10 Ram Karan has been portrayed as father of accused Amit Sharma and husband of accused Meera. The prosecution has not given any analysis of the said CDRs. However, on analysis of Ex.PW8/A, it came out that on 09.12.2013, mobile number 8585989412 (Amit Sharma) was in contact with number 9873849257 of Prabha Shankar on 09.12.2013 at 12:46:30 hours and it had contact with mobile no. 9911041363 (alleged to be of deceased Sunita) on 09.12.2013 at 11:02:47 hours for 22 second and then again at 11:55:58 hours, but it is not the case of prosecution that Amit had called Sunita. Mobile No. 8585989412 was also in contact with mobile no. 7503309178 (Amit Sharma) at 12:55:14 hours. The photographs appearing in Ex.PW22/A and Ex.PW8/B are of accused Amit Sharma S/o Prabha Shankar Sharma and having same address, but the photographs appears to be different, but there is no investigation in this regard. The number 8585989412 of Amit Sharma was in constant touch with number 9811464297 on 09.12.2013, but police has not ascertained as to whom that number belong and there is no investigation about the said number. If Amit Sharma had called from his number 8585989412 to number of deceased 9911041363, then there must be some evidence deposed by any witness that Amit Sharma had called the deceased as PW17 Sheetal has stated that her mother (deceased) had called her on 09.12.2013, but she has not deposed that her mother told her if she had received any call from accused Amit Sharma and there is no phone number of Sheetal brought on record and highlighted in the CDR to corroborate the fact that deceased had called PW17.
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 51 of 68116. The CAF Ex.PW11/B of mobile No. 9911041363 was in the name of Vishal Kumar, but none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that how deceased Sunita was user of that mobile and she was using that mobile on 09.12.2013. Vishal Kumar is shown as son of Rajender Kumar, so he may be the son of deceased, but even he has not been examined in this regard nor PW1 Rajender had stated if said number was being used by deceased Sunita. Even the Cell ID/Location Chart is Ex.PW11/C brought on record is inconclusive and does not prove the location of mobile phone of deceased at the house of accused. As per Ex.PW11/A, there were calls between mobile no. 9911041363 and 7834837579 on 09.12.2013 at 14:06:14, 14:20:39 and 14:25:13, but it has not been ascertained as to whom the latter number belonged and there were continuous calls from 9911041363 to different phone numbers, but there is no investigation or clarity has been brought by the prosecution about those numbers, it shows that phone no. 9911041363 was in constant use from 11:02:47 to 14:25:13. The prosecution failed to prove that Sunita was user of mobile no. 9911041363 or when that mobile number was switched off. As per Ex.PW22/D, there is one call from mobile no. 7503309178 (Amit Sharma) to mobile no. 8585989412 (Amit Sharma) at 12:55:08 on 09.12.2013, but there is no explanation from the prosecution as to why he would call himself or what was the number being used by accused Meera and the call from Meera to Amit Sharma by which she had called him to his house to teach deceased a lesson could not be proved from the said CDR. PW17 Sheetal has not stated any time when she called her mother Sunita or when she received call from her and from or State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 52 of 68 at which mobile and it is objected by Ld. Counsel for the accused that PW17 was allowed to refresh her memory despite being the witness of fact.
117. It is settled law that the CDRs are not the substantive evidence and are always corroborative in nature and accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of CDRs and the present case the prosecution has failed to prove the location of accused persons and the deceased together at the relevant time or the calls which have been deposed by the witnesses.
In Kirti Pal Vs. State of West Bengal (2015) 11 SCC 178 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that telephonic calls may raise suspicion against the accused, but mere suspicion itself cannot take the place of proof.
In Kamal Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2023 Live Law SC 617, Hon'ble Supreme Court while acquitting the accused after conviction by the Hon'ble High Court held that in case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must and should be fully established and it should be consistent with only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and they must be conclusive in nature and did not rely on the CDRs as the SIM was not in the name of accused, but in the name of different person.
118. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the location of deceased Sunita at the house of accused Amit Sharma and Meera and also the presence of these two accused simultaneously with deceased at their house on 09.12.2013 at about 12 noon.
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 53 of 68FORENSIC/MEDICAL EVIDENCE
119. PW26 Dr. Kaushal Kumar proved the FSL report dated 31.07.2014, Ex.A13 and it was admitted by accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C. As per the said report, no semen could be detected on Exhibits 1, 1A1, 1A2, 1A3, which are vaginal swabs of deceased.
PW26 was not crossexamined by accused.
120. PW27 Dr. Adesh Kumar proved the FSL report dated 11.12.2014, Ex.A13 and it was admitted by accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C. As per the said report, Exhibit 1A (semi burnt unidentified cloths along with few hairs sticking on it), Exhibit 1B (semi burnt unidentified cloth pieces) and Exhibit 5 (one semi burnt unidentified cloth piece i.e. baniyan, were subjected to Chemical Microscopic, TLC and Gas Chromatography examination and they were found to contain residue of Petrol. In said report, no metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could be detected on Exhibits 6A, 6B, 6C and 6D, which were the exhibits of the internal body parts and blood sample of deceased and no residue of petrol/diesel/kerosene could be detected on Exhibit 2 (some brown colour hair from burnt scalp), Exhibit 3 (black colour debris along with semi burnt cloth piece) and Exhibit 4 (semi burnt woolen sweater).
121. The testimony of PW27 and his reports shows that the body was burnt and there was no trace of any poison found inside the body of deceased.
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 54 of 68PW27 was not crossexamined by accused.
122. Blood sample of the PW7 Varsha was taken vide MLC dated 06.02.2014, Ex.A10 and Ex.A11, which was admitted by the accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
123. PW28 Dr. Indresh Kumar Mishra proved the FSL/DNA report dated 11.02.2015, Ex.A12 and it was admitted by accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C. As per the said report, the DNA of Varsha, extracted from blood sample, matched with the DNA of deceased Sunita (extracted from blood sample) and deceased Sunita was the biological mother of Varsha.
PW28 was not cross-examined by accused.
124. PW30 Dr. Arvind Kumar proved the PM Report dated 12.12.2013, Ex.A8 (Ex.PW30/A) and it was admitted by accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C. As per the said report, no external injuries were present on the body of deceased Sunita and postmortem flame burns were present superficial to deep in nature all over the body except a patch over abdomen and ventral toe digits and there was 98% burn of the total body surface area. Time since death was two and half day and cause of death was reserved subject to report of viscera.
125. PW31 IO/Insp. C.L. Meena had requested for subsequent opinion regarding cause of death vide his application Ex. PW31/A dated 20.01.2015 addressed to HOD, GTB Hospital, Delhi.
PW30 proved the subsequent opinion given by Dr. Neha Gupta, Ex.PW30/B dated 12.12.2013, which states that cause of death was 'Asphyxia as a result of pressure on the neck'.
PW30 was not cross-examined by accused.
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 55 of 68126. From the forensic examination, it came out that the deceased was Sunita, who was wife of PW1 Rajender, considering the report Ex.A12 and her body was burnt as per report Ex.A13 and she was not poisoned and no semen was detected in her samples collected, which is evident from Ex.A14. The cause of death was Asphyxia due to pressure on neck, which shows that she had died by pressing of her neck and then her body was burnt and the prosecution has to prove as to how the pressure was exerted on neck and by whom.
Had the accused persons laid the deceased on ground and tried to strangulate her, she must have resisted and there may be some external antemortem injury, but no injury has been mentioned in the PM Report.
127. PW18 Pawan Kumar deposed that 3-4 years prior to 2017, police officials started sitting in front of his house as murder had been committed in a house situated in front of his grocery shop and he did not know the owner of the said house and after two days, he came to know about murder of a lady in that house and he was not even aware about the name of lady and he had not seen her.
128. PW18 was declared hostile. He deposed without any pressure or coercion and admitted that he knew Ram Karan, who was residing on rent in front of his house and that accused persons were his wife and son, but could not identify the deceased even after being shown her photographs and volunteered that one lady used to visit his house, but with her face covered every time.
129. PW18 was cross-examined by Ld. APP, where he completely disowned his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 15.12.2013, Mark PW18/A State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 56 of 68 and denied that he had identified the deceased Sunita from her photographs shown by the police as the lady, who used to visit house of Ram Karan Pandit and that due to the same there was frequent quarrel between Ram Karan and his wife. PW18 also denied that he had told police that on 09.12.2013 between 12-12.30 PM deceased Sunita had come to the house of Ram Karan and at that time Ram Karan was present in his house and after some time he heard noise coming out from the house of Ram Karan and there was a quarrel between deceased and wife of Ram Karan, even after PW18 was confronted with his statement Mark PW18/A. Though PW18 admitted that shutter of the house of Ram Karan was closed, but denied that he had not told the police that he had not seen the deceased coming out of the house of Ram Karan.
130. The testimony of PW18 does not prove the presence of deceased Sunita in the house of Ram Karan on the relevant date and time of the offence and he was the main witness to prove this circumstance, which is necessary for the prosecution to prove the presence of Sunita at the house of Ram Karan and there is no other witness to this effect. PW10 also denied during his testimony that on 09.12.2013, his wife asked him to purchase jacket for his younger son, then he suggested to call Sunita and despite objection of Meera, he called Sunita, who reached his house at 12 noon and quarrel had taken place between Meera and Sunita and the matter was pacified by him. PW10 had disowned his statement Mark PW10/A even after being confronted with the same on these facts.
131. Though PW18 had stated that shutter of the house of Ram Karan was closed after arrival of Amit, but he had stated so only after State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 57 of 68 leading question was asked by Ld. APP and not from his memory, for which corroboration is required and even then he had not stated any time or date regarding the same nor asked by the Ld. APP to clarify the things and to make thing worse for prosecution, PW10 denied that he went outside for making arrangement of money and when he returned after an hour, he found the shutter of his house closed, which is contrary to the testimony of PW18.
Thus, from the testimony of PW10, PW18 and the CDRs, the prosecution failed to prove the presence of Sunita at the house of Ram Karan and quarrel with accused Meera on 09.12.2013.
132. PW21, who was the owner of the shop where Amit Sharma used to work on the relevant date, deposed that he had gone to Rewari, but did not remember the date and his brother had stated that Amit Sharma had gone for lunch and returned after lunch. He was declared hostile and in cross-examination of Ld. APP, he denied that on 09.12.2013, accused Amit Sharma had received a call from his house at 1 PM and stated that his mother had met with an accident and requested to go to his house and he permitted him to leave the house and he returned back to shop at 3.30-4 PM and stated that his mother had sustained injury on her head due to accident with motorcycle and he had taken her to doctor and Amit Sharma was looking perplexed. PW21 denied these facts even after being confronted with his statement Mark PW21/A and it shows that accused Amit Sharma had not gone to his home nor he received any call from his mother nor his mother met with any accident and it leaves a serious gap in the story of the prosecution.
State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 58 of 68133. PW25 has deposed that accused Amit Sharma had told him that he had talked to a rickshaw puller for carrying the dead body on the pretext of halwai utensils, but it could not be made available. Prosecution has not examined any rickshaw puller as witness. PW25 also deposed that he examined a witness, who had stated that a cycle rickshaw was demanded from him.
134. PW6 had deposed that he was known to accused Amit Sharma as he used to buy milk from him and PW6 used to supply milk on motorcycle and he deposed that Amit Sharma did not ask him for any rickshaw because he did not have any rickshaw with him and PW6 was also hostile and he denied that on 09.12.2013 at about 11.15-11.30 PM he received a phone call from accused Amit Sharma on his mobile and he asked for a rickshaw or that Amit Sharma repeatedly requested to arrange a rickshaw for him and PW6 told him that rickshaw go-down has already been closed. PW6 was confronted with his statement Mark PW6/A, even that he did not change his version and further denied that he saw Amit Sharma and his mother Meera carrying the dead body of Sunita in a sack on a bicycle and he had not come to know of murder of a lady or that the dead body was carried in the said sack on a bicycle or burnt in Arvind Nagar.
Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the circumstance that the accused persons had carried the body of the deceased after the murder to Arvind Nagar.
135. PW9 Naresh Kumar had stated that a Bhandara was organized by his employer and Ram Karan Pandit was given the contract for State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 59 of 68 preparation of food, which started at 9 PM a day prior to the day of Bhandara and it was prepared by Pandit Ji alone and he was not assisted by any person and during cross-examination by Ld. APP he admitted that Bhandara had taken place on 10.12.2013, but that is of little help to the prosecution as it does not show any proof against the accused or shows the location of deceased in the afternoon of 09.12.2013.
136. PW10 was a prime witness of prosecution and he has admitted that he used to work as Halwai in parties, but he did not know Sunita W/o Rajender and that no lady used to work with him at parties. Apart from him, there is no witness, who could prove that Sunita used to work with him as PW15 has also denied this fact. Further during cross-examination by Ld. APP, PW10 disowned his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Mark PW10/A and denied that Sunita used to help him in preparing breads at marriage parties and they developed close relationship and PW10 used to spend his earnings on her and that both the accused persons forced him to end his relations with Sunita.
137. PW10 also denied the fact that when he returned to his house, he inquired about Meera and came to know that she had gone to the bank for withdrawal of money, then he again left his house and returned in the evening and inquired about Sunita from Meera, who told that Sunita had left for her home in the afternoon. PW10 has not deposed that he had seen the body of Sunita in his house and he had not confirmed the presence of Sunita in his house on 09.12.2013 or thereafter. PW10 also denied that next morning he received phone from Pushpa and Rajender, who told about the fact that Sunita had not reached home and PW10 also searched State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 60 of 68 Sunita and he became suspicious that Meera might have got killed Sunita, when he came to know that a dead body of a lady was found at Arvind Nagar. PW10 also denied that on inquiry Amit Sharma, Meera and CCL have confessed that they have killed Sunita and burnt the dead body in Arvind Nagar at night.
138. PW10 has denied that any extra judicial confession was made by accused persons to him and the accused persons have also retracted from their extra judicial confession being made to PW10. Thus, it could not be proved that accused had confessed before PW10 about the offence and otherwise also it is a weak piece of evidence.
139. PW13 deposed that disclosure statement of Amit Sharma Ex. PW13/D was recorded and he led the police to house K-545, Gautam Vihar, Delhi and got recovered one cycle Ex.P2 and lakdi ka fatta Ex.P1 from his house and same were seized by PW25, but the same is not a recovery u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but his evidence will not read in evidence as it is incomplete due to his death.
140. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein the "Panchsheel" or five principles of circumstantial evidence were laid down and held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea and the following circumstances must be fully established.
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 61 of 68 drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be"
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the observations were made:
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." The circumstances in this case are far from conclusive and a conclusion of guilt could not be drawn from them. To sustain a conviction, the Court must form the view that the accused "must have"
committed the offence, and not "may have". As noted in Sharad State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 62 of 68 Birdichand Sarda11, the distinction between "may have" and "must have"
is a legal distinction and not merely a grammatical one.
Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padala Veera Ready Vs. State of AP AIR 1990 SC 79 and it was also held that there should not be any gap in the chain of circumstances, otherwise the accused would be entitled to benefit of doubt.
141. The prosecution had to prove that accused persons had strangulated the deceased by dupatta/chunni. The PM report Ex PW30/B suggest that the deceased died due to Asphyxia by pressure on the neck. Further, it was the case of prosecution that accused persons had poured petrol on the dead body of Sunita. It is suggested from the FSL report Ex. A13 that traces of petrol were found on the cloths on the dead body. PW25 IO deposed that he had recorded disclosure of Amit, in which he stated that he along with his mother Meera and CCL had made Sunita fall on ground and his mother caught hold of the deceased and they had strangulated Sunita with dupatta/chunni, but no such dupatta/chunni was recovered by the police during investigation. The mobile phone of deceased Sunita was also not found as it was claimed that it was broken by Amit Sharma and thrown into Yamuna. It was also the case of prosecution that petrol was poured by Amit, but no CCTV footage of taking petrol from petrol pump has been taken by the police nor any independent witness has been examined to this effect and PW25 has deposed that accused could not identify petrol pump from where he procured petrol. PW25 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not check the CCTV footage of the near petrol pump during the investigation State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 63 of 68 of the present case and for that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. The recovery of wooden patta and bicycle is not conclusive as they were used after the commission of crime and they were not used in the crime and no charge u/s 201 IPC was framed against accused persons to show that these articles were used to destroy the evidence i.e. the dead body of deceased Sunita. Even the last seen theory of the prosecution was demolished by PW18, PW6 and PW10.
Thus, the prosecution could not prove that petrol was procured by accused Amit Sharma and that he and his mother Meera had poured the same on deceased Sunita to destroy the evidence. There is no charge u/s 201 IPC against the accused persons.
142. Accused persons have not disputed the collections of exhibits and sending them to FSL and PW24 admitted in his examination in chief that he had mentioned right tyre burnt in rukka, but it was left back tyre.
143. The disclosure of accused Amit Sharma and Meera, Ex.PW13/D and Ex.PW16/B respectively are not admissible in view of the embargo u/s 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The pointing out memos of the accused persons Ex.PW13/E and PW16/C also cannot be read against the accused as the place i.e. H.No. 263, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi, which they pointed out was already known to everyone as dead body had already been recovered from that place and it was accessible by all and there is no charge u/s 201 IPC against the accused persons. The accused persons have not disputed the collection/lifting the exhibits and sending them to the FSL and they have not cross-examined PW24 and only suggestion was given to PW19, which was denied by State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 64 of 68 him, but FSL Reports have been admitted by them in 294 Cr.P.C.
144. From the evidence on record, the prosecution could not prove beyond doubt the motive of murder of Sunita, the fact that Sunita had gone to the house of accused on 09.12.2013 and Meera had called Amit Sharma at her house and he had actually come there in the afternoon from his workplace. Prosecution also failed to prove the circumstance that it was onlyAmit Sharma, Meera and CCL, who had caused the death of deceased by strangulating her and also that they had taken the dead body to Arvind Nagar and after procuring petrol from petrol pump, the dead body was set on fire by them at Arvind Nagar, where they had transported it on a bicycle having wooden plank. All the circumstances if proved together would have found the complete chain of circumstances leading unerringly towards the guilt of accused persons and no one else, but due to lack of evidence the prosecution could not prove them as each circumstance had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
145. The accused persons have denied whatever incriminating evidence was put to them in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and stated that they have been falsely implicated and arrested and all prosecution witnesses, who have spoken against them are interested witnesses and not examined any defence witnesses.
146. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 65 of 68 also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the Judgments titled as 'Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur', reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect. Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as 'Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan', reported as (2013) 5 SCC 722, wherein it was held that the large distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied and the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons.
147. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt. 13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when two views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one which is favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused.
In Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh 2023 Live Law SC, Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that in cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, where two views are possible, one pointing towards the guilt of the accused and other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted.
In case titled Laxman Prasad @ Laxman Vs. State of MP in CA No. 821/2012, dated 14.06.2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court acquitted State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 66 of 68 the accused in case of circumstantial evidence in a murder case and held that prosecution wanted to establish three links of the chain i.e. motive, last seen and recovery of weapon of assault at the pointing out of the accused, but when the concerned High Court did not find the recovery as proper and valid and considered only motive and last seen and one of the links for missing and not proved in view of the settled law on the point, the conviction ought to have been interfered with.
In the instant case also, there are several missing links i.e. the PW18, who was the witness of last seen theory has turned hostile and denied seeing the deceased at the house of accused on 09.12.2013 at relevant time and the motive also could not be proved and there are many links and gaps as discussed in the preceding paras, which have left the voids in the chain of circumstance to link only the accused with the crime and at most it creates grave suspicion as distinct from proof requires to prove a case. The prosecution could not prove the motive, or any previous or subsequent conduct of the accused persons to the extent that it rules out the possibility of involvement of any other person except accused.
148. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and the defence of the accused will come into play if there is any incriminating evidence brought on record, on the basis of which accused can be convicted, but in this case no such evidence came against the accused during trial.
CONCLUSION
149. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 67 of 68 beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Meeta @ Meera qua offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC, thus, a benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons on the basis of above- noted principles and facts established on record.
150. Consequently, the accused persons Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Meeta @ Meera are acquitted of the offence under section 302/34 IPC. Bail bonds cancelled. Surety stands discharged.
151. The personal Bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- each furnished by the accused persons and accepted on 29.02.2024, shall remain in force for a period of six months.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signedPRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT ON THIS 29 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024. RAJAT Date: th 2024.02.29 17:53:35 +0530 (KUMAR RAJAT) ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD Delhi/29.02.2024 State Vs. Amit Sharma @ Bunti and Anr. FIR No. 475/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 68 of 68