Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Kr // Fir No. 183/06 on 27 April, 2011
1
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 185/2008
FIR No. 183/2006
PS : Bawana
U/s. 302/376/366/363/203 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
ANIL KUMAR S/O RAM DASS
R/O. VILLAGE SHAHBUDDIN PUR
PS KHUTTAN, DISTRICT JAUNPUR
UTTAR PRADESH
PRESENT ADDRESS :-
VILLAGE JAGDISHPUR, PS BARSATHI
DISTRICT JAUNPUR
UTTAR PRADESH
Date of Institution : 20.10.2006
Date of receipt of case in this court : 04.12.2008
Arguments heard On : 25.04.2011
Order Announced On : 27.04.2011
Order on sentence announced on : 27.04.2011
SHRI P.K. VERMA, APP FOR THE STATE
SHRI ASEEM BHARDWAJ, AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE
ACCUSED
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj, amicus curiae for convict
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06
PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC
2
submits that convict is aged 27 years and was doing the work
as labour. The convict is in JC for the past almost 4 ½ years
and has no previous criminal record. Convict belongs to a very
poor family and has got old aged and ailing maternal grand
parents to look after, with whom he was residing prior to this
case. He submits that a lenient view of the matter may be
taken against.
2. On the other hand, Sh. P.K. Verma, Ld. Addl. PP for
the State submits that the convict committed the offence in a
planned manner. Hence maximum punishment shall be
awarded to the convict.
3. I have heard both the parties and have perused the
record.
4. Convict has committed a gruesome act of
kidnapping a minor girl ( his sister in law) from the custody of
her lawful guardian and kept her as his wife. Although the
convict was married before the commission of offence and
was having a one year old child but he did not bothered to
think about their well being and even withheld the name of his
sister in law (deceased). The death of her sister in law also
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06
PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC
3
occurred in mysterious circumstances.
5. Hence, keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case, I award sentence to convict Anil
Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07
years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 363 IPC. In default
of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of one year.
6. I further award sentence to convict Anil Kumar to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years
and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 366 IPC. In default of
payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year.
7. I also award sentence to convict Anil Kumar to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years
and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- u/s 203 IPC. In default of
payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months.
8. All these sentences awarded to convict Anil Kumar
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06
PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC
4
shall run concurrently. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. Shall be
given to the convict. Copy of judgment and order on sentence
be supplied free of cost.
9. File be consigned to record room after necessary
compliance.
Announced in the open court (SANJAY KUMAR)
today i.e. 27.04.2011 ASJ-01 (NW),ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI.
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06
PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC
5
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 185/2008
FIR No. 183/2006
PS : Bawana
U/s. 302/376/366/363/203 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
ANIL KUMAR S/O RAM DASS
R/O. VILLAGE SHAHBUDDIN PUR
PS KHUTTAN, DISTRICT JAUNPUR
UTTAR PRADESH
PRESENT ADDRESS :-
VILLAGE JAGDISHPUR, PS BARSATHI
DISTRICT JAUNPUR
UTTAR PRADESH
Date of Institution : 20.10.2006
Date of receipt of case in this court : 04.12.2008
Arguments heard On : 25.04.2011
Order Announced On : 27.04.2011
SHRI P.K. VERMA, APP FOR THE STATE
SHRI ASEEM BHARDWAJ, AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE
ACCUSED
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06
PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC
6
JUDGMENT
1. The facts as projected in the charge sheet are that on 10.05.06 Munna Lal lodged a complaint with police station Bawana that his son in law accused Anil Kumar Jaiswal is residing for the last one year at Krishna Colony, Prahlad Vihar, who came from Dharavi, Mumbai. Accused started enticing his younger daughter Ritu although he was married to his elder daughter Neetu. On 25.04.06 at around 4.00 am accused left his elder daughter Neetu and his son and eloped with his younger daughter Ritu. The age of Ritu was stated to be around 17 years.
2. On this complaint police registered FIR u/s 363 IPC and investigation was started by ASI Madan Lal. During investigation site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant Munna Lal. An advertisement was given in the daily newspaper about kidnapped girl Ritu and kidnapper accused Anil Kumar Jaiswal. Both were searched but could not be traced.
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 7
3. On 14.08.06 some documents pertaining to kidnapped girl Ritu and zero FIR were received at police station from Police station Barsati, Distt. Jaunpur, U.P. As per these documents one Neetu w/o Anil Kumar r/o Village Jagdishpur, Distt. Jaunpur, U.P. died due to burns. Proceedings u/s 176 CrPC had taken place at Jaunpur, U.P. Postmortem was also carried out by a team of two doctors on 12.07.06. As per postmortem report, the deceased Neetu was burnt upto 90% and some smell of kerosene oil was also found on the body. The FIR 00/06 u/s 302 IPC dt. 03.08.06 was registered.
4. The complainant Munna Lal's statement and another complaint was also recorded in which he alleged that his son in law accused Anil Kumar who kidnapped his younger daughter Ritu, murdered her by burning. Accused was arrested on 05.08.06. Further investigation was carried out by SI Udaiveer Singh who went to village Jagdishpur along with complainant Munna Lal. He conducted inquiry and recorded statement of village Pradhan. He also inquired from Naib Tehsildar and other police officials of police station Barsati and recorded their statements.
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 8
5. During investigation, as per statement of witnesses and inquest report, it came to knowledge that deceased was Ritu who died as her clothes had caught fire suddenly while cooking meal. On 18.08.06 SI Udaiveer Singh after taking permission from Chief Judicial Magistrate Court arrested accused in the present case and added section 302 IPC. Accused was brought to Delhi after obtaining transit remand.
6. During investigation accused made disclosure statement. Further Sections 376/203/201 IPC along with 363/366 IPC were added in the FIR. On the basis of Zero FIR, Section 302 IPC was also added. All the documents from police station Jagdishpur were collected. Statements of all the witnesses was recorded after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed in the court for trial.
7. Ld. MM after compliance of section 207 Cr.PC committed the case to the court of Sessions.
8. My Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 30.01.08 framed charge against the accused for trial of offences u/s 363/366/376/302/201/203 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 9
9. Prosecution in support of its case examined :-
Public Witnesses :
1. PW1 Munna Lal
2. PW3 Ms. Sarojbala (TGT)
3. PW5 Ms. Neetu
4. PW6 Chhedi Lal Singh (Tehsildar)
5. PW7 Vinod Kumar
6. PW8 Shailender.
Medical Witnesses :
1. PW2 Dr. R. K. Jaiswal
2. PW4 Dr. Heera Lal Kapoor Police Witnesses :
1. PW9 ASI Prem Singh
2. PW10 ASI Madan Lal
2. PW11 Ct. Rajender Singh U.P. Police Witnesses :
1. PW12 SI Madhu Sudan Shukla
2. PW13 SI Prem Chand
3. PW14 Ct. Kailash Rai
10. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed vide order dt. 03.02.2011. Statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was also recorded wherein he pleaded not guilty and wished to examine witness in his defence.
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 10
11. I have heard Sh. P. K. Verma, Ld. APP for the state as well as Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj, amicus curiae for the accused and has gone through the record.
12. The vital witness of prosecution is PW1 Munna Lal who deposed that his daughter Neetu was married to accused and after one year of marriage she went to her matrimonial home at village Khutan, Distt. Jaunpur, U.P. but he brought her back along with her son Nirbhay after about 06 months. After one year accused came and stayed with him for about 10-15 days. He got him a job and then accused started living in a tenanted house. Accused used to come to his house in drunk condition and used to gave beatings to his daughter. He further deposed that accused enticed his younger daughter Ritu and took her to his matrimonial grandfather's house. He went there but accused could not be found. He further proved the complaint lodged by him Ex. PW1/A. Later on he came to know that accused along with her daughter Ritu was living as husband and wife at his maternal grandfather's house. He further deposed that he came to know that accused murdered his younger daughter Ritu by burning her and cremated her.
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 11 Accused pretended to be her husband and informed police that his wife expired while she was cooking meal. He further proved the date of birth certificate of his deceased daughter Ritu which was seized vide Ex. PW1/B to the police. He also handed over newspaper to police regarding murder of his daughter Ritu. He further proved the arrest of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/C. He also proved the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW1/D. The also proved that accused pointed out the place of murder vide memo Ex. PW1/E
13. In the cross examination, he deposed that he had not visited the house of maternal grandfather of the accused. He denied that he was aware that his daughter had gone along with accused out of her own consent. He explained that he searched his daughter at native village of accused. No relative was residing at village Jagdishpur or nearby village. He denied that he met pradhan who told him that his daughter was running towards railway station but accused brought her back and after two days killed her. He further deposed that his mother informed him about the death of his State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 12 daughter who lives in a nearby village. He denied that his deceased daughter Ritu fell in love with accused and accompanied accused out of her own free will and consent.
14. PW5 Neetu, the real wife of accused has deposed that she married with accused in June, 2003. She has four brothers and three sisters. Deceased Ritu was the youngest. After her marriage with accused at village, she went to Mumbai and lived with in laws for about one year. Thereafter she along with accused came to village Shahbuddinpur, Distt. Jaunpur, U. P. Thereafter she went to the house of maternal grandfather of accused at Jaunpur where a son was born to her. She deposed that thereafter she along with her son and accused came to Delhi and started living in a rented accommodation in Kailash Colony, Prahladpur, near her father's house. She used to visit her parental house along with the accused. She further deposed that accused developed intimacy with her younger sister Ritu and started doing rude behaviour with her.
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 13
15. She deposed that on 24-25.4.06 after a quarrel, accused left her with her son at her parental house and on the same night at about 4.00 am accused and her younger sister Ritu were not found in the house. Deceased Ritu was aged about 17 years. She further deposed that her father lodged a complaint with police station regarding kidnapping of her sister. After two months she came to know that her sister died due to burn injuries at a village in district Jaunpur, U.P. She along with her father and other family members went to Jaunpur but no one told them as to how she died. Her father made inquiry from many persons and came to know that accused kept her sister Ritu as his wife and named her as Neetu. Accused also told her name to police as Neetu. She deposed that she is sure that Ritu was burnt by the accused.
16. In her cross examination, she deposed that her marriage with accused was arranged and at that time he was doing TV repair job. Her father helped her in taking the house on rent. Initially accused started working in a factory. Her sister Ritu was studying in 9th class. She denied that deceased Ritu was more than 18 years of age. She admitted State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 14 that till 11.07.06 they did not search Ritu at Jaunpur, U. P. She denied that her parents and she used to beat deceased Ritu and due to which she left the house with accused and she herself started living with accused. She denied that accused at Jaunpur stated Ritu as his sister in law. She also denied all the suggestions put to her.
17. PW7 Vinod Kumar resident of village Jagdishpur Distt. Jaunpur has deposed that accused Anil Kumar was living about three months prior to 11.07.06 and he came there with a girl named Neetu and resided there. Accused also disclosed to him that Neetu was his wife. Somebody informed him from the village that Neetu got burnt in the house on 11.07.06 at about 9/9 am. He further deposed that an accident had taken place in which Neetu got burnt. Two local police officials and Niab Tehsildar came and prepared the panchnama. He proved his signatures on the panchanama Ex. PW6/A at point D. he has further deposed that subsequently he came to know that actual name of the deceased was Ritu and not Neetu and she was not the wife of the accused. In the State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 15 cross examination he deposed that he was pradhan of the village in the year 2006. He denied that he made false statement at the instance of the police.
18. PW8 Shailender also deposed on the same line as PW7 Vinod Kumar. He deposed that on 11.07.06 at about 12 noon he came to know that Neetu got burnt and he thought that it was an accident. Then two local police officials and Niab Tehsildar came and prepared panchnama. This witness turned hostile and after cross examination by Ld. APP for the state, he denied that he had told the police that accused was living with deceased Neetu as husband and wife. However he admitted that later on he came to know that the actual name of deceased was Ritu and not Neetu and she was sister in law of accused. In cross examination by amicus curiae for accused, he denied that deceased died accidentally due to burning while cooking food.
19. PW6 Chhedi Lal Singh, tehsildar has deposed that on 11.07.06 he was posted as Naib Tehsildar at District Jaunpur and on receiving information that a lady expired at State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 16 village Jagdishpur, he reached there. The informant was Anil Kumar. He inspected the dead body and came to know the name of deceased as Neetu w/o Anil Kumar. The dead body was lying under the chhaper near chulah outside the house. The body was covered with a cloth. The body was inspected with the help of local ladies. The clothes of deceased were also found burnt. The hands, legs, breasts, stomach, back and some other parts were also found burnt. The face was also not properly visible due to burn injuries. He deposed that punch of locality namely Vinod Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Ramesh Chand, Manik Chand and Rajesh Kumar Tiwari requested for postmortem for cause of death. He made endorsement for postmortem by two doctors team to ascertain the cause of death. The body was handed over to local police. This witness proved the panchnama Ex. PW6/A, police form Ex. PW6/B, form no. 379 Ex. PW6/C and request for postmortem Ex. PW6/D. He further proved the letter Ex. PW6/E sent to CMO District Hospital, Jaunpur for conducting the postmortem by a team of two doctors. He also proved the sample seal documents Ex. PW6/F. In the cross examination he stated that he reached the spot at about 18.10 pm and conducted State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 17 proceedings upto 19.45 pm. The villagers also gathered there. He was not sure that whether accused was present at that time or not.
20. PW12 Madhu Sudan Shukla, PW13 SI Prem Chand Pandey and PW14 Ct. Kailash Rai proved the facts that they went to the village in district Jaunpur on receiving general diary no. 13 at 6.10 pm regarding death of one Neetu w/o Anil Kumar on 11.07.06. The name of deceased was disclosed by accused to them and thereafter SDM was informed. Naib Tehsildar Sh. Chedi Lal Singh reached there and conducted proceedings of panchnama. Accused identified the deceased as Neetu, his wife. He further told that during cooking she caught fire and got burnt and at that time he was working in the agricultural field. PW12 SI Madhu Sudan Shukla further proved the postmortem proceedings held on 12.07.06. He further deposed that father in law of accused Munni Lal reached there on 03.08.06 and told that deceased was his younger daughter Ritu. He also informed about registration of FIR No. 183/06 u/s 363 IPC. Munni Lal further told that his elder daughter Neetu was married to accused and the State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 18 accused had kidnapped his younger daughter Ritu, the deceased. He further proved that after the after the statement of Munni Lal FIR No. 0/06 u/s 302 IPC was registered on 03.08.06. He further deposed that on 05.08.06 accused was arrested and information was sent to Delhi Police vide letter of SP, District Jaunpur Ex. PW12/A. He also proved FIR Ex. PW12/B, statement of Munni Lal Ex. PW12/C, general diary no. 30 Ex. PW12/D, his investigation papers Ex. PW12/E to Ex. PW12/L. Investigation conducted by PW12 SI Madhu Sudan Shukla has also been corroborated by PW13 SI Prem Chand Pandey and PW14 Ct. Kailash Rai.
21. PW2 Dr. R. K. Jaiswal proved the fact that he conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Neetu w/o Anil Kumar on 12.07.06 and prepared detailed postmortem report Ex. PW14/A. As per postmortem report cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem burn injuries. PW3 Ms. Saroj Bala of Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Prehlad Pur proved the date of birth of deceased Ritu on the basis of school record Ex. PW3/A where her date of birth has been mentioned as 21.06.1989.
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 19
22. PW10 ASI Madan Lal was the first investigation officer of the case and he proved that he recorded statement of Munni Lal Ex. PW1/A and got the FIR of this case Ex. PW10/A u/s 363 IPC. He also proved the site plan Ex. PW4/B. He also proved the wireless messages sent about the kidnapping of Ritu Ex. PW10/C and same were also published in the newspaper. He also proved that on 12.06.06 along with Ct. Vijay he went to Mumbai for searching the accused but he was not traceable. He further proved that on 14.08.06 he seized the school leaving certificate mentioning the date of birth of deceased and also recorded the statement of school vice principal. He further proved that on 14.08.06 he received letter of SP, Jaunpur Ex. PW10/D. Thereafter he recorded statement of Munni Lal, complainant and Neetu and further proved that he along with Ct. Vijay, SI Udaiveer and Munni Lal went to district Jaunpur. SI Udaiveer Singh (deceased) investigation officer moved an application for arrest of accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18.08.06. He also proved the documents prepared by SI Udaiveer Singh. He further proved the arrest of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/C, disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW1/D. He further State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 20 proved the fact that accused pointed out the house of his maternal grandfather at village Jagdishpur, district Jaunpur, U.P. where Ritu had died vide memo Ex. PW1/E.In his cross examination he denied that the villagers of the village of accused told the name of deceased as Ritu and not Neetu.
23. The prosecution in order to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt has examined in total 14 witnesses. The vital witnesses are PW1 Munna Lal and PW5 Neetu. The testimony of these witnesses is discussed in detail here in above. Prosecution has established that PW5 Neetu was married to accused and after marriage she resided at the native village of accused and thereafter went to Mumbai. She also lived at village Shahbuddinpur, Distt. Jaunpur, U.P. and from there they also lived in village Jagdishpur where maternal grand parents of accused were living. PW5 Neetu and accused then shifted to Krishna Colony, Prahladpur and in between this period, one son was born to them. The prosecution further established that on 11.07.06 at village Jagdishpur, Distt. Jaunpur, U. P. one lady died who was also named Neetu in all the proceedings and wife of accused Anil Kumar.
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 21
24. As per testimony of PW1 Munna Lal accused used to drink and beat her daughter Neetu. He while residing at Pahladpur in a tenanted premises enticed her younger daughter Ritu and took her to village Jagdishpur, Distt. Jaunpur, U.P. and then he lodged complaint Ex. PW1/A on which police station Bawana registered present FIR u/s 363 IPC. PW5 corroborated the testimony of PW1 in this regard and explained that on 24/25.04.06 accused had a quarrel with her and then her husband and younger sister Ritu were found missing.
25. The age of Ritu is stated that to be about 17 years. The prosecution examined PW3 Ms. Sarojbala, TGT, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhyalaya, Prahladpur who proved the record of the school in which Ritu was admitted. As per school record her date of birth was 21.06.1989. She proved Ex. PW3/A, school leaving certificate. Since Ritu was not alive throughout the investigation of this case, therefore, there is no other way for investigation to ascertain her age. In the cross examination of PW1 Munna Lal regarding the age of prosecutrix, no question or suggestion was put by the defence counsel. Similarly in the State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 22 cross examination of PW5 Neetu, she denied the suggestion that at the time of incident her younger sister was more than 18 years. Therefore, in these circumstances, prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that age of deceased Ritu was about 17 years on the day of incident.
26. In order to prove the ingredients of Section 363 IPC, the prosecution has established that on the day of incident, PW1 Munna Lal was the lawful guardian of deceased Ritu, being her younger daughter as she was under the age of 18 years. As per record the prosecution has relied upon the newspaper cuttings in which photograph of deceased Ritu and accused were published for their search. The complaint is also lodged by PW1 Munna Lal about missing of his younger daughter Ritu, being her lawful guardian . The testimony of PW1 Munna Lal and PW5 Neetu establishes that accused took away deceased Ritu without the consent of her lawful guardian and enticed her. He kept her at the house of his maternal grand parents till her death. Hence prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused kidnapped the State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 23 deceased Ritu from the custody of her lawful guardian PW1 Munna Lal after enticing her and then kept her at his maternal grand parents village till her death on 11.07.06.
27. PW6 Chhedi Lal Singh, the tehsildar of village Jagdishpur, Distt. Jaunpur, U.P. proved the inquest carried out by him on receipt of information. Documents proved by him are Panchnama Ex. PW6/A, Form 13 Ex. PW6/B, another form 379 Ex. PW6/C and request letter for postmortem Ex. PW6/D. He further proved other documents Ex. PW6/E and PW6/F. These documents established name of deceased in these documents as Neetu wife of Anil Kumar, the accused. PW7 Vinod Kumar, who also signed the panchnama, corroborated the fact that accused told him that deceased was Neetu and resided was his wife but later on he came to know the actual name of deceased as Ritu and not Neetu. PW8 Shailender, another witness of the village further corroborated these facts that the deceased was Neetu.
28. The testimony of PW5 Neetu established that accused was married to her but resided at his maternal grand parents village and he after kidnapping her younger sister kept her there as Neetu. Accused also disclosed to Niab State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 24 Tehsildar and other police officials of U.P. i.e. PW12 SI Madan Mohan Shukla, PW13 SI Prem Chand and PW14 Ct. Kailash Rai that the deceased is his wife Neetu. The public independent witness PW7 Vinod Kumar also corroborated these facts that accused kept deceased Ritu as his wife Neetu. The prosecution has been able to establish on the basis of testimony of these witnesses that after kidnapping deceased Ritu, his intention was that he will marry Ritu as he introduced her as his wife Neetu. Accused had full knowledge in this regard that Ritu was his sister in law and not wife. The purpose behind the taking away of deceased Ritu was to establish illicit intercourse or compell her to marry as he had already projected her as his married wife Neetu. The prosecution further established that accused kidnapped deceased Ritu with intention to compell her to marry or establish illicit intercourse with her.
29. A charge u/s 376 IPC has been framed against the accused. However, there is no witness examined by prosecution to prove the charge u/s 376 IPC. This charge is only based on presumption. The sole witness to this offence is State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 25 Ritu, who has already expired and investigation agencies had no chance to investigate on this aspect. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove the charge u/s 376 IPC against the accused.
30. The prosecution has to prove the charge of murder u/s 302 IPC of deceased Ritu against the accused. PW1 Munna Lal in his testimony cast all the suspicion that accused murdered his younger daughter Ritu by burning. Similarly PW5 Neetu is also suspicious that her husband accused Anil Kumar committed the murder of her younger sister Ritu by burning. There is no eye witness to this murder but there are circumstances which are to be evaluated. Deceased Ritu died on 11.07.06 at village Jagdishpur, distt. Jaunpur, U.P. Accused himself informed the police when he came to know that Ritu had burnt but changed her as Neetu, his wife. PW6 Chhedi Lal Singh proved all the proceedings after registration of panchnama by him. According to him he saw the dead body of the lady and found her clothes burnt. Her hands, legs, breasts, stomach, back and some other parts were burnt. The burn injuries were also present on the face due to which face was not properly visible. Another witness of the village deposed State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 26 regarding as to how she got burnt and died. As per postmortem report proved by PW4 Dr. R. K. Jaiswal, the cause of death was due to 90% burns and he also found smell of kerosene oil from the body. Burns varied from 1st to 3rd degree all over the body except back of chest. The prosecution has not examined any other circumstance as to how the burn injuries were caused to deceased Ritu. The investigation is further proved on the basis of testimony of PW12 SI Madhu Sudan Shukla, who proved all the proceedings Ex. PW12/A to PW12/L and corroborated by SI Prem Chand PW13 and Ct. Kailash Rai PW14. These documents reflect that at that time accused was at his agricultural field and received information that deceased Ritu died due to burn injuries. Hence there is no circumstance proved on record which could establish any link or chain of circumstances that accused committed murder of deceased Ritu. The testimony of PW1 Munna Lal and PW5 Neetu is based on mere suspicion. Hence prosecution also failed to prove the charge u/s 302 IPC framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 27
31. Now coming to the charge of causing disappearance of evidence by giving false information. Deceased Ritu died on 11.07.06 and on the same day the local police was informed and the proceedings were conducted. Accused assisted in all the proceedings and thereafter he received the dead body and after postmortem, cremation was done by him. So the accused has not given false information or caused any disappearance of evidence of offence of murder. However he gave false information in respect of offence of kidnapping and thereafter the purpose and intention of kidnapping deceased Ritu and presenting her to the whole village as his married wife Neetu at the time of inquest proceedings. So he gave false information in respect of commission of offence of section 363 & 366 IPC.
32. Hence on the basis of testimony of prosecution witnesses, offence u/s 201 IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. However, offence u/s 203 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC 28
33. On the basis of above observation and discussion, prosecution has proved the charge against the accused u/s 363/366/203 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. However, prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for commission of offence punishable u/s 302/376/201 IPC. In these circumstances, accused Anil Kumar is acquitted of charges framed against him u/s 302/376/201 IPC. However he is convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 363/366/203 IPC. Announced in the open court (SANJAY KUMAR) today i.e. 27.04.2011 ASJ-01 (NW),ROHINI COURTS: DELHI State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC