Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sc No. 52131/6 State vs . Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 1 Of 72 on 17 March, 2021

      IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR­IV:ADDL.
     SESSIONS JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS:
                          DELHI

Sessions Case No. 52123/16

State

Vs.

Hemant Chaturvedi
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad Chaturvedi
R/o A­11, Mandakani Apartments,
Pitampura, Delhi.
Permanent Resident of
Village Bamoli, Post Pattisen,
District Paudi, Uttrakhand.

FIR No.             :    61/13
Police Station      :    Begumpur
Under Sections      :    302/201/419/471 IPC


Date of Institution in Sessions Court :               08.09.2014
Date when judgment was reserved              :        16.02.2021
Date when judgment is pronounced :                    17.03.2021


JUDGMENT

1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 25.02.2013, between 5.00 p.m to 6.00 p.m, at Flat No. 110, Saptrishi Apartments, Sector­23, Rohini, Delhi, the accused with intention to kill Kumudi SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 1 of 72 Chaturvedi, who was his wife, killed her with the help of a chopper and caused her death. Further, the accused intended to cause disappearance of the evidence against him in order to screen himself from the punishment, caused disappearance of the said chopper, blood stained clothes as well as other pieces of evidence. Further, after committing the said murder, on 14.03.2014 the accused by impersonating himself as Rakesh Nakul Naithani before the concerned officials of Allahabad Bank Kotdwar, Nazibabad Road, Distt. Paudi Garwal, Uttrakhand dishonestly and fraudulently induced and cheated the said bank officials while opened a Savings Bank Account No. 50196375086 in his name as on or about 13.09.2013, the accused cheated the concerned officials of National Institute of Open Schooling, Dehradun. Further, on 14.03.2014, during the said period, the accused for the purpose of opening the said bank account submitted Form No. 6 purportedly issued by department of Licensing Authority Motor Vehicle Act, Mathura dated 26.07.2008 which was a forged document within his knowledge and the said document being a driving license was within the definition of valuable security u/s 30 of IPC and the accused used that forged document knowing and believing the same to be forged while opening the above mentioned bank account and during the relevant period of his abscondance, the accused used a forged marks­sheet dated 15.06.1998, purportedly issued by CBSE in his assumed name of Rakesh Nakul Naithani, by submitting a copy of that marks sheet for the purposes of taking admission in NIOS, Dehradun on or about 13.09.2013 and the accused also submitted application form bearing No. A­1413207475 SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 2 of 72 dated 13.09.2013 to the said NIOS, which again was a forged document within his knowledge as he signed that document in his assumed name which also bears his photograph. On the basis of said complaint, FIR under Sections 302/201/419/471 IPC was registered against the accused. During investigation, the accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed in the Court.

2. On compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the charge­sheet was committed to this Court by the Court of Ld. MM.

CHARGE

3. Charge for the offence under Sections 302/201/419/471 IPC was framed against the accused on 22.01.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION WITNESSES

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 40 prosecution witnesses in all, who are as follows :

4.1. PW1 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, is the Incharge Mortuary from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi. He deposed that on 26.02.2013, he along with Dr. Vivek Rawat had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased Kumudi Chaturvedi, wife of Hemant Chaturvedi and the body was sent by Inspector Jitender Kumar with alleged history of found dead at her home on 25.02.2012 at about 11.55 p.m. He proved the detailed postmortem report prepared by him SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 3 of 72 as Ex.PW1/A. 4.2. PW2 Inspector Anil Kumar deposed that on the intervening night of 25/26.02.2013, on receipt of an information about the present incident from Control Room, he along with HC Karamvir and Ct.

Harish (photographers) and Ct. Ravi (finger print proficient) reached the spot and remained there from 1.50 a.m to 3.45 a.m and he inspected the spot. He further deposed that after entering the flat on the left side, towards the West, two rooms were constructed and at the entrance there was a drawing room. He further deposed that blanket was removed and noticed that it was the dead body of a lady and she was identified by her son and head of the dead body was towards West side and feet were towards East. He further deposed that on the head and throat of the dead body injury marks were noticed. He further deposed that the steel almirah in the room placed at the Southern­East side was found lying open and clothes were found scattered and no weapon of offence was recovered. He further deposed that husband of the deceased was not present there and his mobile phone was also found switched off. He proved the detailed report prepared by him as Ex.PW2/A. 4.3. PW3 ASI Karambir deposed that on 26.02.2013, while being posted as photographer, he along with SI Anil, Incharge Crime Team, Ct. Harish Photographer and Ct. Ravi finger print expert reached the spot and remained there from 1.50 a.m to 03.45 a.m and he inspected SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 4 of 72 the spot. He further deposed that after entering the flat on the left side, two rooms were constructed and at the entrance there was a drawing room. He further deposed that blanket was removed and noticed that it was the dead body of a lady and she was identified by her son and head of the dead body was towards West side and feet were towards east. He further deposed that on the head and throat of the dead body injury marks were noticed. He further deposed that on the steel almirah in the room placed at the southern­east side was found lying open and clothes were found scattered and no weapon of offence was recovered. He further deposed that husband of deceased was not present there and his mobile phone was also found switched off. He proved the photographs clicked by him as Ex.PW3/A1 to A12 and the negatives thereof as Ex.PW3/B1 to B20.

4.4. PW4 HC Ram Kumar deposed that on 26.02.2013 while being posted as MHC(M), Inspector Jitender deposited nine sealed pulandas along with two sample seals of SGMH to him, out of which six pulandas were sealed with the seal of JS and three were sealed with the seal of SGMH along with copies of seizure memos. He proved the relevant entry made by him in register No. 19 at Serial No. 108/13 as Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that on 12.03.2013, one sealed pulanda containing viscera along with sample seal of SGMH was sent to FSL through Ct. Sanjay vide RC No. 27/21/13. He proved the copy of the said RC as Ex.PW4/B and the entry thereof as Ex.PW4/C. He proved SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 5 of 72 the acknowledgement thereof as Ex.PW4/C1.

He further deposed that on 04.04.2013 through Ct. Umesh Babu, eight sealed pulandas along with sample seal of SGMH were sent to FSL vide RC No. 46/21/13 (out of which, six were bearing the seal of JS and two were bearing seal of SGMH). He proved the copy of RC as Ex.PW4/D and entry made in this regard as Ex.PW4/E. He also proved the acknowledgement of case acceptance as Ex.PW4/E1.

4.5. PW­5 Sh. Santosh Tripathi is the Chemical Examiner from FSL, Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that on 12.03.2013, one sealed parcel i.e. plastic box was received at their office and the same was marked to him for chemical examination. He further deposed that the parcels were intact and on opening the same, it was found to contain Exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D. He further deposed that on chemical and TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D. He proved the detailed report prepared by him as Ex.PW5/A. 4.6. PW­6 W/Ct. Sonika Yadav deposed that in the intervening night of 25/26.02.2013, while being posted at PHQ, CPCR, her duty hours were from 8 p.m to 8 a.m. At about 23:43:53 hours, information was received about the present incident from mobile phone No. 9899304441, address of the place of incident was H.No. 110, Pocket­7, Saptrishi Apartment, Sec­23, Rohini, Delhi. She proved the PCR form SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 6 of 72 containing the aforesaid information duly filled by her as Ex.PW6/A. 4.7. PW­7 HC Prahlad Singh is the MHC(M). He deposed that on 30.07.2014 while being posted as MHC(M) P.S. Begumpur, on the instructions of IO, two sealed pulandas were sent to FSL through Ct. Charan Singh vide RC No. 55/21/14. He proved the copy of the said RC as Ex.PW7/A. He also proved acknowledgement receipt as Ex. PW7/B. 4.8. PW­8 Ct. Charan Singh deposed that on 30.07.2014, he deposited two sealed pulandas, one having the seal of PK and another having the seal of FSL SG Delhi, at FSL vide RC No. 55/21/14 Ex.PW­ 7/A after collecting it from malkhana and after depositing the pulandas at FSL, he handed over the receipt of acknowledgement and copy of RC to MHC (M).

4.9. PW­9 ASI Vijay Kumar deposed that on 25/26.02.2013, while being posted as duty officer from 12 mid­night to 8 a.m, at about 4.15 a.m, Ct. Umesh brought a rukka sent by SI Pawan Kumar and on the basis of same, he recorded the FIR Ex.PW9/A and made endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW9/B. He further proved the DD entry No. 34A dated 25.02.2013 as Ex.PW9/C and its entry as Ex. PW9/C1.

4.10. PW­10 Sunita Gupta is the Senior Scientific Officer from FSL, Rohini. She deposed that on 04.04.2013, eight sealed pulandas of the present case were received in the office of FSL which were marked to SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 7 of 72 her and after examination, blood was detected on Ex.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7a, 7b, 7c and 8 and report of serology was also given after examining the Ex. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7a, 7b, 7c and 8. She proved the detailed report prepared by her as Ex.PW10/A & A1, covering letter as Ex. PW10/A2.

She further deposed that on 30.07.2014, one sealed pulanda and one sealed envelope were received in FSL and assigned to her. After examination, blood was detected on Ex.2 but not on Ex.1. She proved the detailed report prepared by her as Ex.PW10/B and B1 vide covering letter Ex.PW10/B2.

4.11. PW­11 Inspector Manohar Lal deposed that on 22.07.2013, after receipt of call from Inspector Jitender, he along with Inspector Jitender reached the spot and took measurements and rough notes and on 23.07.2013, he prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW11/A and handed over the same to IO and destroyed the rough notes.

4.12. PW­12 Smt. Sunita deposed that she is the owner of Flat No. 110, Pocket­7, Sec­23, Rohini, Delhi and in the month of October, 2012, the above said flat was let out by her to the accused Hemant Chaturvedi @ Rs. 7000/­ p.m. She proved the said rent agreement as Ex.PW12/A and seizure memo of the said rent agreement seized by the police as Ex.PW12/B. 4.13. PW­13 Sh. Vipul Nautiyal is the brother of deceased Kumudi. He deposed that on 25.02.2013 around 6.30 p.m, his father called him in SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 8 of 72 his office and told him that he could not get in touch with his sister on phone. He further deposed that the relations between her sister and the accused Hemant Chaturvedi were not cordial. He further deposed that when he left his office, he called up Hemant, Daivik and his sister several times on their respective mobile phones but they were switched off. He further deposed that he reached the house of his sister which was found locked from outside and he met his nephew at the gate of the said house who told him that he had left for tuition at 5 p.m and at that time, his mother was available in the house. He further deposed that he called at 100 number and after sometime, PCR came and broke the lock of the house of his sister and after entering the said house, they switched on the lights of drawing room and saw the dead body of his sister which was covered with blanket lying on the bed. He further deposed that the crime team and local police was called by PCR officials. He proved his statement recorded by the police as Ex.PW13/A. He further deposed that on 26.02.2013 at about 10 a.m, he went to the mortuary of SGM Hospital and identified the dead body of his sister as Ex.PW13/B and after postmortem, the dead body of his sister was handed over to him vide receipt Ex.PW13/C. He further deposed that the accused used to come only to stay during night in the said flat but this fact was informed to him by his sister and nephew.

This witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel and during his cross­examination, he deposed that his sister and the accused lived together after their re­union for about six months prior to SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 9 of 72 the date of incident but, he voluntarily deposed that it was forced re­ union. He further deposed that little prior to the re­union of the deceased and accused, settlement amount was paid by the accused to the deceased, which to his knowledge was little more than Rs. 10 lacs but, he voluntarily deposed that it was paid in installments. He further deposed that he cannot admit or deny that the settlement amount was Rs. 15 lacs. He further deposed that he is not aware that Rs. 2 lacs was paid to the deceased through DD No. 518541 dt. 06.06.2012 drawn on Axis Bank or not. He further deposed that he does not know if account No. XXXXXXX43 from which the amount of Rs.11 lacs was paid through DD belongs to Shishir Chaturvedi, brother of the accused or not and that amount was paid on behalf of accused. He further deposed that there was no dispute between him and the deceased during those six months. He further deposed that he did not meet Umesh but Umesh and his father came separately and left the spot together. He further deposed that the name of the father as mentioned in the I­card Ex.PW13/D­1 of Daivik as Umesh (after seeing the I­card from judicial file).

4.14. PW­14 Sh. Ajay Khantwal is the Branch Manager of Allahabad Bank, Kotdwar Branch, Uttrakhand. He had brought the summoned record i.e. original account opening form of Sh. Rakesh Nakul along with the copy of notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C, electricity bill of introducer namely Sh. Manoj Kestwal, attested true copy of driving license in the name of Sh. Rakesh Nakul. He deposed that on 06.05.2015, Inspector Sudhir visited at the aforesaid bank and met him and served notice to SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 10 of 72 produce the copies of said documents. He proved the written reply given by him to the aforesaid notice along with attested copies as Ex. PW14/A. He further proved the bank account opening form of Sh. Rakesh Nakul and attested copy of driving license as Ex. PW14/B, attested copy of driving licence as Ex. PW14/C and the attested copy of electricity bill as Ex. PW14/D. 4.15. PW­15 Jaipal Singh is the retired Bank Manager from Allahabad Bank, Kotdwar Branch, Uttrakhand. He deposed that on 14.03.2013, one person who informed his name as Rakesh Nakul Naithani came to their branch and told that he wanted to open an account in their branch. He further deposed that he asked Manoj Kestwal who was already having an account in their branch to produce his proof of residence, who gave his original electricity bill as proof of his residence and he gave an account opening form to Rakesh and proved the attested copies of account opening form of Rakesh, his driving license and electricity bill as Ex. PW14/B, C and D. 4.16. PW­16 Sh. Manoj Kestwal deposed that there is a temple of Sati Mata at a distance of about half kilometer from his house and he is also a member of Samiti of the temple which looks after the expenses of temple. He further deposed that the accused used to reside in the temple itself and he stayed in the temple for about one year.

The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel and during his cross­examination, the witness deposed that the accused SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 11 of 72 was working as priest in Sati Mata Mandir as he was appointed by President Teerath Singh Rawat. He further deposed that the accused used to wear Dhoti, Kurta and turban in the said temple.

4.17. PW­17 Sh. Sushil Pant deposed that the deceased Kaumudi was the daughter of his maternal uncle Sh. Ballabh Prasad Nautiyal. He deposed that on 25.02.2013 at about 9.30 p.m, when he was present in his house, his father received a telephonic call of his maternal uncle and informed that he was not able to get in touch with his daughter. He further deposed that he was apprehending that something might had happened with Kaumudi as she was having some disputes with her husband and a dowry case was also pending between the deceased and the accused. He further corroborated the version of PW­13.

This witness was duly cross­examined by Ld. Defence counsel and during his cross examination, the witness deposed that he had very little and less visiting terms with the deceased and had visited the house of Kaumudi on two occasions, out of which, one occasion was the marriage function of his cousin in Pragati Maidan. He denied the suggestion that he was not having any relations with Kaumudi since the year 2004.

4.18. PW­18 Sh. Pradeep Kumar is the Regional Director from National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS). He proved the copy of application form for admission of Rakesh Nakul as Ex.PW18/A, copy of CBSE certificate issued in the year 1998 as Mark P­18/A and the SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 12 of 72 copy of election ID as Mark P­18/B. 4.19. PW­19 Ms. Priya Arora is the Principal from Ryan International School. She deposed that on 23.07.2014, Inspector Sudhir Kumar came to their school and served notice u/s 91 Cr. P.C for producing the admission form, ID Card of student Daivik Chaturvedi and she gave written reply Ex.PW19/A. She proved the copies of relevant documents as Mark P­19­A to Mark P­19­H. 4.20. PW­20 Sh. Ratan Prasad is the security guard in Saptrishi Apartments, Sector­23, Rohini. He deposed that on 25.02.2013 between 2.00 p.m to 2.30 p.m, he saw the accused entering in the society on his motorcycle, however, did not stop him as he was resident of that society. He further deposed that he maintained a register for recording the entries of the outsiders only and saw the accused going out on his motorcycle from the apartment at about 6 p.m. On 26.02.2013, at about 8 a.m, he came to know regarding murder of wife of the accused.

This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State as he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police. During cross­ examination, the witness denied the suggestion that he also accompanied the police officials to the flat of accused or that the accused pointed out the room in his flat where he committed murder of his wife on 25.02.2013. He proved his statement recorded by the police as Mark P­20A.

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 13 of 72 4.21. PW­21 Sh. Sumant Chauhan deposed that on 29.05.2014, some police officials along with one person came to his tea shop. However he could not identify the person who was brought by the police officials. He further deposed that the police officials took that motorcycle with them and he did not know what was informed by that person who was brought by the police, about that motorcycle and signed on one paper. He proved the recovery memo of said motorcycle as Ex. PW21/A. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State as he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police. During cross­ examination, the witness deposed that he did not notice the registration number of the motorcycle which remained parked for about 1 ½ years near his shop as he is illiterate and he came to know the name of that person as Hemant Chaturvedi who was brought by the police at the spot on that day.

He denied the suggestion that the accused Hemant Chaturvedi came to the spot along with police in his presence on 29.05.2014 or that he identified the motorcycle bearing No. DL 3S BK 7774 as belonging to him. He denied the suggestion that the statement Mark P­21­A was made by him to the police or that he is not identifying the accused deliberately as he has been won over by him.

4.22. PW­22 Sh. Babu Lal deposed that he has been running an ice shop in front of AW­1 Tea shop, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi for the last 25 years. He further deposed that one motorcycle was parked by someone, which remained parked for about one and half year at a distance of 10 steps from his ice shop. Some police officials came to his SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 14 of 72 shop and took that motorcycle with them. He did not know the number of motorcycle and the person who had parked that motorcycle. Police prepared one document and obtained his signatures on the same.

This witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP for State and was cross­examined by her wherein the witness could not identify the accused. He denied the suggestion that the accused Hemant Chaturvedi informed the police in his presence that the motorcycle was belonging to him and it was parked by him after committing murder of his wife or that he is deliberately deposing falsely that he did not know the registration number of the motorcycle or that the accused had not informed the abovesaid fact in his presence. He denied the suggestion that the statement Mark P­22­A was made by him to the police or that he is not deliberately identifying the accused as he has been won over by him.

4.23. PW­23 Ct. Jagdish deposed that on 26.02.2013 while being posted as Constable in P.S Begumpur, at about 5.15 a.m., duty officer handed over three envelopes containing photocopies of FIR of the present case to him and on the instructions of Duty Officer, he went to the residence of Ld. MM, Joint CP and DCP on his motorcycle No. DL 1SS 2653. He supplied the copy of FIR of the present case to above said officers at their respective residence. After that, he returned to the police station and made his arrival entry in the police station vide DD No. 52B.

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 15 of 72 4.24. PW­24 Ct. Munesh deposed that in the intervening night of 25/26.02.2013, he was posted as Constable at P.S. Begumpur and on that day at about 12 midnight, on receipt of DD No. 34A by SI Pawan Kumar, he along with him went to the spot i.e. Flat No. 110, Saptrishi Apartments, Pocket­7, Sector­23, Rohini where the person who had made the PCR call met them and informed his name as Vipul. He informed that he was unable to get in touch with his sister Kaumudi as the Flat No. 110 was found locked at that time. One boy namely Daivik, S/o Kaumudi was also present and he informed that lock put on the door of the said flat has been changed. SI Pawan Kumar made enquiries from the persons present there. Vipul told them that he was apprehending that some mishap might have taken place with his sister as the lock was a new one. The lock was broken by relatives of Kaumudi in the presence of SI Pawan and on entering, they found that a dead body was lying on the bed covered with blanket. The dead body was identified by Vipul as that of his sister Kaumudi. SI Pawan gave information of this fact to Inspector Jitender who reached the spot. He noticed injuries on the throat and head of the dead body. Crime team also reached the spot, inspected the spot and took photographs of the spot. He shifted the dead body of Kaumudi to the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and in the morning hours, SI Pawan got conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Kaumudi and the dead body was later on handed over to her relatives.

4.25. PW­25 HC Dev Pal deposed that on 16.07.2014 while being SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 16 of 72 posted as HC in P.S. Begumpur, he had taken the notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C to Regional Centre, NIOS, Dehradoon on the instructions of IO Inspector Sudhir and got it served upon the Chancellor of the said institute. In reply to the notice, the Chancellor produced some documents.

Thereafter, he went to Allahabad Bank, Kotdwar and got served the notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C upon the Branch Manager and in reply to the said notice, the Branch Manager produced some documents. Thereafter, he returned to Delhi and produced the said documents to the IO. The documents collected by him were pertaining to Rakesh Nakul Nathani.

4.26. PW­26 HC Prithvi deposed that on 24.05.2014 while being posted as HC in SER, Crime Branch, P.S. Sunlight Colony, New Delhi, Ct. Vinod received a secret information that accused Hemant Chaturvedi who was wanted in case FIR No. 61/13, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Begumpur, would come in disguise as "Sadhu" on 25.05.2014 at about 10 a.m near Forest Office, Nazibabad, Kotdwar Road to meet someone known to him. The secret informer was produced before SI Mandeep by Ct. Vinod and then informer was produced before Inspector Pawan Kumar by SI Mandeep. Inspector Pawan discussed the matter with senior officers and directed SI Mandeep to form a raiding party. SI Mandeep formed a raiding party comprising of him, Ct. Vinod, Ct. Rohit, Ct. Pradeep and Ct. Rajesh. SI Mandeep also recorded the secret information vide DD No. 7. The government had declared an SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 17 of 72 award of Rs.50,000/­ on the arrest of accused Hemant Chaturvedi.

On 24.05.2014, all the members of raiding party along with secret informer left the office at about 6 p.m. in two private cars for the spot, they were carrying arms at that time and they reached the spot in the morning of 25.05.2014. The members of the raiding party took their position and at about 11 a.m, one person in the disguise of "Sadhu" was seen coming from the side of Kotdwar. He was pointed out by the informer. He along with Ct. Vinod and Ct. Rohit apprehended that person. The secret informer was discharged from the spot. The person who was apprehended was interrogated by SI Mandeep. Initially, he misled the police party but later on when he was strictly interrogated, he disclosed his name as Hemant Chaturvedi. He also disclosed that on 25.02.2013, he committed the murder of his wife. The witness correctly identified the accused in the Court as the same person who was apprehended by him near Forest Office gate. He further deposed that there was no public person present near the gate of Forest Office. Thereafter, accused Hemant Chaturvedi was arrested by him under Section 41.1.(ba) Cr.P.C. Accused was wearing gerua/bhagua clothes and turban. He proved the arrest and personal search memos of the accused as Ex.PW­26/A and Ex.PW­26/B respectively. He also proved the disclosure statement of the accused as Ex.PW­26/C, his arrival entry in the office of Crime Branch vide DD No. 9 as Ex.PW­26/D and the Kalandra under Section 41.1 (ba) Cr.P.C prepared by him as Ex.PW­ 26/E. Thereafter, the accused was produced in Rohini Court along with Kalandra.

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 18 of 72 4.27 PW­27 Constable Vinod had accompanied the IO SI Mandeep at the time of conducting raid at Forest Office, Nazibabad Kotdwar Road on the basis of secret information received by him. He deposed on the same lines as that of PW­26 HC Prithvi.

4.28 PW­28 Sh. Yuvraj Sigh Bhandari deposed that he did not remember the exact date, however, it was probably the month of 2014 when two police officials from Delhi visited his house. There is a Sati Mata Mandir in their village. He did not remember the date and month, however, in the year 2013, one person came and started worshipping the temple and thereafter, he worked as priest (pujari) in the said temple. That person came in the disguise of "Sadhu". He was wearing a turban and having beard. He also used to wear spects. He disclosed his name as Rakesh Nathani. The witness correctly identified the accused in the Court as the same person who had worked as priest in Sati Mata Mandir for about one year. He further deposed that the accused was not accompanying those police officials who had visited his house in the month of May, 2014. He volunteered that he had already been arrested by the police and the police officials also showed him one identity card issued in the name of Rakesh Nathani issued by a correspondence school. Police did not disclose the real name of the person who introduced himself as Rakesh Nathani before him and other people of the village. Police did not conduct any other proceeding in his presence. His statement was recorded by the police.

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 19 of 72 The witness was declared hostile by the Ld. APP as he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police and was cross­ examined wherein he deposed that he cannot say if the accused had come to his house in the month of October, 2013 in the disguise of 'Sadhu'. He volunteered that he had worked for about one year as priest in the temple. He denied the suggestion that when the police officials met him the accused was also with them. He admitted that the police officials had informed him the real name of Rakesh Nathani as Hemant Chaturvedi. He denied the suggestion that the accused Hemant Chaturvedi had got recovered one black colour travelling bag from his room situated in the temple or that the said bag was checked by the police in his presence.

4.29. PW­29 Ms. Poonam Verma deposed that she used to give tuition classes from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. to the children in her house and one boy namely Daivik Chaturvedi used to come to her house to attend the tuition classes. Probably he was in class 7 th or 8th at that time. She further deposed that she could neither tell the timings of tuition classes of Daivik nor the date of incident, however, she came to know on the next day that his mother had been murdered. Thereafter, Daivik did not come to her home to attend tuition. Police came to her house and made enquiries from her. She told the police that Daivik used to attend tuition classes from her in the evening hours.

She was declared hostile by the Ld. APP as he was resiling from her previous statement given to the police and was cross­examined SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 20 of 72 wherein she deposed that she could not tell if the timing of tuition class of Daivik was from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m, however, it might be from 4 to 5 p.m. or 5 to 6 p.m. She further deposed that due to lapse of time, she was unable to recollect the date when Daivik lastly attended the tuition classes from her, so she could not admit or deny if he had attended the tuition classes on 15.02.2013 between 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. She further deposed that she did not inform the police about the exact timing of tuition classes of Daivik. She denied the suggestion that the statement Mark P­29­A was made by her before the police or that she had specified the date i.e. 15.02.2013 when Daivik came to her house between 5 to 6 p.m. to attend tuition class.

4.30. PW­30 Ct. Sanjay deposed that on 12.03.2013 while being posted as Constable in P.S. Begumpur, on the instructions of IO Inspector Jitender Singh, he had taken one sealed box containing viscera of the deceased along with sample seal and FSL form to FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 27/21/13. He deposited the parcels in FSL and obtained the acknowledgement receipt which he handed over to the MHC(M) on return. He deposed that so long as the case property remained with him, nobody tampered with it.

4.31. PW­31 Constable Umesh Babu deposed that in the intervening night of 25/26.02.2013, while being posted as Constable in P.S. Begumpur, during the night while he was on patrolling duty in the area, at about 12 mid­night/12.30 a.m, he received a telephonic call from P.S. SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 21 of 72 Begumpur and was directed to reach Flat No. 110, Saptrishi Apartment as an incident of murder had taken place there. He immediately reached Saptrishi Apartment where SI Pawan along with Ct. Munesh met him. He saw dead body of one lady covered with a blanket lying on a double bed in one of the room of Flat No. 110. He came to know th ename of the deceased as Kaumudi Chaturvdi. He noticed two injuries mark on the neck and head of the deceased and also noticed some blood stains and some pieces of flesh in the room. IO recorded the statement of brother of the deceased in his presence and crime team also inspected the spot in his presence. He got registered the FIR on the basis of rukka given to him by SI Pawan. Thereafter, he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO.

He further deposed that on 04.04.2013, on the instructions of IO, he got deposited the case property to FSL after taking the same from MHC(M) and handed over the acknowledgement receipt thereof to the MHC(M).

He identified the clothes of the deceased as Ex.P­1, P­2 and P­3. Ld. APP put a leading question to the witness to which the witness replied that he had taken the sealed parcels to FSL vide RC No. 46/21/13 on the instructions of IO Inspector Jitender.

4.32. PW­32 Ct. Surender had joined the investigation of this case with IO SI Pawan Kumar on 26.05.2014. He proved the arrest memo of the accused Hemant Chaturvedi as Ex.PW­32/A, the documents ie. Identity cards and bank passbook etc. as Ex.PW­32/A (inadvertently SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 22 of 72 exhibited as Ex.PW­32/A), seizure memo of cloth parcel of the bag as Ex.PW­32/B; the passbook as Sex.PW­32/A1, cheque book as Ex.PW­ 32/A2, ATM Card as Ex.PW­32/A3, identity card issued by National School of Open Learning in the name of Rakesh Nathani as Ex.PW­ 32/A4 and the identity card issued by Ryan International School in the name of Daivik Chaturvedi, son of Hemant Chaturvedi as Ex.PW­ 32/A5.

He also identified the bag which was got recovered by the accused from Kotdwar as Ex.P­5.

Ld. APP put a leading question to the witness to which the witness replied that one pointing out memo Ex.PW­32/B and non recovery was prepared by IO SI Pawan Kumar after the accused pointed out the place where he had thrown the clothes and weapon, which could not be recovered.

He admitted that at the time of recovery of bag, one Tirath Singh and one Yuvraj Singh were also present.

4.33. PW­33 HC Ajit Singh deposed that on 26.05.2014, while he has posted at P.S. Begumpur and was present in the police station, accused Hemant Chaturvedi was brought by SI Pawan and Ct. Surender and the documents of the case were handed over by SI Pawan to Inspector Sudhir who recorded the disclosure statement Ex.PW­33/A of the accused in his presence. Thereafter, he along with SI Pawan, Ct. Surender and the accused went to Saptrishi Apartment where Chowkidar Ratan also joined them. The accused led them to Flat No. SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 23 of 72 110 of the said apartment and at the instance of accused, pointing out memo Ex.PW­20/A was prepared in his presence and thereafter, his statement was recorded in the police station on the same day.

He further deposed that on 27.05.2014, he again joined the investigation of this case along with SI Pawan, Ct. Surender and ASI Surender and they along with the accused went to Rishikesh and reached there on the night of 27.05.2014 and on the next day morning i.e. on 28.05.2014, the accused led them to a place about 500 m ahead of Laxman Jhula in Rishikesh where he had thrown the clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident and weapon of offence in river Ganga but the same could not be recovered due to high flow of water. IO prepared a point out cum non­recovery memo Ex.PW­32/B in this regard.

He further deposed that the accused further led them to Sati Mata Temple in Village Sati Chaur, District Pauri and got recovered one bag from there. He further deposed on the lines of PW­32 and proved/corroborated the recovery of documents and the bag Ex.P5 proved by PW­32.

4.34 PW­34 Mr. Anal Bihar Sahay is the Record Clerk from ARTO Office, Mathura, U.P. He had brought the summoned record pertaining to driving licence No. 2561/MTR/2008 in the name of Mr. Afsar Khan, S/o Mr. Ghure Lal Abbasi and proved the computer generated details of the said licence as Ex.PW­34/1.

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 24 of 72 4.35. PW­35 SI Pawan Kumar is the investigating officer of the case. Besides other documents proved by PW­32 Ct. Surender and PW­33 HC Ajit Singh, he proved his endorsement made on the statement of Mr. Vipul Nautiyal as Ex.PW­35/A, request letter for preserving the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary of SGM Hospital as Ex.PW­ 35/B, seizure memos of blanket, pillow cover, bed sheet and quilt cover as Ex.PW­35/C to Ex.PW­35/F, seizure memos of the blood stained earth control, earth control lifted from the spot and broken lock from the spot as Ex.PW­35/G and Ex.PW­35/H. He also correctly identified the accused and case property in the Court. He proved the blanket, pillow cover, bed sheet, quilt, one plastic container containing stone pieces, stone pieces, another plastic container containing stone pieces and stone pieces, the bag and lock as Ex.P­5 to Ex.P­14 respectively.

4.36 PW­36 Mr. Umesh Kumar Chaturvedi deposed that the accused Hemant is his cousin and that the marriage of the accused Hemant Chaturvedi took place with Ms. Kaumudi Nautiyal (since deceased) in the year 1998 and at that time, the accused Hemant Chaturvedi along with his wife Ms. Kaumudi Nautiyal used to reside at Mandakini Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi and he used to reside at F­2/95, Sector­16, Rohini, Delhi and during those days, his relations with the accused Hemant were cordial. He further deposed that he did not know the relations between the accused Hemant and his wife as he did not use to visit his house frequently. He further deposed that in the year 2000, he started business with Hemant Chaturvedi due to which accused, his SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 25 of 72 wife and son started visiting his house and during those visits, Ms. Kaumudi Chaturvedi informed him, his wife and other family members that accused Hemant, his mother, brother and sister used to harass her and raise quarrel with her. He further deposed that when he asked the accused about his behavior and behavior of his family members, he told him that it was the story of every house and he took the matter lightly. Thereafter, accused did not come to meet him continuously for 3­4 days. On 15.01.2001, he received a phone call from Rashmi Hospital informing that his relative Ms. Kaumudi Chaturvedi was got admitted in the hospital by her husband and he had left the hospital and that abortion was carried out on her and there is no one near to take care of her and they had informed him because Ms. Kaumudi asked them to inform him as she was no hope from her husband and in laws. It was asked to come to hospital along with a lady, so he along with his wife went to Rashmi Hospital. They completed the formalities relating to discharge of Ms. Kaumudi Chaturvedi and she requested him to drop at her father's house and he did so.

He further deposed that accused Hemant Chaturvedi did not come to his house for several days and when he visited his house at Pitampura, Delhi he was not found there. His mother was also not able to tell anything about Hemant, however, she informed that her other son Shishir is residing at Mumbai. For several months in the year 2001, the accused did not come to meet him and some days before the festival of Diwali in the year 2001, it was informed to him by Ms, Kaumudi that accused had returned to his house at Pitampura as she had also returned SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 26 of 72 to her matrimonial home.

He further deposed that on 15.11.2001, he received a phone call from Ms. Kaumudi regarding harassment meted out on her by her husband and his family members and when he reached there, he saw that accused was shouting at Ms. Kaumudi in the presence of all those persons and also threatened to kill her and to wrap in coffin. He as well as other relatives tried to pacify the accused but the matter could not be settled till evening. Thereafter, he returned to his home.

He further deposed that accused Hemant Chaturvedi did not come to him for joining the business and he was very upset as his house situated in Sector­16, Rohini was already lying mortgaged with the bank. He came to know that disputes between Hemant and his wife Kaumudi could not be resolved and Kaumudi had returned to her father's house. She also informed him telephonically that during her stay at the matrimonial home, the behavior of the accused Hemant was not good towards her and he used to pick quarrel with her and also used to extend threats to her.

He further deposed that in the year 2002, he came to know that Kaumudi had filed a case against Hemant Chaturvedi regarding harassment in which he was made a witness. One day the accused along with his brother came to his house threatened him not to depose against him and since then, the relations between them got strained.

He further deposed that during the year 2002­2003, the father of Ms. Kaumudi retired from his job and Ms. Kaumudi used to leave her son Daivik at his house as she was working as teacher in a school.

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 27 of 72 After selling his house due to loss in business, he shifted in Sector­24, Rohini and he used to look after all the affairs of Master Daivik.

He further deposed that probably in the year 2003, Ms. Kaumudi took a house loan and she purchased a house in Sector­17, Rohini where she started living with her son, separately from her husband till about October, 2012. Thereafter, compromise took place between the accused Hemant and his wife and Ms. Kaumudi shifted along with her son to the house of accused Hemant situated in Sector­23, Rohini.

He further deposed that Master Daivik was brought up by him and his family, so he was having attachment with them. He further deposed that on 23.02.2013, when he took Ms. Kaumudi and her son to the house of his sister to prepare some sample papers for CBSE, she told him that the behavior of accused was changing towards her and the accused was insisting that her earlier matrimonial home at Mandakini Apartment would be discharged from the Court and that the accused used to keep only one pair of clothes in the flat/house and used to leave house in morning hours. She also told him that on one occasion, the accused had prepared tea for her in which he had mixed something as after taking the same she started vomiting and she had also shown some yellow substance which came out during vomiting to her son. She also told him that she had apprehension that the accused could kill her, so he advised her to inform about the behavior of accused to her father and also about her apprehension.

He further deposed that on 25.02.2013 at about 5.00 p.m. when he had gone to pick up his staff of I.T Company, after about 1 ½ ­2 hours, SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 28 of 72 he received the office of company situated at Noida with the staff officials and dropped them. Then, he received a telephonic call from Mr. B.P Nautiyal that the house of Ms. Kaumudi had been locked from outside and Master Daivik was standing outside the house. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal also informed him that he was apprehending some mischief as the mobile phones of accused Hemant and Kaumudi were reported to be switched off. Thereafter, at the request of Mr. B.P Nautiyal, he along with Mr. B.P Nautiyal reached at the flat/house of Ms. Kaumudi where they found Master Daivik standing near the stairs and Mr. Vipul Nautiyal had already reached there. The flat of Kaumudi was found locked from outside. Mr. Vipul Nautiyal informed the police and in the presence of police officials, the lock of the flat was broken. On entering inside the flat, the dead body of Kaumudi was found lying on the bed of the room. Accused Hemant was not present there and he could not be contacted as his phone was reported to be switched off. After about 1 ½ year, the accused Hemant was arrested by the police. His statement was recorded by the police.

4.37 PW­37 Inspector Singh is another investigation officer of the case. He deposed that in the night of 25/26.02.2013, while being posted as Inspector at P.S. Begumpur, at about 12.30 a.m., on being informed by SI Pawan Kumar about the incident, he reached the spot along with Ct. Umesh where SI Pawan, Ct. Munesh, complainant Mr. Vipul, Master Daivik, Mr. B.P Nautiyal and Mr. Umesh Chaturvedi were found in the flat. In the bedroom of the flat, the dead body of one lady identified as Ms. Kaumudi Chaturvedi was lying. Injury marks were SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 29 of 72 present on her neck, forehead and chin. Crime team was called at the spot. Besides other documents proved by PW­35 SI Pawan Kumar, he proved the site plan prepared by him at the instance of complainant as PW­37/A, statement of Mr. B.P . Nautiyal as Ex.PW­37/B, request and inquest form 25.35 for conducting the postmortem as Ex.PW­37/C and Ex.PW­37/D respectively, brief facts of the case as Ex.PW­37/E, seizure memo of three sealed parcels handed over by the doctor as Ex.PW­35/I. He also correctly identified the case property produced in the Court i.e. the blanket as Ex.MO1, the pillow cover as Ex.MO2, bed sheet as Ex.MO3, quilt container as Ex.MO4, plastic container containing stone piece as Ex.MO5 and another plastic container containing stone piece as Ex.MO6.

4.38. PW­38 Mr. B.P Nautiyal is the father of the deceased Kumudi Chaturvedi. He deposed that he had two children i.e. one Vipul Nautiyal and another Kumudi Chaturvedi. He further deposed that on 30.01.1998, he got married his daughter Kaumudi to accused Hemant Chaturvedi and after 3 months of marriage, she started remaining depressed/sad and on being asked, she informed him that her husband and in­laws were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage as they were expecting more dowry as he, his wife and son, all were working. He further deposed that her daughter also informed him that her husband and in­laws were demanding one house and due to harassment by her husband and in­laws, she filed a complaint regarding dowry harassment before CAW Cell in the year 2002. She was having SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 30 of 72 one son namely Daivik.

He further deposed that after retiring from government service, he shifted from Gulabi Bagh to Mayur Vihar whereas her daughter Kaumudi did not shift to Mayur Vihar as she was working as teacher in Ryan International School in Rohini and her son Daivik was studying in a school at Rohini, so she started residing at Sector ­17, Rohini.

He further deposed that during the month of December­2012, some compromise took place between his daughter Kumudi and accused Hemant and in terms of that compromise, she along with her son started living in the rented flat of accused Hemant Chaturvedi at Flat No. 110, Saptrishi Apartments, Rohini and it was agreed that accused Hemant would give a sum of Rs. 15 lacs in total for getting the FIR of dowry case quashed and for maintenance etc. out of which he only paid Rs. 11 lacs and rest of Rs. 4 lacs was to be paid by him before the Hon'ble High Court, however, during that period his daughter was killed by him.

He proved the seizure memo of the documents i.e. copy of the order dated 26.05.2012 of Mediation Centre and a copy of application on behalf of respondent Hemant Chaturvedi for dismissal of execution petition of the petitioner Kumudi Chaturvedi, seized by the IO as Ex.PW­38/C. He further deposed that when he went to the flat/house of his daughter, the bedroom of accused and Kumudi was lying closed. The door was pushed and opened. He wanted to hug her but the accused stopped him and sent outside. After about 15­20 minutes, he was SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 31 of 72 informed about the death of Kumudi, then they permitted him to got inside the room as he was shouting on the police officials as to why they were not allowing him to see his daughter. He found the body of his daughter wrapped and lying on the bed. There were injury marks on her neck. The police called the crime team, removed the dead body of his daughter and asked him to leave the spot. However, his son Vipul remained there with the police.

He further deposed that on the next day, he identified the dead body of his daughter and his statement was recorded by the police and after the post mortem examination was conducted, the dead body of his daughter was handed over to him.

He further deposed that accused Hemant Chaturvedi had fled away from Delhi and he even did not attend the cremation of his daughter and they performed all the last rites.

He further deposed that as the police was not co­operating, he at his personal level tried to search the accused, even sticked posters on several buses at ISBT, Delhi but could not find him.

He further deposed that from the date of murder till the date of his deposition in the Court, Master Daivik was living with him and later on, he was told by the police that accused had been arrested from Kotdwar, Uttrakhand and had been brought to Delhi.

He further deposed that when the IO came to the spot and made enquiries from him, he had told him that his daughter had been killed by three persons namely Hemant Chaturvedi, Heeramani Chaturvedi who is the paternal uncle (Chacha) of Hemant Chaturvedi and Shishir SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 32 of 72 Chaturvedi, younger brother of accused Hemant Chaturvedi.

4.39 PW­39 is Mr. Daivik Chaurvedi. He is the son of the deceased Kaumudi Chaturvedi. After ascertaining his competency to depose in the Court, his statement was recorded on oath wherein he deposed that the incident took place on 25.02.2013 when he used to reside with his mother Ms. Kaumudi and father Hemant Chaturvedi at Flat No. 110, Saptrishi Apartments, Rohini, Delhi.

He further deposed that he along with his mother shifted to the said flat in the month of October, 2012 and prior to that, he used to reside with his mother in a flat situated in Moonlight Apartments, Sector­20, Rohini. His father never resided with him or his mother before October 2012. His mother had filed a case against his father which was pending in the Court when they shifted to Saptrishi Apartments. His mother was working as a teacher in Ryan International School.

He further deposed that during the period from October 2012 till the date of incident i.e. 25.02.2013, the behavior of his father towards his mother was not good and their relations were stained and they used to quarrel with each other. The behavior of his father was intimidating. His relations with his father were also not good and they used to talk very less. His father used to come to the house in night and sleep in other room and in the morning, he used to go the house of his brother situated in Pitampura. However, on some occasion he used to come in day time. In the morning, he and his mother used to go to school. He SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 33 of 72 used to come back with his mother from school at about 2.30 p.m. and he used to go to attend his tuition class at about 5.00 p.m. till 6.00 p.m. He further deposed that on 25.02.2013, he and his mother returned home from school as usual at about 2.30 p.m. At about 3.00/3.30 p.m., his uncle Mr. Umesh Chaturvedi (Tauji) telephonically called him and asked him to come at the gate of Saptrishi Apartments, he had a very good relations with his uncle, he is like father for him. At that time, Ms. Nupur Chaturvedi called him for going to Cyber Café for obtaining printouts of some notes/study material of class XII. He along with his uncle Mr. Umesh Chaturvedi went to Cyber Café and after taking printouts, he dropped him near the gate of Saptrishi Apartment. Thereafter, he along with his mother had fruits and Chhole Bhature and at about 5.00 p.m., he left his house of attending his tuition class after leaving his mother in the house. At about 6.00 p.m, when he returned home, he found that his house was locked from outside with a brand new lock. He went out to play thinking that his mother might have gone to the market. At about 7.00 p.m, he returned to his house and found that house was still locked. At that time, he was not carrying his mobile phone, so he requested Mr. Rajender residing in front of their flat to give his mobile phone. He made a call to his grandfather that the house was locked with a new lock and the mobile phone of his mother was switched off. He requested him to come and informed him that he was coming to the spot. At about 9.00 p.m,, Mr. Sushil Pant (maternal uncle) along with his father Mr. P.P. Pant reached the spot at first. Thereafter, SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 34 of 72 his maternal grandfather Mr. B.P. Nautiyal (nanaji), his uncle Mr. Umesh, his maternal uncle (mamaji) Mr. Vipul and Mr. B.S. Sharma (advocate) reached the spot. The lawyer was known to his maternal grandfather. His maternal uncle called the police by dialing number 100 and after sometime, police reached the spot. The lock of the house was broken and they entered the house. The door of the room of his mother was closed when it was opened, he found the dead body of his mother. Thereafter, he was sent outside the flat by the police. He was in the state of shock at that time. Police made enquiries from him on that day and also after sometime.

During cross­examination, he stated that his mother used to talk to his maternal grandfather frequently before they started living in Saptrishi Apartments. They used to visit his maternal grandfather and he also used to visit their house.

4.40. PW­40 Inspector Sudhir Kumar is another investigating officer of the case. Besides documents proved by PW­12 Smt. Sunita (rent agreement), PW­20 Sh. Ratan Prasad, PW­21 Sh. Sumant Chauhan, PW­33 HC Ajit Singh, PW­35 SI Pawan Kumar, PW­37 Inspector Jitender Singh and PW­38 Sh. B.P. Nautiyal, he proved the attested copy of DD No. 66B regarding arrest of accused Hemant Chaturvedi in Kalandra u/s 41.1 (d) Cr.P.C as Ex.PW­40/A, noticed u/s 91 Cr.P.C issued by him to Manager of Allahabad Bank, Kotdwar Branch as Ex.PW­40/B, notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C issued to Principal of Ryan International School to produce the identity card of Master Daivik Chaturvedi as Ex.PW­40/C. SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 35 of 72 Since the identity of motorcycle bearing No. DL 3S BW 7774 was not disputed by Ld. Defence counsel, it was not produced in the Court and the witness proved the photographs of the said motorcycle as Ex.PW­40/D and Ex.PW­40/E. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

5. After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded on 03.08.2019 under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein when all the incriminating evidence/material was put to the accused he denied the same and pleaded his innocence and stated that he has not committed any offence and nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession or at his instance. The alleged recovery has been planted upon him by the police and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE

6. The accused did not lead evidence in his defence despite given opportunity.

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES

7. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the material available on record including the written submissions.

ARGUMENTS OF Ld. APP FOR STATE SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 36 of 72

8. Ld. APP has submitted that the prosecution case is not solely based on circumstantial evidence as pleaded by Ld. Defence Counsel but the same is based on circumstantial evidence, last seen theory and recovery of motorcycle and other articles. Moreover, all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and none of the prosecution witness has totally turned hostile and remained firmed.

Ld. APP has relied upon the judgment of Sharat Birdi Chand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 wherein the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence have been reiterated.

It is argued that PW­13 Sh. Vipul Nautiyal is the complainant in the present case who is the brother of deceased and made call at 100 number. He had expressed his apprehension regarding any mis­ happening to her sister vide making call at 100 number vide which DD No. 34 A was registered at the P.S. and it is not an afterthought because matrimonial dispute was going on between the accused and deceased and they were residing together for few months as per the settlement between them before the Hon'ble Court.

It is further argued that the lock of the door of the flat was broke open by PW­13 in the presence of other witnesses i.e. PW­38 , PW­35 IO SI Pawan Kumar and PW­39 and the dead body of the deceased was found there.

It is further argued that the prosecution story is also based on last seen evidence. PW­20 Sh. Rattan Prasad who was working as guard in Saptrishi Apartments deposed that he saw the accused Hemant Chaturvedi going on a motorcycle from the Apartment at about 6 p.m SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 37 of 72 on the date of incident. The incident had taken place at about 5­6 p.m. though PW­20 had not seen the accused coming out of his flat as the same was not visible from the gate, but the accused had not taken any defence in this regard and burden lies upon the accused under Section 106 Evidence Act to show as to from which flat he had gone out of Saptrishi Apartments.

It is further submitted that the said witness has not been cross­ examined on the point of going out of Saptrishi Appartments by Ld. Counsel. Hence, this fact stands proved that the accused was present at the spot of incident at the time of incident.

Further, there was a motive on the part of accused to commit murder of the deceased and the same is relevant under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act. As per the depositions of PW­13, PW­38, PW­39 Daivik Chaturvedi, the accused himself produced all the documents pertaining to the school record in which name of father was found to be Umesh Chaturvedi and not accused Hemant Chaturvedi. PW­36 Umesh Chaturvedi whose name has been mentioned as father of Daivik Chaturvedi in school record has narrated all the incidents in detail from the date of marriage of accused with deceased till the date of death of the deceased and he along PW­13, PW­38 and PW­39 has clearly established that there was motive on the part of accused to commit the offence which has been clearly established through these witnesses as well as the orders of Hon'ble Court on record.

The previous and subsequent conduct of the accused is also relevant under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act when PW­39 Daivik SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 38 of 72 Chaturvedi returned to his house from tuition at about 6 p.m., he found the house locked with a new lock and that time, the mobile phone of deceased and accused were found switched off. PW­13, PW­38, PW­35 and PW­39 also made call to the accused but his phone was found switched off. He did not return to the spot of incident after the incident for about 1 ½ year nor he contacted his son PW­39, his brother­in­law PW­13, PW­36 Umesh Chaturvedi and PW­38, his father­in­law or any other relative during the said period.

The prosecution has established that the accused was residing during the above said period at Village Bamoli situated at Uttrakhand in the name of Rakesh Kumar Naithani under the guise of Baba.

It is further submitted that prosecution has also proved the forged documents got prepared by him in the name of Rakesh Kumar Naithani and the same were recovered from his possession at the time of his arrest.

It is further submitted that PW­15 Sh. Jai Pal Singh, the Branch Manager has proved that he had opened a bank account in the name of Rakesh Nakul Nathani and he also duly identified him in the Court.

It is further submitted that PW­16 Mukesh has proved that he was residing at the temple of their name with the above said name and he also identified him in the Court.

It is further submitted that PW­18 Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Regional Director, National Open School proved that the accused had applied admission for the year 2013­14 in the name of Rakesh Kumar Naithani.

It is further submitted that all these witnesses were duly cross­ SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 39 of 72 examined by the Ld. Defence counsel but they stood firm on their testimony and they duly proved all the original documents in the name of Rakesh Kumar Naithani.

It is further submitted that prosecution case is also based on Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

It is further submitted that PW­20 Rattan Singh, the guard of the society deposed that the accused left the Saptrishi Apratment at about 6 p.m. on the date of incident, and the said motorcycle was not found at the place. Accused made a disclosure statement after his arrest and disclosed about the whereabouts of said motorcycle which was recovered on the basis of his disclosure statement as well as at his instance from Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and this fact has been duly proved by PW­21 and PW­22 Babu Lal. Both the witnesses identified the motorcycle as it was parked near their shops for about 1 ½ year. Their turning hostile with respect to presence of accused at the time of recovery does not affect the prosecution case in light of the judgment of Navjot Sandhu v. State that it has taken the vague defences and his reply under Section 313 Cr.P.C are evasive in nature. He has taken the defence that his mobile phone was not switched off but all the prosecution witnesses who made call to him have deposed that his phone was switched off. The defence taken by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C that he came to the spot at about 10 p.m is also a false defence as he has not produced any witness in this regard, rather he decided not lead any defence evidence. Accused had not attended the last rites of his wife and he remained missing and his conduct u/s 8 of SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 40 of 72 Indian Evidence Act clearly establish that he had committed the offence as he left the city after murdering his wife by switching off his phone and did not contact anyone relating to the deceased and later on was arrested by the police.

The vague defence that PW­36 Umesh Chaturvedi had committed the offence does not hold any water as he has not produced any evidence in this regard and just giving suggestion without any substance cannot be taken as a defence.

The defence taken by accused in reply of question 27 under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he returned to his house to 7­8 a.m next morning, is also a false defence as he has not produced any evidence in this regard.

Accused also could not explain why he was hiding if he had not committed any offence.

The chain of circumstances coupled with the testimony of prosecution witnesses is complete and no other hypothesis is possible except this hypothesis. Accused had thrown the weapon of offence in Ganga river and the same could not be traced, hence the offence under Section 201 IPC also stands proved against the accused.

It is further submitted that the accused impersonated himself as Rakesh Kumar Nathani, hence, the offence u/s 419 IPC also stands proved against the accused. So, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 41 of 72

9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused Hemant Chaturvedi after committing murder of his wife (deceased) Kaumudi Chaturvedi on 25.02.2013 at his residence at Flat no. 110, Pocket­7, 3rd Floor, Saptrishi Apartments, Sector­ 23, Rohini, Delhi, fled away from there and remained absconded till he was arrested by the police from Kotdwar, Uttrakhand and that it has been proved by the prosecution witnesses that during the intervening period, the accused Hemant Chaturvedi changed his identity by fabricating and forging the documents and used them as genuine for opening the bank account and getting admission in open school education under the name by which the accused impersonated himself as Mr.Rakesh Nakul Naithani.

It is further argued that the matrimonial relations between the deceased and the accused were not cordial and the accused was facing trial on the complaint subsequent to registration of FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against him in Police Station Sarai Rohilla and during the pendency of trial, the accused Hemant Chaturvedi murdered his wife Kaumudi Chaturvedi (complainant therein) now deceased.

It is further argued that the murder was committed within the four walls of the house where the accused was residing alongwith his wife Kaumudi Chaturvedi (deceased)and their minor son namely Daivik Chaturvedi and the accused was well aware about the daily routine of his deceased wife and son i.e the son of the deceased used to go for his tuition classes between 5 p.m to 6 p.m and this fact was very much within the knowledge of the accused.

It is further argued that on the day of incident between 2:00 p.m SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 42 of 72 to 2.30 p.m., the accused came to the society where he resides and this fact has been established by the PW­20 Sh. Ratan Prasad, who is the gatekeeper of the society. This witness deposed to the effect that on the day of incident, the accused entered the society between 2.00 p.m to 2.30 p.m and exit from the society at about 6 p.m. This fact go unchallenged by the accused and not even a suggestion has been given to PW­ 20 to suggest otherwise. The accused questioned this witness that whether he had seen the accused entering his house, to which the witness deposed that the house of the accused is not within the sight from the entry gate of the society. Even otherwise, the witness was guarding the gate and not expected to watch the residents till their entry in their respective house and particularly, the 3rd floor where the accused resides. Therefore, the presence of the accused in the society has been established and from the normal course of human conduct, the only inference to be derived is that the accused went to his house unless the accused plead and prove otherwise as per section 106 of Evidence Act.

It is further argued that when the son of the deceased came back from his tuition at 6 p.m, he found a new door lock at the door of his flat, therefore, thinking that his mother may have gone to market, he went for playing. However, when he again returned to his flat, he found the flat still remained locked and thereupon, he made a call to his father and mother but found their phones switched off and then he made a call to his maternal grandfather who in turn made call to his son Sh. Vipul Nautiyal, PW­ 13, and in the course of the events reached at the flat and SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 43 of 72 called the police which opened the flat and found that the deceased was lying dead in her bedroom. The valuables and other articles in the house were found intact except the belongings of the accused and besides the mobile phones of the deceased and her son were also found switched off upon making a call to their numbers. The phone number of the accused was also responding switched off.

It is further argued that the accused did not turn back after 6 p.m since the day of incident and remained absconding till arrested by the police. The only explanation for his abscondance made by the accused is that he got feared as he was named as accused for the murder of his wife by his in laws. Even if, for the shake of arguments, it may be a reason for his initial abscondance but the said explanation is not tenable and is unnatural in view of the fact that the wife of the accused has been murdered and he kept absconding himself for 1 ½ year which ended in his arrest and during the intervening period, the accused impersonated himself under the name Rakesh Nakul Naithani by fabricated and forging the driving licence and educational certificate of his Secondary School examination and opened a bank account under the false name and got admission in National Institute of Open Schooling Study Centre at Children's Academy, Deharadun during the said period.

It is further argued that the abovesaid conduct of the accused qua impersonation is his subsequent conduct under section 8 of Evidence Act which is influenced by the murder in issue in the present case and, therefore, is a circumstance which is material for the only inference that the accused and only the accused has committed the murder of his wife.

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 44 of 72 It is further argued that the accused has the state of mind which is established from the question put by the accused to witnesses PW­13, 36, 38 and 39 stating that the deceased was having illicit relations with his cousin PW­36 Umesh Kumar Chaturvedi. From the cross­ examination of these abovesaid witnesses it is categorically established that on the day of incident, the accused was firm about his wife's illicit/ adulterous relations with PW­36. This state of mind of the accused establishes the fact that the accused had the motive to commit the offence of murdering the deceased/his wife.

It is further argued that all the proved circumstances leads to the only inference that it is the accused only who was well aware of the routines of his family which was used as an opportunity by him to commit the murder of his wife which is further corroborated by the conduct of the accused by not only remained absconding but also impersonating to change his identity.

In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the following case laws :

(i) Jayantilal Verma Vs State of MP, Date of Decision 19.11.2020, in Cri. Appeal no: 590/2015 wherein it has been held that :

"When incident has taken place inside privacy in house the onus lies upon the person residing in the house to give explanation in such situation that how the offence has been committed as it is difficult for the prosecution to lead any direct evidence to establish the guilt of the accused".

(ii) Motiram Padu Joshi Vs state of Maharashtra, AIR 2018 SC SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 45 of 72 3245, wherein it has been held that :

"relationship is not ground affecting the credibility of witness".

ARGUMENTS OF Ld. DEFENCE COUNSEL

10. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the present case is completely based upon circumstantial evidence as the present case does not bear any direct evidence against the accused nor there is any eye witness to the present case and the story of prosecution is completely based on the basis of alleged disclosure statement of the accused and if, the accused is able to bring out any missing link in the prosecution story or if, the prosecution fails to prove even one sequence, then the benefit has to be given to the accused.

It is further argued that in the criminal jurisprudence and under Indian Evidence act, the settled preposition of law is that "prosecution has to stand on its own legs" and hence, the prosecution holds the ultimate and primary responsibility to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the presumption under law in criminal cases is always in favor of the accused being innocent.

It is further argued that the prosecution has relied upon the following chain/sequence of events to prove its case:

(i) That the prosecution is relying on the "Last seen evidence" of PW­20 Sh. Rattan Prasad, the security guard of Saptrishi Apartments who had turned hostile and in his examination, the witness has accepted that he had not seen the accused entering into his flat on 25.02.2013 i.e. SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 46 of 72 the date of incident.

(ii) That the alleged recoveries including the alleged passbook(Ex.32/A), cheque book(Ex. PW 32/A2), ATM card (Ex. PW 32/A3), card issued by National school of Open Learning in the name of Rakesh Kumar, were owned, possessed & belonged to the accused and the same were in the exclusive possession of the accused whereas PW­ 35 SI Pawan Kumar has accepted in his cross­examination that the door of room from where the alleged recoveries were made, was not locked and anybody could enter in the said room. Thus, the said statement of PW­35 clarifies the fact that the alleged documents alleged to have been recovered at the behest of accused, were never in his exclusive possession and further shows that the alleged recovered documents/articles were planted upon the accused by the investigating authorities. It is further pertinent to mention that no recovery of weapon alleged to have been used by the accused or any other article was has been recovered from or at the behest of accused.

(iii) It is further argued that the case of prosecution is solely based on "circumstantial evidence". The prosecution in such a case has to, without any doubt, establish that all the circumstances only lead to the conclusion that the accused has committed the crime. In this case the, prosecution has completely failed to establish that the accused had committed the alleged offence. Prosecution is solely relying on the fact that the accused was nowhere found after the incident.

Ld. Counsel has contended that the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C has already answered/accepted that due to SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 47 of 72 apprehension of arrest by the police as his in­laws had earlier implicated him in false cases, he had fled away from the spot which satisfies the requirement of Sections 104/105 of Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, the accused has fulfilled his obligations towards his wife despite living separately from her for the last 8­9 years, by paying half amount of Rs. I1 lakhs approx. which goes to show that the accused had no reason to commit any such act.

(iv) It is further argued that the prosecution had further failed to prove that the accused was present at the alleged spot of murder, by any cogent evidence, rather have not been able to bring even a single evidence in support of the same that the accused was present at a particular place at the relevant time of alleged incident.

(v) That to prove the charge under Section 201 IPC, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had committed the murder of his wife and hence, the accused cannot be held guilty of disappearance of evidence, which also has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

(vi) That in the present matter, there is no direct evidence against the accused and the prosecution is merely relying upon the circumstantial evidence, which in itself not connected as a chain to prove the guilt of the accused and are also not proved by the prosecution during the trial. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court had settled the principles to be followed while considering any case upon circumstantial evidence in the case of "Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra" AIR 1984 SC 1622" wherein it has been clearly SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 48 of 72 stated that :

(i). Various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved;

(ii) The said circumstance point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness and;

(iii) The circumstances is in proximity to the time and situation.

(vii) It is further argued that in the present case, none of the above­ mentioned principles have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused shall be given benefit of doubt as the case of the prosecution points out towards merely 'suspicion' even if, considered to be established or gospel truth.

Ld. Counsel has further argued that Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda case (supra) has been thereafter followed in the following judgments and it has been held time and again by various Hon'ble High Courts and Supreme Court that the chain of the circumstances shall be complete in itself and conclusive, without any lacunas and must out rightly point towards the guilt of the accused and shall be fully proved by the prosecution:

Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2014(2) JCC 888 Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 502 Nizam & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2015 AIR (SC) 3430 Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab, VII (2012) SLT 57 Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (2) JCC 1235 Rishipal v. State of Uttrakhand, (2013) 12 SCC 551 Panna Lal v. State, 2014 (3) JCC 1896 Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1994 SC 2585 That even prior to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), the SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 49 of 72 Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid tests to be satisfied in appreciation of evidence by the trial courts in the cases based on "circumstantial evidence" in various judgments. Those judgments are as follows:

Mahmood v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 69 Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 1157

(viii) It is further argued that the probability that any other person could not enter the flat is false, as according to story of prosecution the door of the flat,where the accused and the deceased were living was open after their son Daivik left from the home for tuition classes and as per the story of the prosecution, the murder of the deceased had been committed between 5­6 p.m, i.e. the only time when the son of the accused went for his tuition classes.

(ix) Further the Hon'ble Apex Court, in various judgments, has put forth two primary tests being "test of proximity of time" and "test of proximity of distance" in relation to 'last seen theory' and in the present case, the prosecution has failed in both the tests. The principle regarding the "applicability of last seen theory" has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the following judgments:

Bodh Raj Bodha v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, V (2002) SLT 111 Rishipal v. State of Uttrakhand, (2013) 12 SCC 551 Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (2) JCC 1235 State of Karnatka v. Chand Basha, 2015 (9) SCALE 809 Surrender Prashad v. State, 2014 (1) JCC 569 Mohd. Yunush& Anr. v. State, 2016 (4) JCC 2407

(x) Further, it is an admitted fact of the prosecution that the SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 50 of 72 present case is totally based upon circumstantial evidences and no eye witnesses are present but the prosecution failed to prove that there was any 'motive' behind the commission of the alleged crime by the accused, which is a necessity in the cases based upon circumstantial evidence.

However, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any motive with the present accused to commit the alleged murder of his wife in the given facts and circumstances.

Various Courts of India have provided for the role of "motive" in various cases. Few of those judgments are:

Balkar Singh Vs State of U.P., 1990 Cri. LJ 77 Budha Satya Ven kata S. Rao Vs State of A.P., 1994 (4) SCALE 480 Tarseem Kumar Vs Delhi Administration, AIR 1994 SC 2585 Sukhram Vs State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 502

11. That the prosecution has failed to prove the core charge under Section 302 IPC in the present matter i.e. the charge of murder. The prosecution has not adduced sufficient evidence to prove that the deceased had been killed by the accused as no eye witness corroborating the story of the prosecution about the said crime was produced. That no fingerprint or any other relevant and conducive scientific evidence has béen brought on record by the investigating authorities or the prosecution, which could prove the presence of the accused at the scene of crime. That neither any weapon used for the same crime was recovered nor presented before the Court, nor any substantial effort was made by the Investigating Officer to recover the said weapon.

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 51 of 72

12. That it is further specifically argued that the alleged recoveries were made from a room in the village at Rishikesh on the alleged behest of accused cannot be solely attributed to the accused Hemant Chaturvedi as it has been duly admitted by PW­35 SI Pawan Kumar that the room was open and could be accessible to anyone and hence the alleged articles recovered from the said room cannot be said to be in exclusive possession of the accused Hemant Chaturvedi and hence, cannot be completely attributed to him.

13. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the prosecution story merely raises suspicion upon the accused for the commission of offences he has been charged and put to trial but the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts of India have time and again expressed their views that "suspicion however strong, cannot take place of legal proof"

especially in the cases solely based upon circumstantial evidences.

Ld. Counsel has further argued that in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's case (supra) it has been categorically stated that a moral conviction, however strong or genuine cannot take the place of legal conviction supported by law. It was further stated that it is well established principle of law that "Fouler the crime, gřeater the degree of proof" and where the life and liberty of accused is at stake, à careful, cautious and meticulous approach should be adopted by the Court.

14. Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on Jahar Lal Das v. State of SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 52 of 72 Orissa, (1991)3 SCC 27, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no conviction can be founded upon mere conjectures and suspicion and they should not replace legal proof under any circumstances.

15. Ld. Counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khekh Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 1 SCC 202 wherein it has been reiterated that suspicion how grave cannot take the place of proof.

16. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the prosecution has further not been able to prove the ingredients of the offence of causing disappearance of evidence of offence under Section 201 of IPC as the foremost ingredients of the offence have not been fulfilled as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts I various judgments is that for bringing home the conviction under Section 201 IPC, the prosecution must first prove that an offence had been committed and the knowledge of the same is by the accused and not merely a suspicion that it might have been committed by the accused and that the accused knowing or having reason to believe that such an offence had been committed and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, had caused the evidence thereafter to disappear as held in Suleman Rahiman v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 829. Thus, The proof of the commission of an offence is an essential requisite for bringing home the offence under section 201 of IPC.

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 53 of 72

17. Ld. Counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra [2007 (7) SCC 502] wherein it has been reiterated that to bring home an offence under Section 201 of IPC, the ingredients to be established are: (i) committal of an offence; (ii) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed; (iii) person charged with the said offence should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he should have given in formation respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false.

18. Ld. Counsel has further argued that it hardly needs any emphasis that in view of the above case law, it is clear that in order to bring home an offence under Section 201 of IPC, a mere suspicion is not sufficient. There must be on record cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown.

FINDINGS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION.

19. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of Section 300 IPC which defines the offence of murder as under:­ 300 Murder -­ Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or ­­­ SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 54 of 72 Secondly.­­ If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or -

Thirdly. - If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or -

Fourthly.­­ If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as it likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

20. Before proceeding further, it would be further imperative to red and understand the import of clause­3 of Section 300 IPC. Clause thirdly has been dealt with in the cause celebre Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following ingredients, must be proved:­

(i) First, that a bodily injury is present.

(ii) Second, the nature of the injury must be proved i.e. depth of the injury to vital organs etc.

(iii) Third, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury i.e. it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended. (i), (ii) and (iii) are subjective investigations.

(iv) After the above 3 conditions are fulfilled, it must be proved that the injury of the type described above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

21. Factors to be taken into account in adjudication of cases of circumstantial evidence have been enumerated in a plethora of cases, the gist whereof is as under :­ SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 55 of 72 "(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be established':

(ii) 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:

(iii)The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency:

(iv)They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and

(v) There must be a chan 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 probably the act must have been done by the accused (See Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 153: M.G. Agarwal v.

State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200 18)."

22. It has been held in case titled, Anjay Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam 2017 (6) SCALE 556 that :

"Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any instrusion of that place by and third party, then a relatively wider time gap wold not affect the prosecution case."

23. Further, it is settled law, how the recovery of weapon on the discloser statement of accused can be admissible and proved, in the case titled, SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 56 of 72 Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor 50 AIR 1947 PC 67, explaining this facet it was laid down as follows:­ "Section 27, which is not artistically worded, provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section into operation is that the discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a Police Officer must be deposed to an thereupon so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. The section seems to be baced on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence:

but clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. Normally the section is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment some object, such as a dead body, a weapon or ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is accused."

24. Further, in State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Asfan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600, relying on Pulukuri Kottaya, it has been observed that:­ "The first requisite condition for utilizing Section 27 in support of the prosecution case is that the investigating police officer should depose that he discovered a fact in consequence of the information received from an accused persons in police custody. Thus, there must be a discovery of fact not within the knowledge of police officer as a consequence of information received. Of course, it is axiomatic that the information or disclosure should be free SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 57 of 72 from any element of compulsion. The next component of Section 27 relates to the nature and extent of information that can be proved. It is only so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered that can be proved and nothing more."

25. This was followed consistently by the Court in India in all future decisions and was succinctly reiterated by a Full Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 Crl.L.J 1738, where the Hon'ble Court while discussing the entire gamut of decision has laid down the five golden principles of proof in a case based on circumstantial evidence thereby laying down that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say, they should not be explained 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 that 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 probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.

26. The remaining evidence on record is circumstantial in nature and SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 58 of 72 it is necessary to repeat the law on the appreciation of circumstantial evidence as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in catena of Judgments, Some of the same may be enumerated as under:

The case titled Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs. State of Gujrat reported as AIR 1978 SC 424, in which para 7 the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down as follows:

"It is well established that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court will have to bear in the mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Any missing link may be fatal to the prosecution case".

27. Again in the case titled Kishan Lal Vs. State, 1998 VI AD (DELHI) 177, case titled as Chander Pal Vs. State, 1998 (2) JCC (DELHI) 207, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as follows:

"It is settled position of law that in a case of circumstantial evidence all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be of conclusive nature and SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 59 of 72 definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused".

28. The law with regard to the "last seen evidence" has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment, titled Ganpat Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported as 2 017 (4) JCC 2592, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows in para 10 of the Judgment:

"Evidence that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased assumes significance when the lapse of time between the point when the accused and the deceased were seen together and when the deceased is found dead is so minimal as to exclude the possibility of a supervening event involving the death at the hands of another. The settled formulation of law as follows:

"The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases.

29. Hon'ble Delhi High Court is case titled Deepak Chaddha Vs. State, reported as 2012 (1) JCC 540, has held that :

"deceased and the appellant were last seen together at 07.30 pm when the two left the house of the deceased, and that the deceased SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 60 of 72 was found grievously injured happens to be a public street at around 10.15 pm and this time gap of about 2 hours and 45 minutes does not rule out the possibility of somebody else being assailant".

30. Again Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as Ravi Kumar @ Sonu v. State, reported as 2013 (2) JCC 1394, has held that where a gap of 15 hours was there between last seen evidence and recovery of the dead body, the possibility cannot be ruled out that in the course of the night, other persons would have boarded the TSR of the deceased for killing him.

31. Similar were the findings of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases reported as 2011 (3) JCC 1532 and 2017 (2) JCC 932.

32. Although the motive is not an essential ingredient to be proved in a murder case but if the case is resting on circumstantial evidence then the motive becomes important to be established by the prosecution. In the other words, the question of motive is not material where there is a direct evidence of the acts of the accused and the acts themselves are sufficient to disclose the intention of accused. But in case of circumstantial evidence absence of motive may be a factor in favour of the accused.

33. Thus, the cardinal rule in the criminal law is that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused. In Batcu Venkateshwarlu v. Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P, (SC) 2009(1) R.C.R ( Criminal) 290 :

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 61 of 72 2009(1) R.A.J: 2008 (15) Scale 212, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to "proof"

is an exercise particular to each case.....

Doubts would called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation.

Law cannot afford any favorite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over­emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence,or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case."

34. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in case No. 1005 of 2000 vide order dated 30.01.2002, it has been held that :­ Section 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen together - Accused hired the taxi of deceased - stayed overnight in Ranipura - Dead body of deceased found next day in the field - Accused arrested by patrolling party in suspicious circumstances - Conviction maintained.

Section 302 - Section 8 of Evidence Act, 1872 - Murder -

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 62 of 72 Absence of motive - Case proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence - Absence of motive can not disprove the case of prosecution, otherwise established.

35. Further, in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharastra in Crl. Appeal no. 1341 of 2005, decided on 11.10.2006: Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Burden of Proof - Murder is secrecy inside a house - If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, is insisted upon by the Courts - Law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led - Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.

36. Now, turning to the evidence which has come on record. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to discuss the disclosure statement of present accused. After arrest, the disclosure statement Ex.PW­33/A was made by the accused on 26.02.2013, wherein he stated that he was married to the deceased Kaumudi in the year 1998 and one son namely Daivik was born out of this wedlock on 10.08.1999 and thereafter, the relations between the accused and his wife became strained and while the accused used to go out for work, his family friend namely Umesh started coming to his house in his absence and his wife had relations with said Umesh due to which his wife started living separately from him and also filed a complaint case under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against the accused and his family members. After SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 63 of 72 sometime, the matter between the accused and his wife was settled and he gave Rs. 11 lacs to his wife Kaumudi out of the settled amount of Rs. 15 lacs and they again started living together at Flat No. 110, Saptrishi Apartments, Sector­23, Rohini.

At that time, the deceased started working as teacher in Ryan International Public School. During those days, the accused had seen his wife and Umesh in compromising position many times. One day, he had seen the identity card of his son Daivik wherein he had seen that the name of Umesh Chaturvedi was mentioned as father of his son Daivik Chaturvedi. Thereafter, he made a plan to kill his wife and Umesh Chaturvedi and on 25.02.2013, he went for his duty as usual knowing that Umesh would come at his house in his absence and his son would go for tuition classes at 5.00 p.m. Accordingly, he left his office in the afternoon, purchased chopper from the market, kept it inside his bag and entered in his apartment without stopping his motorcycle near the gate/entry point of society as he was known to the gatekeeper being resident of the said society. Thereafter, he hide himself inside the society and waited for Umesh to come.

At about 3.30/3.45 p.m, he saw Umesh and his son Daivik near the gate of the society and his son was carrying some article in polythene bag and Umesh left from there after leaving his son Daivik. Thereafter, he waited there up to 5 p.m and at about 5.00 p.m, after his son had left for tuition classes, he reached his house and finding the door open, he entered the house and found that his wife Kaumudi was lying on a bed in a room, however, she did not notice him. He pulled SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 64 of 72 out chopper from his bag and assaulted on her and killed her after scuffle. Thereafter, the accused kept the said chopper and his blood stained clothes in a polythene bag and left from the spot on his bike, left his bike and boarded a bus from Anand Vihar Bus Terminal for Rishikesh.

In this regard, since it is settled law, I am of the considered view that under Section 27 Evidence Act, the facts qua disclosure statement can be admissible and proved in support of discovery of said facts.

In the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused, motorcycle was recovered at his instance and the same has been duly proved by the independent witnesses Sh. Sumant Chauhan (PW­21) and Sh. Babu Lal (PW­22) who deposed that the said motorcycle was parked near their shops for about 1 ½ year.

37. So far as the proving of other documents i.e. school identity card of Master Daivik Chaturvedi has been proved by PW­13 Sh. Vipul Nautiyal as Ex.PW­13/D1 (in his cross­examination) and other documents i.e. passbook of Allahabad Bank, Kotdwar Branch, Uttrakhand, cheque book of the said bank, ATM card of the said bank, identity card issued by National Institute of Open Schooling, Dehradun in the name of "Rakesh Nakul Naithani" and identity card issued by Ryan International School, Rohini, Delhi in the name of Daivik Chaturvedi showing his father's name as "Hemant Chaturvedi" have been proved by PW­32 Ct. Surender as Ex.PW­32/A1 to Ex.PW­32/A5 respectively.

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 65 of 72

38. Now coming to the evidence came on record in respect to the "last seen theory". In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW­20 Sh. Ratan Prasad who is the security guard of Saptrishi Appartments. He has deposed on the lines of prosecution and remained firm on the point that he had seen the accused entering into the apartment on his motorcycle in between 2.00 p.m to 2.30 p.m. and had also seen the accused coming out of the said apartment on the same day at about 6 p.m. This fact/testimony remained unchallenged by the accused and no suggestion was put to this witness in his cross­examination on this point. Furthermore, despite acknowledging this incriminating evidence, while putting question No. 25 to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has replied "it is incorrect" and Ld. Defence counsel only addressed arguments on this point that testimony of this witness is not reliable as he turned hostile. However, during cross­examination, it has been asked to PW­20 whether he had seen the accused coming out from the flat to which the witness replied that he had not seen the accused while entering his flat on 25.02.2013 nor he could say if the accused went to his flat on 25.02.2013 as the said flat is not visible from the gate of society.

In this regard, I am of the considered view that since the witness (PW­20) was guarding the gate of the society and as such, not expected to watch the residents till their entry in their respective houses and particularly, the 3rd floor where the accused was residing, therefore, the presence of accused in the society has been established and from the SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 66 of 72 normal course of human conduct, the only inference to be derived is that the accused went to his house unless the accused plead and prove otherwise as per section 106 of Evidence Act.

Motive

39. So far as the evidence qua the 'motive' is concerned, it is specifically deposed by PW­13 Sh. Vipul Nautiyal that relations between his deceased sister and the accused were not good/cordial and there were disputes between his sister and accused since marriage till her death and that the accused had the motive to commit crime. Furthermore, one case under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC was also pending against the accused at the relevant time. In this regard, it is important to note here that the accused had brought the deceased for re­ union only 6 months before the commission of alleged offence and started living with the deceased at rented accommodation.

Further, PW­39 Master Daivik Chaturvedi had also categorically deposed that behaviour of the accused was not good during October­ 2012 till 25.02.2013 and he used to intimidate his mother and on the date of incident also, when he entered the house, he found that the articles were scatted in the room showing that scuffle might have taken place between his mother and father.

PW­39 further deposed that routine of his father/accused was that he used to go out in the morning and come in the late evening. Further, he also deposed that he used to go to attend his tuition classes at about 5.00 p.m till 6.00 p.m. and his mother and father usually quarrel.

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 67 of 72 Further, from the cross­examination of PW­36 Sh. Umesh Kumar Chaturvedi, it has come on record that PW­36 used to visit the deceased at her flat situated at Saptrishi Apartments in the absence of accused and the accused Hemant Chaturvedi had lodged several complaints against Sh. Umesh Chaturvedi (PW­36) and one of the complaints had been exhibited by him as Ex.PW­36/DX3 and had also warned his wife not to meet Umesh or his family members but she did not stop talking to him. Further, PW­36 deposed that he had a joint home loan with the deceased for purchasing a property at Meerut, U.P. Further, the accused knew that PW­36 Sh. Umesh Chaturvedi had represented himself as father of his son Master Davik Chaturvedi in school records and other documents and PW­36 also admitted his signatures on the identity card of Master Davik Chaturvedi exhibited as Ex.PW36/DX4.

From the above discussion, it is clear that on the date of alleged incident, the accused was firm about his wife's relations with Sh. Umesh Chaturvedi (PW­36) and hence, had the strong motive to kill/murder his wife i.e. deceased Kaumudi, more particularly, when the accused and his family members were facing trial for a case lodged by his wife under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC for cruelty, harassment in further of dowry demands and mis­appropriation of her stri­dhan articles, which case was however, later on resulted in acquittal of the accused on 30.11.2017 i.e. long after the alleged incident i.e. on 25.02.2013. Hence, it can't be said that the accused did not have any motive to murder his wife (deceased).

SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 68 of 72 Conduct of the Accused

40. Last, but not the least, it is important to note here that the conduct of the accused is relevant in the present case as it is established by the prosecution that the accused was residing in impersonation i.e. hiding his identity and residing at Kotdwar, Uttrakhand with the identity of 'Rakesh Kumar Naithani' and the prosecution has proved all the documents which he has filed either by way of opening his account in the bank or getting his admission in school of open learning. All these documents were seized by the police at the instance of accused which were subsequently proved by PW­32 in the Court as Ex.PW­13/A1 to Ex.PW­32/A5, as such, all these documents are relevant and admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act. Moreover, the subsequent conduct of the accused is also relevant and suspicious as he himself explained through answer to the questions put to him while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he came back to the place of incident/his house at about 10 p.m in the night but did not come out because of his fear of false implication for the murder of his wife.

Whether this explanation can be considered as proper explanation or not. Further on appreciation of evidence of PWs, it has also come on record that the accused did not come to perform the last rites/cremation of his wife, fled away from the spot and hide himself with different identity for about 1 ½ year and also hide his motorcycle for the said period which was later on seized by the police at the instance of PW­21 vide memo Ex.PW­21/A and was produced in the court and exhibited as Ex.P4. Therefore, the conduct of the accused is also relevant under SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 69 of 72 Section 8 of Evidence Act which is influenced by the fact of murder and relevant circumstantial evidence and inference can be drawn that the accused had committed the murder of his wife.

41. Further, the lock put at the house of the accused at the time of commission of alleged offence was found to be broken and was later on recovered at the instance of accused, which was seized by the police vide memo Ex.35/H and exhibited in the Court as Ex.P­14.

All these facts, create strong circumstantial evidence and complete the chain against the accused for his being committing the murder of his wife, particularly, when the accused knew that at the relevant time, his son would also be not available as he goes for his tuition classes at that time.

42. Further, neither in the cross­examination of witnesses nor in the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, no such defence has been put by the accused that the accused was not present at the place of incident or that the accused was present somewhere else on the date and time of commission of alleged offence. The only defence taken by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C is that he is innocent and has not committed any offence and nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession or at his instance and the alleged recovery has been planted upon him by the police and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he used to come after his office timings only at around 7.00 p.m to SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 70 of 72 8 p.m. Moreover, no evidence in defence has been led by the accused to prove otherwise.

43. Further, as per the postmortem report, Ex.PW­1/A proved by PW­ 1 Dr. Manoj Dhingra prepared by him along with Dr. Vivek Rawat, the time since death was 6 hours prior to its preservation in the mortuary of SGM Hospital and the doctor opined the cause of death to be shock associated with damage for head, neck and vertebral structures under injury No. 3 and 4 which are fresh and antemortem at the time of death and is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries were caused by heavy, sharp edged weapon. However, the accused has denied regarding the postmortem conducted vide Ex.PW­1/A on the dead body of the deceased in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

44. It is true that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C are not a mere formality or purposeless. They have a dual purpose to discharge, firstly, that the entire material parts of the incriminating evidence should be put to the accused in accordance with law and, secondly, to provide an opportunity to the accused to explain his conduct or his version of the case. To provide this opportunity to the accused is the mandatory duty of the Court. If the accused deliberately fails to avail this opportu­ nity, then the consequences in law have to follow, particularly when it would be expected of the accused in the normal course of conduct to SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 71 of 72 disclose certain facts which may be within his personal knowledge and have a bearing on the case. Reliance can be placed on the case title Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 16.8.12 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

45. In the light of the discussion above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, hence the accused Hemant Chaturvedi is convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/201/419/471 IPC.

(Rakesh Kumar­IV) Announced in Open Court ASJ­02­cum­Special Judge, on 17th Day of March, 2021 (NDPS), North­West District, Rohini:Delhi SC No. 52131/6 State Vs. Hemant Chaturvedi Page No. 72 of 72