Delhi District Court
State vs Vinod Gupta on 12 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT - 01) :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
STATE Vs VINOD GUPTA
SC No. : 2244/2016
FIR No. : 383/2015
U/S : 302 IPC
PS : Sarita Vihar
Particulars of the case
a) Date of Offence : 10.05.2015
b) Offence complained of : 302 IPC
c) Name of the complainant : Sushil Das
d) Name of the accused : Vinod Gupta
His parentage, Sh. Vijay Gupta
R/o H. No. G-4, Aali Vihar,
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
Permanent address : Village Nogchhaiya, PS
Gopalpur, District-
Bhagalpur, Bihar.
e) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not
guilty
f) Final order : Accused convicted under
section 302 IPC
g) Date of Institution : 04.09.2015
SC No. 2244/2016
FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 1 of 41
h) Date of Judgment reserved for orders : 27.11.2024
i) Date of Judgment : 12.12.2024
j) Ld. Additional PP for the State : Sh. Ashok Debberma
k) Ld. Counsel for the accused : Sh. Virender Kasana
JUDGMENT
1. CHARGE-SHEET 1.01 As per charge-sheet, on 10.05.2015, SI Devender received DD No. 8A (regarding stabbing of a lady) through Ct. Khem Chand. SI Devender along with Ct. Ranjeet reached AIIMS hospital wherein Sweety, w/o Mukesh was found admitted vide MLC no. 489943/15. As per doctor, she was not fit for statement. As per MLC, there was incised looking wound of 4 cm x 1 cm left hypochondria, with omentum coming out of it and there was laceration of 4 cm x 1 cm, left upper chest. No eye witness was found in the hospital. Thereupon, SI Devender reached at G-4, Aali Vihar, where he met one local resident namely Sushil Das. He gave statement regarding the incident.
1.02 Sushil Das stated that he is a tenant in the premises and works as a rickshaw puller. Sweety @ Chanda w/o Mukesh and one Vinod Gupta reside in his adjacent room. There are about 50 rooms in the building owned by Triloki. Sweety and Vinod were tenant in two rooms for about last 6 months and they used to visit each other's room. Around 01:30 AM, his daughter woke him up stating that Sweety has been stabbed by Vinod SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 2 of 41 with knife. He went to the room of Chanda and found her in injured condition and blood was oozing out from her abdomen. The neighbors called the police. Chanda was taken in the PCR vehicle and he also accompanied her. On asking by PCR officials, Chanda stated to them that she had been stabbed by Vinod and thereafter he fled with the knife. Sushil Das also stated that Chanda had stated the fact about being stabbed with knife, at her room also. Chanda was brought to AIIMS hospital by a PCR vehicle and after she was admitted, he returned to his home. Sushil Das prayed that action shall be taken against Vinod who has absconded after stabbing Chanda.
1.03 Sushil Das also pointed out the room of Sweety @ Chanda where blood drops were present at two spots in the room. Meanwhile, SI Devinder received information about death of Sweety vide DD No.11A. He prepared tehrir under section 302 IPC and sent Ct. Ranjeet for registration of the FIR. The FIR was marked to Inspector Ram Niwas for investigation. 1.04 Insp. Ram Niwas along with Ct. Ranjeet reached at the spot and crime team was called. The crime team inspected and photographed the spot. Exhibits (blood drops) were lifted and seized from the spot. 1.05 On 11.05.2015, IO/Insp. Ram Niwas arrested the accused and he disclosed that he knew deceased Sweety @ Chanda for the last 10-12 years. She had taken divorce from her husband Mukesh and started residing at G-4, Aali Vihar on rent. Vinod had also taken a room on rent in said SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 3 of 41 premises. Later on, they both started residing together as husband-wife in one room and the second room was used as guest room. He got suspicion on Chanda that she was talking to somebody else and they had disputes regarding the same. On 10.05.2015, at 01:00 AM, they had altercation between them and out of anger, he stabbed Chanda with a kitchen knife and fled from there.
1.06 One knife was recovered at the instance of accused and same was seized. Accused was remanded to JC. HC Data Ram and Ct. Prakash were sent to parental village of Chanda but her father Chunni Lal refused to come to Delhi and receive her dead body.
1.07 When no family member turned up, the postmortem of deceased Chanda was conducted on 14.05.2015 and her cremation was done. The exhibits obtained through postmortem were seized from the doctor. In the postmortem the doctor opined that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock as a result of antemortem injury to great artery (abdominal aorta) produced by sharp and pointed weapon and that injury no.1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 1.08 The case exhibits were sent to FSL. PCR form was obtained. Scaled site plan was got prepared. In the personal search of accused Vinod Gupta, two mobile phones were recovered. The call details of mobile no. 9810685616 were obtained but the call detail of the second mobile was not yet received. The call detail of mobile no. 8826044313 from which call was SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 4 of 41 made to 100 number was also obtained. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed under section 302 IPC against the accused Vinod Gupta mentioning that the pending FSL result, subsequent opinion on PM report and phone records shall be filed through supplementary charge-sheet. 1.09 Subsequently, the FSL report regarding DNA examination of the exhibits was filed under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. by way of an application. As per the FSL report, blood was found on the knife and its DNA was found matching with DNA of deceased.
1.10 Later on, the subsequent opinion regarding the injury qua the weapon of offence was obtained and was filed under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. by way of an application. As per the opinion the injury no.1 mentioned in PM report was possible by the recovered weapon.
2. CHARGE 2.1 On the basis of charge-sheet, charge u/s 302 IPC was framed against accused Vinod Gupta to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the charge-sheet.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.1 In support of its case, prosecution has examined 23 witnesses as follows:-
SC No. 2244/2016FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 5 of 41 Serial Name of the witness Nature of the evidence No. PW1 Soni Neighbor of deceased/Circumstantial witness PW2 Saraswati Neighbor of deceased/Circumstantial witness PW3 Sushil Das Neighbor of deceased/Circumstantial witness/complainant PW4 Surender Kumar Neighbor of deceased/PCR caller PW5 Trilok Pal Singh Landlord of deceased and accused PW6 Dr. Pranay Kabiraj Witness who identified the signature of Dr. Mahavir Singh on the MLC of deceased PW7 ASI Prakash Singh Police official who deposited the exhibits at FSL PW8 Ct. Sunil Kumar Duty constable at AIIMS PW9 Insp. Mahesh Kumar Draftsman who prepared scaled site plan PW10 Ct. Vijay Kumar Computer operator who recorded the FIR in police station PW11 WHC Mukesh Police official at PCR control room who attended the PCR call regarding the incident PW12 HC Harsahay PCR vehicle official who attended the call and took the SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 6 of 41 injured to hospital PW13 HC Ranjeet Singh Police official who accompanied the First and Second IO during investigation PW14 HC Amit Singh Crime scene photographer PW15 HC Praveen Duty Officer who recorded the FIR PW16 Insp. Sanjay Kumar In-charge crime team who inspected the spot PW17 Dr. Suminder Kaur FSL expert who examined the case exhibits for DNA profiling PW18 Raj Kumar Record Clerk, AIIMS who identified the signatures of Dr. Mahesh Kumar on the PM report PW19 HC Shankar Special messenger of FIR to senior officers PW20 Retd. SI Devinder First IO who attended the PCR call and also participated in the investigation with the main IO PW21 ASI Harender The then MHC(M) Kumar PW22 Insp. Ram Niwas Main IO of the case PW23 Dr. Mahesh Kumar Doctor who conducted postmortem of deceased and gave subsequent opinion about injury/knife SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 7 of 41 3.2 The prosecution has exhibited following documents/objects in support of its case:-
No. of Exhibits Nature of Exhibits Ex.PW3/A Statement of complainant Sushil Das on which case was registered Ex.PW3/B Sketch of knife Ex.PW3/C Seizure memo of knife Ex.PW6/A MLC of injured/deceased Sweety Ex.PW9/A Scaled site plan Ex.PW10/A Computerized copy of FIR Ex.PW10/B Certificate under section 65B of IEA regarding the FIR Ex.PW11/A PCR form regarding the call Ex.PW12/A Certified copy of order dated 01.06.2020 passed by ACP PCR regarding destruction of old record Ex.PW12/B Certified copy of order dated 21.02.2020 passed by ACP PCR regarding destruction of old record Ex.PW12/C Certified copy of order dated 24.10.2019 passed by ACP PCR regarding destruction of old record Ex.PW12/D Copy of log book of Kite-09 PCR Ex.PW13/A Seizure memo of blood in gauze and earth control from the spot Ex.PW13/B Arrest memo of accused Ex.PW13/C Personal search memo of accused SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 8 of 41 Ex.PW13/D Pointing out memo Ex.PW13/E Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW13/F Knife Ex.PW14/A 8 photographs of the spot Ex.PW14/B Negatives of the above 8 photographs Ex.PW15/A Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW15/B DD No. 16A Ex.PW16/A Inspection report of crime scene Ex.PW17/A FSL result regarding serological analysis/DNA profiling of case exhibits Ex.PW17/B Annexure to the afore-said report, regarding geno type data of DNA profiling Ex.PW18/P1 PM report Ex.PW20/P1 Certified copy of DD No. 8A Ex.PW20/P2 Certified copy of DD No. 7B Ex.PW20/P3 Certified copy of DD No. 11A Ex.PW20/P4 Rukka Ex.PW20/P5 Seizure memo of blood gauze Ex.PW21/P1 Entry regarding blood in gauze and earth control in register no. 19 vide No. 1764 Ex.PW21/P2 Entry regarding two mobile phones and one purse in register no. 19 vide No. 1766 Ex.PW21/P3 Entry regarding blood in gauze in SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 9 of 41 register no. 19 vide No. 1770 Ex.PW21/P4 Original road certificate bearing no. 62/21/15 Ex.PW21/P5 Acknowledgment by FSL regarding receiving of case property Ex.PW22/P1 Site plan Ex.PW22/P2 Application for postmortem Ex.PW22/P3 Inquest report of deceased Ex.PW22/P4 Application under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for filing of FSL report Ex.PW23/P1 Sketch of knife Ex.PW23/P2 Opinion of Dr. Mahesh Kumar regarding the possibility of injuries by recovered weapon 3.3 Though 23 witnesses have been examined by prosecution but the main witnesses of the case are:- I) PW - 1 Ms. Soni / neighbor of deceased / circumstantial witness; II) PW - 2 / Ms. Saraswati / neighbor of deceased / circumstantial witness; III) PW - 3 / neighbor of deceased / circumstantial witness / complainant; IV) PW - 5 / Trilok Pal Singh / landlord of deceased & accused; V) PW - 20 / Retd. SI Devinder / First IO who attended the PCR SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 10 of 41 call; VI) PW - 22 / Insp. Ram Niwas / Main IO. 3.4 PW - 1 Soni deposed that she is a housewife. In the year 2015,
she had visited her paternal house. She does not recollect date or month, however, it was year 2015. It was night hours around 1:30AM. She was sleeping at house of her parents. She heard noise of crying of a lady namely Sweety who was residing as tenant in their adjoining room. Her parents were also residing as a tenant in one room of the above-said house on the ground floor. She immediately rushed to the room of deceased and saw that she was having a knife injury on her stomach. She was crying. She was saying that Vinod had stabbed knife injury to her. Thereafter, she woke up her father who was also sleeping. Thereafter, other persons of the adjoining room also gathered there. One of the tenant namely Surender called the police after taking mobile phone from some other tenant. After sometime police reached there. Vinod was not present at that time in the said room.
She does not know the relationship of the deceased with Vinod. The witness correctly identified accused Vinod during her testimony stating that she had seen him residing with the deceased in the rented premises. Her father along with police took the injured to the hospital.
PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel. 3.5 PW -2 Ms. Saraswati deposed that on 10.05.2015, she was SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 11 of 41 residing at House no. G-4, Aali Vihar, Sarita Vihar. Deceased Chanda was also residing in the same building and about 2-3 rooms are situated between her room and room of Chanda. In the night, at about 01.00 am, she was present at her house. She heard the noise of crying. Thereafter, they came out of their room. She along-with one neighbour reached at the room of deceased Chanda. She saw that Chanda was lying in injured condition in the room and she was crying as " Vinod ne chakoo maar diya chakoo maar diya". Vinod was her husband and Chanda was residing along with Vinod in the room where she was lying in the injured condition. Thereafter, she made a call to the police on 100 number by her mobile phone no. 8826044313. After sometime police came at the spot and deceased was removed to the hospital. PW-2 was interrogated by the police. Her statement was recorded by IO. The accused Vinod was identified by the witness who stated that he was residing along-with deceased at the time of incident in the above-said room.
PW-2 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel. 3.6 PW - 3 Sushil Das deposed that on 10.05.2015, he was residing with family in the house no. G-4, Aali Vihar, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. He was rickshaw puller. About 25 rooms were built up in the same premises of G-4, Aali Vihar. At about 01.00 am, his daughter Soni was shouting and she woke him up. Soni informed him that deceased Sweeti @ Chanda was crying in her room that "chakoo maar diya chakoo mar dia".
SC No. 2244/2016FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 12 of 41 He alongwith Soni went in the room of deceased. He saw that knife was stabbed in the stomach of the deceased. Saraswati had informed to the PCR at 100 number. PCR came at the spot and removed deceased to the hospital. He does not know who had caused the injuries to the deceased. When he reached in the room of deceased she was crying that " Vinod ne chakoo maar dia, Vinod ne chakoo maar dia ". Blood was oozing from the injury of the deceased. Accused Vinod is residing in the room situated near his room. The accused Vinod was identified by the witness during his testimony. He further deposed that accused Vinod and Sweeti were residing together prior to the incident. However, at the time of incident, deceased and accused were residing separately in the separate room in the same premises. His statement was recorded vide Ex.PW3/A by the IO. He had shown the place of occurrence to the IO.
He further deposed that next day on 11.05.2015 accused was arrested by the police. Nothing was recovered by the accused in his presence. Knife was not seized by police in his presence. Police also did not prepare sketch of knife in his presence. His statement was not recorded by the IO regarding recovery of the knife.
PW-3 was cross-examined by Ld. APP as he was resiling from his previous statement regarding recovery of the knife.
During his cross-examination by Ld. APP, PW-3 admitted his signatures on sketch of knife Ex.PW3/B. He also admitted that his SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 13 of 41 signatures on the seizure memo of the knife Ex.PW3/C. However, he stated that his signatures were obtained by the IO in the PS on the said memo.
The supplementary statement of the witness dated 11.05.2015 mark A was put to the witness by Ld. APP but he denied the facts mentioned in the same.
PW-3 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel. 3.7 PW -5 Trilok Pal Singh deposed that he is working in Delhi Jal Board and in his house, there are 50 rooms constructed. The said house is having construction upto first floor. There are 25 rooms on Ground Floor and 25 rooms on the first floor. He knows accused Vinod Gupta as he resided as a tenant in his house in the year 2014-2015. Initially, the accused took one room on rent of Rs.1,100/- per month and he was residing therein alone. After some months, wife of the accused came there to reside with him alongwith two or three children. After some time, some matrimonial dispute arose between accused and his wife. PW-5 tried to counsel them but they did not (settle their dispute) and after some time, wife of the accused along-with children went to her native place.
One girl namely Chanda, since deceased, was residing in another room in his house as a tenant and she was also paying rent of Rs.1100/- per month. Other tenants made complaint to him against accused that he used to quarrel with the said girl namely Chanda. Thereafter, he tried to counsel accused two-three times not to quarrel with her as he was SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 14 of 41 creating nuisance for other tenants. When accused did not mend his behaviour, then PW-5 locked his room after placing his belongings out of the room and told him to leave. He also locked the room of Chanda. It was Friday as far as he recollect as Chanda made call to him and apprised him that it was Friday and she was having fast of Santoshi Mata and she requested him to allow her to stay in the room for night as she was not having any other place for night stay. She told him that she would vacate the room on the next day. However, he does not remember the date and month but it was the year 2015 and on the next day, he came to know from other tenants that accused Vinod Gupta had murdered Chanda while stabbing her. The police made inquiries from him after this incident. He does not know if his statement was recorded by the police as the police did not ask him to sign any paper. However, the police inquired him about the incident.
PW-5 was cross-examined by Ld. APP as he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police.
However, during his cross-examination by the prosecution, he denied that he had stated in his statement to police that he rented out two rooms to the accused Vinod Gupta and Chanda (deceased) to Rs. 1500/- per month and initially they resided separately but later on they started residing in one room and they were using the other room oftenly. He was confronted with the statement Ex.PW5/A where it is so recorded. He further denied SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 15 of 41 that he had told to the IO in his statement that he did not see parents of Chanda and her husband visiting her and from other relatives, he came to know that Vinod Gupta and Chanda were residing as husband and wife and Chanda was paying rent of both the rooms to him and he never saw children of Vinod Gupta visiting him. He was confronted with the statement Ex.PW5/A where it is so recorded. He also denied that due to lapse, he has forgotten the aforesaid facts or that the above mentioned facts were told by him to police.
PW-5 was briefly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel. 3.8 PW - 20 Retired SI Devinder deposed substantially as per the contents of the charge-sheet.
PW-20 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel. 3.9 PW -22 Insp. Ram Niwas deposed substantially as per the contents of the charge-sheet.
PW-22 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
4. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CrPC 4.1 After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s 313 CrPC. He denied all the allegations.
He stated that he was residing in the premises at H. No. G-4, Aali Vihar, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi about 15 days ago before the incident SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 16 of 41 but he was shunted out by the landlord. He was apprehended by the police but from some other place. PW-3 Sushil Das knew him as he was tenant in the same premises. He claimed that he had a quarrel with Sushil Das about 15 days from the incident and for the said reason his daughter/PW-1 Soni deposed against him. He denied that he was Chanda's husband and stated that she was already married. He stated that he had no relation with PW-5 Trilok Pal Singh and said witness has deposed falsely. In regard to his arrest/personal search, he stated that he himself had gone to the police station and he had only one mobile and the purse. He admitted that his mobile no. was 9810685616. However, he never had any talks on phone with Chanda. He claimed that witnesses have deposed against him being the relative of Sushil Das.
5. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 5.1 Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
6. ARGUMENTS 6.1 Arguments were heard on behalf of the accused as well as Ld. Additional PP for the State.
6.2 Ld. Additional PP for the State has argued that 3 witnesses have deposed about dying declaration of deceased Chanda wherein she named the accused as the person who had stabbed her. All the said persons SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 17 of 41 were the immediate neighbors of the deceased and their presence was natural and they had no reason to depose falsely regarding the said fact. Further, the weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of accused and in the DNA profiling blood was detected on the same and even the DNA found on the knife was found matching with the DNA of the deceased. Therefore, the case of prosecution has been duly proved against the accused and he shall be convicted under section 302 IPC as charged. 6.3 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the accused was not named in the PCR call. For the first time, his name came in the statement of complainant. However, the complainant is interested witness as he was the resident of the village of deceased. Nobody has seen the accused coming or exiting the room of deceased. Even the presence of PW-1 Soni at the alleged place at the given time is doubtful as she was a married lady and therefore, should have been present at her matrimonial home instead of her parental house. Further, even PW-5 Trilok Pal Singh has deposed that the accused was shunted out from the premises and even his belongings were removed from his room. This shows that accused was not even in present in the premises. Further, PW-3 Sushil Das has denied that the knife was recovered in his presence and has stated that his signatures were obtained on the documents by the IO. Therefore, the alleged recovery of knife at the instance of accused falls flat. Moreover, even the testimonies of police witnesses are inconsistent regarding the SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 18 of 41 recovery. As far as the dying declaration of deceased is concerned, PW-12 HC Harsahay/PCR van In-charge deposed that the lady was in unconscious condition when she was shifted from the spot. Accordingly, it was not possible that she could have given a dying declaration to anyone. Ld. Counsel has argued that the actual husband of deceased was not even examined by the IO as a suspect or a witness, whereas IO admitted that she did not have cordial relations with her husband. Even the father of deceased was not examined as a witness and rather as per IO he refused to come to Delhi to take the body of his deceased daughter. Ld. Counsel has submitted that in the given circumstances the chain of evidence against the accused is incomplete and it is possible that the deceased may have been killed by her husband or anybody else. Accordingly, it is argued that the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
7. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 7.1 I have considered the arguments of the parties and have perused the record.
7.2 The relevant provisions applicable in present case are reproduced herewith:-
Section 302 IPC - "Punishment for murder- Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine".SC No. 2244/2016
FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 19 of 41 Section 300 IPC defines murder - It provides -
"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- (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 is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid."
7.3 After considering the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties, following points for determination arise: -
i. Whether the testimony of complainant is credible? ii. Whether the testimonies of other circumstantial witnesses are credible?
iii. Whether there are doubts in the recovery of alleged knife at the instance of accused?
iv. Whether the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence of murder?SC No. 2244/2016
FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 20 of 41
8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF LAW 8.1 The main witness of the case is complainant/PW-3 Sh. Sushil Das. He has deposed that his daughter woke up on hearing the cries of Sweety @ Chanda and thereafter, he was also awakened by her and he also went to the room of Sweety wherein she was crying that Vinod had stabbed the knife. Blood was oozing from her injury. Thus, he has categorically deposed that the deceased gave a dying declaration holding the accused responsible for stabbing her with knife. He has stood the test of cross- examination by the Defence without any infirmity/inconsistency. He was the resident of the same premises in which the incident occurred. Rather, he was the resident of the room just adjacent to the room where the incident occurred (as shown in scaled site plan Ex.PW9/A). It is apparent from the scaled site plan that rooms were small in size and were part of a common premises. Therefore, the complainant being among the first responders to the hue and cry of deceased appears natural. Moreover, the statement of complainant was recorded soon after the incident and even the FIR was recorded within few hours of the incident. The first IO PW-20 SI Devinder has proved the rukka Ex.PW20/P4 prepared on such statement. PW15 HC Praveen the then Duty Officer has proved the recording of FIR Ex.PW10/A. The timing of rukka and the FIR has not been disputed in the cross-examination of said witnesses. Perusal of rukka shows that same was SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 21 of 41 sent to PS at 7:30AM. Perusal of FIR shows that same was registered around 07:50 AM. Thus, the statement of Sushil Das regarding the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded soon after the incident and not after considerable lapse of time so as to doubt any manipulation. It may be noted that during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has claimed that he had a quarrel with complainant about 15 days from the incident. However, no such suggestion was ever put to PW-3 in his cross- examination. No such suggestion was even put in the cross-examination of any other prosecution witnesses. Rather, it may be noted that PW-3 has not supported the case of prosecution in its entirety as he has turned hostile regarding the fact of recovery of the knife at the instance of accused. Had it been the case that PW-3 was a motivated witness against the accused, he would have supported the case of prosecution against him in its entirety. Ld. Defence counsel has submitted that PW-3 Sushil Das is an interested witness as he hailed from the native village of deceased. However, Court is not swayed by said argument. A person related to deceased cannot be termed as an interested witness simplicitor by such relation. Rather, "interested" witness is one who seeks to gain any advantage by implication of accused in the case. However, no such advantage could be demonstrated by the defence.
8.2 The next important witness is PW-1 Soni. She was the daughter of the complainant and was the first person who heard the cries of SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 22 of 41 deceased and thereafter, awoke her family members i.e. the complainant. She has deposed that when she rushed to the room of deceased she saw that deceased was having a knife injury on her stomach and she was crying and saying that Vinod had stabbed the knife. Thus, PW1 Soni has also deposed about the dying declaration of the deceased implicating the accused for her injuries. She has also deposed about gathering of other persons, making of phone call to the police and taking of injured by the police and her father to the hospital. Thus, she has given narration of the sequence of events as deposed by other witnesses. She has also stood the test of cross- examination by Defence without any hiccups. It may be noted that no motive can be attributed to PW-1 for making a false statement against accused. As mentioned in previous para, the accused has claimed a quarrel with her father but the said defence was taken for the first time only under section 313 Cr.P.C. examination and does not find mention in the cross- examination of any prosecution witness. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that admittedly PW-1 Soni was married and therefore her presence at her parental house was unnatural. I have considered the argument. However, it is not unnatural that on a given date a female is present at her parental house even after her marriage. In India, the married females keep on visiting their parental house and the presence of PW-1 cannot be doubted on such account. Moreover, her presence has not been disputed through out her cross-examination nor cause of her visit to her parental SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 23 of 41 house was ever questioned by the Defence.
8.3 The next important witness is PW-2 Ms. Saraswati. She has also deposed about hearing the cries in the night around 1 AM and thereafter finding the deceased Chanda in injured condition where she was crying that Vinod had stabbed the knife. She has even deposed that she had made call to police on 100 number by her mobile number 8826044313 and has also deposed about arrival of the police and taking away of injured to hospital. It may be noted that she was also the resident of the same premises where the incident occurred and her room was just two rooms away from the room where the incident occurred (as shown in scaled site plan Ex.PW9/A). Thus, her presence was natural at the spot and further, PCR call attendant/PW-11 WHC Mukesh has corroborated the fact that she had received the call regarding stabbing of a lady by knife from the said mobile number. Even the PCR form Ex.PW11/A has been exhibited regarding the same. PW-2 has also stood the test of cross-examination without any infirmity or any inconsistency. Nothing has come in her cross- examination to show that she had any motive whatsoever to depose falsely against the accused. Therefore, the dying declaration of the deceased implicating the accused for her knife injuries have been proved through three prosecution witnesses.
Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that as per PW-11 WHC Mukesh the call was received from one Ramphool. Therefore, it shows that SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 24 of 41 PW-2 Saraswati was not the caller and hence, her testimony is not credible. I have considered the submission. Firstly, it is to noted that PW-4 Surender Kumar who was another resident in the premises, has also deposed that one lady who was residing in the premises was calling the police at 100 number by her mobile phone but she was not able to explain the exact address of the premises to the police. She handed over the phone to explain the correct address and he explained the same to the police and after sometime police arrived. Thus, the fact of making the call by one lady is corroborated by PW-4. PW-4 Surender Kumar was cross examined Nil by the Defence despite opportunity. Moreover, even PW-1 Soni has deposed that one tenant namely Surender called the police after taking mobile phone from some other tenant. Secondly, PW-11 WHC Mukesh has deposed in her cross- examination that she has deposed on the basis of record. Even otherwise, a person receiving various calls at police control room is not expected to remember the details of each and every call received by her. Therefore, it is apparent that she has deposed the name of informant on the basis of record. Perusal of the PCR form Ex.PW11/A shows that the name of informant is mentioned as Ramphool with phone no. 8826044313 and the address of caller is mentioned as H. No. 736, Block A, Mangolpuri, Delhi. Thus, PW-11 has stated the name as per the said PCR form. Ld. APP has submitted that the PCR control room picks the data of the caller from the subscription details of the phone from the mobile companies' record and SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 25 of 41 therefore, details of caller must be automatically generated from details of mobile no. 8826044313. I have considered his submissions and it does appear the possibility. Even otherwise, there appears no reason as to how a person residing at the Mangolpuri in Delhi would be calling about an incident at another place in Delhi. Further more, PW-2 was never cross examined about the mobile phone/SIM details. In these circumstances, the testimony of PW-2 Ms. Saraswati cannot be doubted on said ground. 8.4 Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that PW-3 Sushil Das who is mentioned as a recovery witness has turned hostile to the case of prosecution regarding the recovery of knife at the instance of accused. Further, the testimonies of police witnesses are also at variance with each other regarding the exact spot of recovery. Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the alleged knife to the accused.
I have considered the submissions. Indeed the complainant Sushil Das has not supported the case of prosecution qua the recovery of knife by the accused in his presence. Though, he has admitted his signatures on the sketch of the knife Ex.PW3/B and the seizure memo is Ex.PW3/C, however, he has deposed that the signatures have obtained by the IO in the PS on the said memo. Nothing substantial has come in his cross-examination by prosecution to conclude that he has deposed falsely regarding the recovery of knife. Rather, in his cross-examination by the defence it was revealed that he is illiterate. Thus, his signature on a SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 26 of 41 document prepared by police does not prove much. Moreover, there appears no reason as to why the complainant shall depose against the accused regarding the other facts but not regarding the recovery. Hence, a doubt is created regarding the recovery of knife in the presence of complainant. Said doubt is further compounded by the mismatch in the statements of other recovery witnesses i.e. PW-20 SI Devinder (First IO) and PW-22 Insp. Ram Niwas (Second IO). PW-20 has deposed that the accused was taken to the spot and pointing memo was prepared at his instance vide Ex.PW13/D. He further deposed that inside the same room, there was a "window sill" and from there accused got recovered one knife. Thus, as per his version the knife was recovered from the room in which the offence was committed i.e. (room no.7 as shown in scaled site plan Ex.PW9/A). However, PW-22 Inspector Ram Niwas has deposed that the accused got recovered the knife from room no. 13 G-4, Aali Vihar. Further, even in his cross-examination, he also deposed that accused used to reside in room no.7 whereas the knife was recovered from room no.13. Moreover, the recovery memo Ex.PW3/C mentions that the knife was recovered in the "corner" of room no.13. Therefore, there is inconsistency not only regarding the room from which knife was recovered but also the location inside the room. Considering the afore-said facts, it is doubtful that the knife was recovered at the instance of the accused in the alleged manner. 8.5 However, de hors the recovery of knife at the instance of the SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 27 of 41 accused, the dying declarations by the deceased have been proved by the prosecution against the accused. Further, PW-5 Trilok Pal Singh has deposed that accused was residing as a tenant in his house in the year 2014- 15 and he has some dispute with his wife and despite intervention by PW-5 the matter was not settled and the wife and children of accused left for their native place. He also deposed that deceased Chanda was also his tenant in the premises. Most importantly, he has deposed that other tenants complained to him against accused that he used to quarrel with Chanda. PW-5 Trilok Pal Singh deposed that he tried to intervene and counsel the accused, but when he did not mend his behavior PW-5 locked his room, took out the belongings of the accused from his room and asked him to vacate.
None of said facts deposed by PW-5 Trilok Pal Singh have been controverted by the Defence during his cross-examination. During his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that he has no relations with PW-5 Trilok Pal Singh. However, no such denial of relationship of landlord/tenant was put in the cross-examination of PW-5. Rather, there is only one line cross-examination of PW5 i.e. " Besides receiving rents from the tenants, I used to visit the afore-said house 2-3 times more". Thus, PW-5 has not only proved the connection of accused and deceased to the premises/place of occurrence but has also deposed about the inimical relations between the accused and deceased. Moreover, SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 28 of 41 accused also stated in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was residing in the said premises about 15 days ago before the incident but he was shunted out by the landlord. However, interestingly, he has not mentioned any reason for shunting him out. It may be noted that even PW-1 Soni has identified the accused saying that she had seen him residing with the deceased in the rented premises. Even PW-2 Saraswati has deposed likewise and identified the accused as the person who was residing along with deceased at the time of incident in the room where incident occurred. She has also deposed that prior to some days, accused and deceased were residing in the separate room in the same building. She also deposed that she had seen a quarrel between accused and deceased before some days. Thereafter, accused and deceased were living separately in the same building in separate building (sic room). Even PW-3 Sushil Das has deposed that accused Vinod and Sweety were residing together prior to the incident. However, at the time of incident, deceased and accused were residing separately in the separate room in the same premises. Thus, testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 also show that initially the accused and deceased were residing in the same room but thereafter differences cropped between them and they started residing in separate rooms in the same building. Thus, motive of accused i.e. the strained relations between deceased and accused have also been proved by the prosecution. 8.6 Ld. Counsel for accused has further argued that it is admitted SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 29 of 41 case of prosecution that deceased was living separately from her husband and moreover, even her own father did not come to Delhi to claim her dead body. He has argued that it shows that deceased Chanda @ Sweety did not have good relations with her own husband and her own father. However, IO neither examined the husband of the deceased nor the father of deceased. He has argued that in his cross-examination IO/PW-22 Inspector Ram Niwas has admitted that the relations between the deceased and her husband were not cordial. Accordingly, the husband of the deceased should have been interrogated as a suspect. Ld. Counsel has argued that since no body has seen Vinod committing the alleged murder and there is no proof of his presence at the given spot at the given time, therefore, the possibility of murder of deceased by other persons including her own husband cannot be ruled out.
I have considered the submissions. As discussed above, there is categorical evidence regarding the dying declarations of the deceased and regarding the initial good relations between accused and deceased i.e. sharing of same room and thereafter inimical relations between them i.e. reverting to their original rooms and thereafter, even shunting of accused from the premises by the landlord on account of such disputes. As far as the husband of deceased is concerned, there is no evidence that he ever visited the deceased during her stay at the given premises or he continued to have any relations with her. The IO / PW-22 has only admitted that the relations SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 30 of 41 of deceased with her husband were not cordial on the premise that they were living separately. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has not to prove the total impossibility of committing of murder by anybody else but has to prove the reasonable certainty of excluding the same and in the present case, from the given facts, such possibility can be safely excluded. Moreover, in view of the proved facts the case of prosecution rides on the the dying declaration of the deceased and not the circumstantial evidence per se.
8.7 Ld. Counsel for accused has further argued that the alleged dying declarations cannot be relied upon by the Court since the deceased became unconscious after the alleged assault. He has referred to the testimony of PW-12 HC Harsahay who was the PCR van responder who reached at the spot and took the injured to the hospital. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that PW-12 has deposed that they reached at the spot at 01:34 AM and found one lady in unconscious condition. Ld. Counsel has argued that if the deceased was unconscious then it is not possible that she could have given any dying declaration to the witnesses/neighbors. Hence, Court cannot rely on alleged dying declaration.
I have given due consideration to the said arguments of Ld. Defence counsel. However, I am unable to be persuaded by the same for various reasons. Firstly, there is time gap between the arrival of the police and the discovery of the incident by the immediate neighbors. Rather PW-2 SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 31 of 41 Saraswati has deposed that police reached at the spot within 15-20 minutes. In case of dying declaration, the time gap of even few minutes can be crucial. Secondly, the dying declarations were heard by not one but three witnesses and none of them have deposed that Chanda @ Sweety had fainted or had bouts of unconsciousness at any time after the incident. Thirdly, since the incident happened in the dead of the night around 01:00 AM inside a private room, the neighbors could not have known about the incident unless any hue and cry was there. It may be noted that nobody else was residing with the deceased in her room to have alerted the neighbors about her condition. Thus, the alarming of the neighbors from their sleep by the cries of the deceased herself was the only means of discovery of incident in the dead of the night. This is in consonance with the fact that deceased was conscious after the assault. Fourthly, the dying declaration is not a detailed statement giving detailed narration of the event or the preceding events. The dying declaration is only one line statement ' vinod ne chakoo maar diya, chakoo maar diya '. Same is in consonance with the hue and cry which would be raised by an injured person under pain. Fifthly, even the testimony of PW-12 Harsahay appears to be false regarding the deceased being unconscious. Said observation of the Court stems from three documents i.e. the PCR form Ex.PW11/A, the MLC of deceased Ex.PW6/A and the log book entry of the PCR kite 09 Ex.PW12/D. In the PCR form the detailed action taken by the MPV (PCR vehicle) was SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 32 of 41 recorded with time stamps. It reflects 'report received from MPV: 258- 10/05/2015 01:48:25 Injured ko leker hospital ja rahe hain. Hosh me hai. Baki halat ke liye wait 10/05/2015 02:06:09 shruti w/o mukesh age 25 years jo bihar ki rehne wali hai apne pati se alag kiray per reh rahi hai pados mai hi vinod naam ladka jo bihar ka rehne wala hai isse shadi kerne chahta hai yeh shadi nahi kerne chahti issi baat per inka jhgra hua aur vinod iske paet mai chaku marker bhag gaya. SI Babu Lal with staff moka per the 10/05/2015 02:10:34 rcd trauma 10/05/2015 02:49:53 shruti ko hosh mai dct trauma centre ke through admit kra diya 10/05/2015 03:19:41 ghav jada tha". Therefore, said contemporaneous report categorically shows that deceased was conscious not even at the time of being taken from the spot but also when she reached at the hospital. Said report was not prepared by the IO of the case but contains the record of the PCR section which is an independent wing of the Delhi Police. Further, in the MLC Ex.PW6/A the examining doctor has noted various parameters of the patient/victim and in the heading H/O loss of consciousness there is a categorical 'NO'. Thus, the history of patient was recorded that she did not suffer any loss of consciousness. Moreover, in the MLC, the name of police official who brought the patient to the hospital is mentioned as Harsahay only (PW-12). Therefore, either the history was taken from the patient or from Harsahay. However, none of them gave history of loss of consciousness. Moreover, the entries in the MLC Ex.PW6/A about the SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 33 of 41 respiratory rate, GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale) and examination of pupils in the MLC correspond to a conscious person. GCS number between 3 and 15 measures a patient's level of consciousness with 15 being the best score. It may be noted that the total score of patient Sweety is mentioned as 15. Even the sub-parameters of GCS i.e. eye opening response, verbal response and motor response are rated as E-4, V-5, M-6 i.e. best scores corresponding to a fully conscious person. Her pupils readings are mentioned as "B/L NSRL" thereby implying that pupils had normal size and normal reaction. It may be noted that the time of examination of the patient is mentioned as 02:22:08 Hours in the said MLC. Thus, the injured Sweety @ Chanda was fully conscious even after about one hour of the incident. As per the MLC, the doctor has made the noting subsequently at 4:18AM that the patient is not fit for statement. However, the circumstances and the readings of the injured recorded in the MLC at the time of examination of patient categorically show that patient was in her full senses. Though the concerned doctor who prepared the MLC i.e. Dr. Mahavir Singh could not be examined by the prosecution as summons issued to him returned with the report that he had left the services from the concerned hospital. However, PW-6 Dr. Pranay working in the same institute (AIIMS Trauma Center) has identified his signatures on the MLC. Even otherwise, it was never disputed that Dr. Mahavir was not working in the said institute at the given time. Further, there is presumption of official SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 34 of 41 acts being regularly performed as per section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. Thus, there is no reason to doubt the findings in the MLC of the injured/deceased. More importantly, even the log book entry Ex.PW12/D proved by PW-12 Harsahay himself mentions relevant entry at 01:36 AM on its third page wherein it is mentioned that the caller Sweety W/o Mukesh, R/o G4, Aali Vihar, Near Lal Mandir had one person named Vinod living with her who wanted to get married to her but she did not want the same. There was quarrel in this regard and Vinod stabbed her with knife. SI Babulal and checking staff at spot. Said lady accompanied by her neighbor Sushil. However, it is nowhere mentioned in the said record that the victim was unconscious. Said fact was too material to be omitted in the logbook of PCR van transporting the injured to hospital. Therefore, the Court is of the view that PW-12 himself has deposed falsely regarding the deceased being in unconscious condition, for the reasons best known to him.
Even otherwise, as mentioned earlier, a person being unconscious at a later stage, does not imply that he/she was unconscious even at earlier stage and rather the facts of the case correspond to deceased being in a conscious state. Moreover, the injury to the deceased was not of a nature which may result in instant death in few seconds or minutes like a gun shot to a vital part of the body. As per the postmortem report Ex.PW18/P1, the cause of death was attributed to the injury caused to great SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 35 of 41 artery (abdominal aorta). Thus, death co-related to severe internal bleeding. Moreover, there was no head injury to the deceased to affect her cognitive abilities. Hence the nature of injury was not the one where a person shall lose his consciousness immediately after the attack. 8.8 The Principle of dying declaration is enshrined in Section 32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act. It provides, " Case in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. - Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person, who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves facts in the following cases:-
(1) when it relates to cause of death. - When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in case in which the cause of the person's death comes into question.
Such statements are relevant whether to the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death come into question".
The grounds of admission of dying declaration are :
Firstly, necessity for the victim being generally the only SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 36 of 41 principal eye-witness to the crime the exclusion of his statement might defeat the ends of justice; and secondly, the sense of impeding death which creates sanction equal to an obligation of an oath. (ref: Textbook on the Law of Evidence, 9th edition- Chief Justice M Munir) The relevancy of dying declaration is based on legal maxim nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire i.e. a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. The great Poet Richer II also said at another place:
"Where words are scarce, They are seldom spent in vain;
They breathe the truth, That breathe their words in pain."
However, since person making the dying declaration cannot be cross examined there are certain precautions / guidelines to be followed before accepting the dying declaration. In Paniben v. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474 (480-481) the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of its own earlier decisions summed up certain guidelines to be followed by the Courts while dealing with the dying declarations:
(i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration.
(ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration.
(iii) The Court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 37 of 41 must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration.
(iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
(v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it to be rejected.
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction.
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.
(viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth.
(ix) Normally the Court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eye-witness said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail.
(x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon.
(xi) Where there are more than one statement in the nature of SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 38 of 41 dying declaration, first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of dying declaration could be held to trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted.
In the present case, dying declaration of the deceased is brief and more importantly, contemporaneous with the state of victim being in mortally injured condition and the declaration being the explanation of injuries itself and nothing more, nothing less. It has been proved by three witnesses, who were natural circumstantial witnesses. Since the deceased was alone in the room when she was discovered in injured condition, there appears no scope of tutoring of injured before she made dying declaration. As far as witnesses of said declarations are concerned, none of them had any motive to tutor the deceased. The reasons to believe that deceased was conscious and alert while making the dying declaration have already been discussed in the preceding paras. There is no evidence to show that there was darkness in the room or electricity was off. Moreover, the ability of the deceased to see the assailant clearly is more relevant when the assailant is a stranger, as opposed to the assailant being a very familiar face. Hence in the present case the dying declarations satisfy all the legal requirements for their acceptance by the Court. It may also be noted that accused has nowhere claimed that he was present elsewhere at any particular place at the given time of attack. Rather, he was a person who knew ins and outs of the premises. Further, there is evidence regarding strained relations SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 39 of 41 between accused and deceased. Hence, it stands proved that it was accused who stabbed the deceased with knife at the given time and place. 8.9 Proceeding further, the postmortem report Ex.PW18/P1 has been duly proved by the prosecution. It shows that following external antemortem injuries were found on the body of deceased Sweety @ Chanda:
(i) Stab wound measuring 2 X 0.5 cm, cavity deep obliquely present over left hypochondrium, 25 cm below sternal angle and 3 cm from midline directing medially, backward and downwards, cutting all the muscles, viscera and other soft tissues.
(ii) Incised wound measuring 3 X 0.5 cm obliquely present over left upper chest, 6 cm below clavicle and 7.5 cm from midline.
The examination of chest area revealed:-
"large blood vessels - lateral penetrating injury is present in the abdominal aorta, where signs of repain is present, massive blood clots present in the muscles and in the abdominal cavity".
The examination of abdomen revealed:-
"perforations present at places along with extravasation of blood over Duodenum and Jijunum".
The cause of death opined by the Doctor Mahesh Singh (PW-23) in the postmortem was- "Hemorrhagic shock as a result of antemortem injury to great artery (abdominal aorta) produced by sharp and SC No. 2244/2016 FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 40 of 41 pointed weapon. Injury no.1 sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature".
Therefore, the nature, seat and extent of injuries are self- explanatory to show that the knife blows were given with the intention to cause death of the victim or with the intention of causing bodily injury to the victim and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Hence, the acts of accused squarely fall within section 300 IPC firstly/thirdly.
9. CONCLUSION 9.1 In view of above said discussion, only the point for determination regarding recovery of knife is decided in the favor of defence and all the remaining points for determination are decided in favor of prosecution. Accordingly, accused Vinod Gupta is convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC as charged.
(Announced in the Open Court SACHIN
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
on 12th December, 2024)
SANGWAN
SANGWAN Date: 2024.12.11
15:50:22 +0530
(SACHIN SANGWAN)
Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-01,
South-East District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi/12.12.2024
SC No. 2244/2016
FIR No. 383/2015 State v. Vinod Gupta Page no. 41 of 41