Delhi District Court
State vs . : Umesh Kumar on 5 June, 2017
IN THE COURT OF ASJ/PILOT COURT/NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No:59027/16
FIR No. : 45/16
U/s : 302 IPC
P.S. : Swaroop Nagar
State Vs. : Umesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Prem Swaroop Gupta
R/o H.No.1303, Gali No.2,
Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained of : 302 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
Date of committal : 20.05.2016
Date of Judgment : 05.06.2017
JUDGMENT
1. On 01.02.2016 information was received at 11:34 am that a lady has committed suicide by hanging herself at Swarn Vihar, V block, street no.2 near Dayal Public School. On this information DD No. 11 A was recorded. ASI Dalbir alongwith Ct Vijay reached at the spot. They found a lady, identified as Pinky, aged about 30-32 years lying dead on the floor with yellow color chuney tied on her neck. CAT ambulance also reached Sh. Rajeev Tomar who was in-charge of the CAT ambulance State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 1 ::
examined her and declared her dead. Vinod Kumar Gupta father of deceased met them on the spot. His statement was recorded. He told that his daughter Pinky was married with Umesh Kumar about 11-12 years back and 2 sons were born out of the wedlock i.e. Goldy and Vansh aged about 8 years and 2½ respectively. Umesh suspected that Pinky is having illicit relations with other persons due to this he used to beat his wife Pinky. Pinky also informed this witness about this fact. He also said that Umesh told him on telephone that Pinky is having illicit relations with other persons. He talked with both of them many times and asked them to resolve and dispute but they did not understand. About 2 months before her death Pinky had made a phone call to him that Umesh had beaten her and also pressed her neck on this information he visited the house of Pinky. Umesh apologized and assured that he will not do so in future. Today i.e. on 01.02.2016 Umesh informed him at about 11:00-11:30 am that Pinky had committed suicide by hanging herself. He alongwith his wife reached at the house of Pinky. On his statement FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. Accused was State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 2 ::
arrested.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet against the accused was filed.
3. The Ld. MM after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr. P.C. committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Therefore, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Prosecution examined 27 witnesses to prove its case.
5. Prosecution examined Dr. Sandeep Garg, CMO, BJRM hospital as PW-1. He deposed that on 01.02.2016 at about 5:27 pm, he examined Pinky w/o Umesh, aged about 29 years, female, brought by Ct Rajendra. He found yellow colour chuney wrapped around her neck multiple times. He declared her brought dead vide MLC Ex.PW41/A. He handed over the chunni to the police.
6. Rahul was examined as PW-2. He is the brother of deceased Pinky. On 01.02.2016 he received State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 3 ::
information about death of his sister Pinky. He alongwith his family members reached matrimonial house of Pinky. He came to know that his sister Pinky has committed suicide by hanging. He identified the dead body in the mortuary vide memo Ex.PW2/A. He also received dead body after postmortem vide memo Ex.PW3/A.
7. Goldy son of deceased and accused was examined as PW-3. He stated that he does not know as to how his mother died as he was in school at that time. He said that his father never quarreled with his mother.
8. Yatinder was examined as PW 4. He is the landlord of the house. He deposed that he let out ground floor of his house No. C-303, gali no. 11, Swaroop Vihar, Delhi. He alongwith his family members were residing at the first floor. On that day he was getting ready for his office and accused Umesh was also getting ready for his work. The witness has left for office. He received a call from his wife who told that Pinky wife of Umesh has hanged herself. He came back. Police was present there. Police made inquiries from him.
9. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP. wherein he stated that his statement was recorded by police. State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 4 ::
Accused alongwith his younger son was present in the house. His elder son has gone to school. He denied the suggestion on 01.02.2016 at about 10:30-11:00 am he was present at home or that their house quarreled between accused Umesh and his wife Pinky or that he came down or that he found door of the room bolted from inside or that his bell door but the same was opened or that he shouted " yeh tumhara roj ka dhanda ho gaya ha, roj jhagarte rehte ho, hame bhi shanti se nahi rehne de rahe, aisa hi chalega to kamra kharva loonga" or that he went to his room. Thereafter, he did not hear voice of quarrel. He also denied the suggestion that when he was going his job he saw accused Umesh coming out from his room and brother of accused was standing in the gali or that Umesh went to his brother. He denied the suggestion that he told this fact to the police. He was confronted with the statement given earlier to the police.
10. During the cross examination by the defence counsel for accused he stated that there was no quarrel between accused and his wife and accused was having cordial relation with his wife. He admitted that accused State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 5 ::
was a cool person and he was living in peaceful manner. He admitted that Pinky was short tempered.
11. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone mobile service Ltd. was examined as PW5. He proved the record of mobile no.9899144307. According to the record, it was allotted in the name of Nardev Gupta. The copy of the customer application form is Ex. PW5/A and the copy of the election Identity card is Ex. PW-5/B. The call details of the abovesaid mobile number for the period from 01.01.2016 to 03.02.2016 (running into 6 pages) collectively is Ex. PW-5/C. The certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW-5/D and cell ID chart is Ex. PW1/E.
12. Shishir Malhotra, Nodal Officer, Aircel Ltd. was examined as PW6. He proved the record of mobile no.730827215. According to the record, it was allotted in the name of Pinky. The copy of the customer application form is Ex. PW6/A and the copy of the election Identity card is Ex. PW-6/B. The call details of the abovesaid mobile number for the period from 01.01.2016 to 03.02.2016 (running into 4 pages) collectively is Ex. PW-6/C. The certificate under Section 65-B of Indian State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 6 ::
Evidence Act is Ex. PW-6/D and cell ID chart is Ex. PW6/E.
13. He also proved the record of mobile no.9069921263. According to the record, it was allotted in the name of Umesh Gupta. The copy of the customer application form is Ex. PW6/F and the copy of the Aadhar card is Ex. PW-6/G. The call details of the abovesaid mobile number for the period from 01.01.2016 to 03.02.2016 (running into 2 pages) collectively is Ex. PW-6/H. The certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW-6/J and cell ID chart is Ex. PW6/K.
14. Rajveev Tomar was examined as PW 7. He deposed that on 01.02.2016 he was working as in-
charge of CAT ambulance vehicle No. N 19. He received a call to reach at Khasra no. 1303, Gali no.2 near Idol Public School, Swaroop Vihar, Delhi. He alongwith his staff reached there. On the ground floor in the left side room he found one female aged about 30-32 years lying in unconscious condition. One light yellow colour chunni was found around her neck. He checked the lady and found her dead. Testimony of the witness has gone State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 7 ::
unchallenged and uncontroverted.
15. Bhuvneshwar Gupta was examined as PW 8. He identified accused Umesh. He deposed that on 01.02.2016 at about 11:30-12:00 noon he received a call on his mobile number 9015372249 and the caller informed that there is a crowd at the house of his brother Umesh. He reached the house of Umesh. He found deceased. Witness called at 100 number and told the police that "meri bhabhi ne phansi laga lee hai".
Thereafter he left for his work leaving his brother at the spot.
16. In reply to the leading question made the call on the suggestion that he had informed by his brother Umesh on telephone that his bhabhi has committed suicide by hanging. He stated that he cannot admit or denying that he received a call at 11:00 am.
17. During the cross-examination he stated that his brother used to sell Chhole Kulche on rehnri at Swarop Nagar, Delhi. His brother used to leave for his job at about 8:00 am to 9:00 am. He does not know at what time he used to return it takes about one and half hour to reach Swaroop Nagar from his residence. State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 8 ::
18. Vinod Kumar was examined as PW 9. He is the complainant. He stated that Pinky got married with the accused Umesh for about 11-12 years back. He stated that his daughter Pinky was blessed with two sons namely Goldy and Vansh. On 01.02.2016 at about 10:30 am to 11:00 am accused Umesh made the call at his mobile number 98735607 and informed that Pinky hanged herself. He alongwith his wife reached at House No. B-375, gali no.2, Swaroop Vihar, Delhi where accused was residing on rent. They found Pinky lying dead on the floor. On the next day he identified the death body of his daughter in mortuary vide memo Ex.PW9/A. They received the dead body vide Ex.PW9/B.
19. He was cross examined by the Ld. Add PP where he admitted that accused used to live with his wife Pinky and used to beat her. He has also visited the house of Pinky whenever he received information that accused has beaten Pinky. Accused telephoned the complainant that Pinky is having a relationship with some other person and due to that reason he gave beatings. About 2 months prior to the incident. Pinky telephoned him and State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 9 ::
told that she was beaten by the accused. This witness went to house of accused. Accused apologized and assured that he will not repeat the same. He stated that yellow colour chuney was found tied around neck to his daughter. He proved the statement Ex.PW9/C. He also stated that from the spot button, chappal, ear rings,pieces of bangles, hair clip, piece of ply wood were taken into the possession vide Ex.PW9/C to PW9/J, after putting the same in plastic containers. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/K and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/L. He identified the case property.
20. During the cross-examination he stated that his daughter has informed him that her husband used to beat her. Accused never suspected the character of Pinky. Pinky never told them that accused suspect her character. He was at home when he got this information about the death of Pinky. He reached at the spot at about 11:00 to 11:30 am. Public persons were also present out side the house of accused. Accused used to sell Chhole Kulche at S.P.Badli. Accused used to leave for his job at 11:00 am - 12:00 noon and return back State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 10 ::
home at about 5:00 - 6:00 pm.
21. Smt. Sushma was examined as PW-10. She stated that her daughter Pinky was married with the accused about 12 years ago. Two sons Goldy and Vansh were born out of the wedlock. Accused used to treat her daughter properly and take care of her and her children. She does not know the cause of death of her daughter.
22. She was cross-examined by APP for the State wherein she stated that accused used to doubt the character of her daughter Pinky and gave her beatings.
She and her husband used to visit tenanted premises of the accused whenever Pinky telephoned them about beatings. Accused used to complain about illicit relations of Pinky with other. She admitted that Pinky told her that these are false allegations. About 2 months prior to incident her daughter informed her husband that she has been beaten. Her husband went to the house of accused who tendered apology and assured that such conduct would not be repeated in future. On 01.02.2016 at about 10:30 or 11:00 am Umesh made a telephone call and informed that Pinky had hanged herself. She State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 11 ::
along with her husband reached there. They found that her daughter was lying on the floor. She noticed one yellow colour chunni tied around her neck. She also stated that her daughter was killed by accused by strangulation.
23. During cross-examination for accused she stated that relations between accused and deceased were cordial. Accused never beat and ill treated Pinky. Pinky never told her that her husband beat her or tortured her.
Umesh never objected to the working of Pinky at Hissar. She stated that accused never suspected the character of Pinky.
24. Ct. Ram Niwas was examined as PW-11. On 18.04.2016 he collected the pullandas with sample seal for depositing the same to FSL Rohini vide RC No.69/21/16, 70/21/16 & 71/21/16 and deposited the same at FSL. Nobody tampered with the case property till the same remained in his possession.
25. Sandeep was examined as PW-12. He deposed that he was working as peon in Guru Jamdeshwar University, Hissar. He used to work in Jagran and other functions with his brother Pradeep. His brother used to State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 12 ::
provide labour in marriages and other functions. Pinky the deceased and her sister Kajal also used to work as labourer in marriages and functions. He also used to talk with Pinky on her mobile phone in relation to work. He was having mobile phone No.7357569485 issued in the name of his father. He used to call his brother and his brother used to talk with Pinky and thereafter he used to talk with Pinky. He denied that he was having any love affair with Pinky. Pinky was having mobile Nos. 9899144307 & 7530827215. He was cross-examined by APP wherein he denied the suggestion that he was having illicit relations with Pinky or that Umesh used to suspect Pinky or due to that reason Umesh used to quarrel with Pinky.
26. During cross-examination he stated that he knew Pinky from November 2015. He came in contact with Pinky through his younger brother Pradeep. He never visited the house of Pinky. He never visited Delhi to meet Pinky. He came to know about death of Pinky when the police made inquiries from him. He was confronted with his statement wherein it was mentioned that he visited Delhi to meet Pinky. He denied the State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 13 ::
suggestion that he was having physical relations with Pinky and was confronted with his previous statement.
27. Dr. N.K. Gunjan was examined as PW13. He conducted the post mortem on the dead body and opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to ante mortem ligature strangulation. He handed over clothes, nail clipping, adhesive lift from neck region. He sealed the parcels with the seal of NKG, FMT BJRM HOSPITAL and handed over to police. He proved the post mortem report as Ex.PW13/A. Injuries were ante mortem and injury No.2 is ligature mark. He also gave subsequent opinion after examining the chunni photograph of which is Ex.PW13/B that the ligature mark found on the dead body is possible by using the examined ligature material. He proved the subsequent opinion as Ex.PW13/C. He also identified the chunni as Ex.PW13/Article-1 as the same which he examined.
28. During cross-examination he stated that external injury No.2 is also ante mortem.
29. ASI Hemlata was examined as PW-14. She proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW14/A. The endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW14/B and the State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 14 ::
certificate u/s 65B is Ex.PW14/C.
30. During cross-examination she stated that it took her 45 minutes in getting FIR registered.
31. HC Ajmer was examined as PW15. On 06.02.2016 he delivered the copies of FIR to Senior Police officers and areas Magistrate.
32. ASI Rajbir was examined as PW-16. He was incharge of mobile crime team which visited the scene of crim on 01.02.2016 ASI Dalip and other police staff met them there. He inspected the scene of crime and gave the report. He proved his report as Ex.PW16/A.
33. During cross-examination he stated that he along with finger print proficient and driver reached the spot. IO did not record the statement of any witness in his presence.
34. ASI Jagraj Singh was examined as PW-17. He was working as MHC(M) and proved the entries in register No.19 & 21 as Ex.PW17/A to Ex.PW17/F. He stated that during the period the exhibit/case property remained in his possession nobody tampered with the same.
35. Ct. Raj Kumar was examined as PW-18. He State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 15 ::
deposed that on 01.02.2016 on receiving the phone, he reached the spot i.e. H.No.B-35, Gali No.2, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. ASI Dalip, Ct. Vijay and complainant Vinod Kumar Gupta met him there. On the ground floor a female was lying on the floor. Rajeev Tomar, Incharge CAT Ambulance reached the spot. He examined the female lying on the floor and declared her dead. The head of body was towards east and leg towards west. Piece of ply board broken from sofa was lying in the room. One chappal, broken pieces of bangles were found near body. On the south side of body one button, chappal and at some distance one hair clip were found lying. One light yellow colour chunni was found tied around the neck of the deceased.
36. ASI Dalip recorded statement of Vinod Kumar Gupta. Crime team was called at the spot which inspected the spot at 2:20 pm. ASI Dalip handed over rukka to Ct. Vijay for registration of FIR. IO also sent SI Parveen for calling FSL team. FSL team also reached the spot, inspected the spot and took photographs. One button, a pair of chappal, one golden colour earrings, broken pieces of bangle, hair clip and piece of broken State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 16 ::
plywood were kept in separate containers, sealed with the seal of BRM and seized vide memo Ex.PW9/D, 9/E, 9/F, 9/G, 9/H & 9/J respectively. Ct. Vijay came back on the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO, Inspector B.R. Meena. These witnesses along with IO removed the dead body to BJRM hospital where doctor declared her brought dead. Doctor handed over one sealed pullanda containing chunni to IO which was seized vide memo Ex.PW18/A. The jewellery articles found on the body were handed over to father of deceased. The dead body was got preserved in the mortuary of BJRM hospital. On 02.02.2016 the post mortem was conducted on the body. After post mortem doctor handed over the sealed pullandas along with sample seal to IO who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/B.
37. The case property was deposited with the MHC(M). Thereafter, this witness along with IO and complainant went to the house of accused. Accused was present at home he was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PW9/K. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/L. His disclosure State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 17 ::
statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW18/C. In pursuance to the disclosure statement accused led them inside the house opened the almirah and from there took out the shirt. One button of the shirt was found broken. There was one memory card in the pocket of the shirt. The shirt was wrapped in piece of cloth, sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW9/L. The memory card was put in a plastic container and seized. The witness identified the case property and also the accused.
38. During cross examination he stated that he was present near RTV stand Nathu Pura when he received information from Ct. Vijay on telephone. He reached there within 10 minutes. It was a triple storied house. Many public persons were present. There were residential houses also. He cannot tell how many rooms were there in that house. IO recorded the statement of Vinod and also of the members of crime team and officials of CAT Ambulance. The Ambulance remained there for 15-20 minutes. The FIR was registered at about 2:30/3:00 pm. Umesh was present on the spot during this period and was in the custody of this witness. FSL team reached the spot at about 3:00 pm. He does State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 18 ::
not remember at what time crime team inspected the scene of crime. About 4-5 pullandas were prepared on the spot. While leaving the spot this witness handed over the custody of accused to Ct. Vijay. They reached hospital at about 5 pm.
39. On 02.02.2016 they left the police station at 5:30 pm to arrest the accused. One or two persons were present in the house of accused when he was arrested. He does not know who was informed about the arrest of accused.
40. Ct. Vijay was examined as PW-19. He deposed that on 01.02.2016 on receipt of information that "ek lady ne fansi laga li", he along with ASI Dalip reached the spot. Ct. Rajender was also there. He corroborated the statement of PW-18. Rukka was handed over to him by the ASI Dalip. He took the rukka to the police station and got FIR registered. He identified the accused and also the case property. He had also identified 13 photographs of scene of crime as Ex.A1 to A13.
41. During cross examination he stated that they left the police station at about 10:45 am and reached the spot within 10-12 minutes. Public persons were present State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 19 ::
outside the house. Accused was present there. SHO also arrived at the spot. Vinod also reached there. Crime team reached the spot after about 45 minutes of his reaching the spot. Crime tema did not take the photographs. FSL team reached the spot at 3:00 pm. IO recorded the statement of Vinod in the hall outside the room where dead body was lying. He reached back the spot after getting FIR registered at 3:30 or 3:40 pm. IO prepared the site plan of the scene of crime in his presence. He does not know at what time accused Umesh left the PS but IO interrogated him and allowed him to leave.
42. Mahender Singh Niranjan was examined as PW-
20. He examined the memory card which was of 4Gb capacity. He also prepared the CD of the memory card. There were some audio recordings on the memory card and he prepared the copy of the same. He identified the CD as Ex.PW25/Article-1 and memory card as Ex.PW18/3.
43. Sh. Virender Singh, MM/Delhi was examined as PW-21. He recorded the statement of Goldy and Sushma u/s 164 Cr.PC and proved the same as State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 20 ::
ExPW21A to Ex.PW21/F.
44. Inspector Manohar Lal was examined as PW-22. He proved the scaled plan of scene of crime as Ex.PW22/A.
45. During cross examination he stated that he does not remember how many stories were there in that house. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the scene of crime.
46. Parshuram Singh, Asst. Director, FSL was examined as PW-23. He examined the Leucoplast tape and chunni and proved his detailed examination report as Ex.PW23/A. According to the report red, green and black colour fibers were adhering on leucoplast tape and no fiber similar to the fibers of golden colour chunni could be observed.
47. Ct. Parveen was examined as PW-24. He was given letter by Inspector B.R. Meena to call FSL team on the spot. He went to FSL Rohini and handed over the letter to the officials of FSL who accompanied him to the spot. FSL Team Inspected the scene of crime and also took the photographs.
48. During cross examination he stated that 20-25 State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 21 ::
persons were outside the house when he reached there. He did not go inside the room where dead body was lying.
49. Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj was examined as PW-25. She examined the full sleeves shirt and the button with thread and found that the colour, stitching pattern of the thread and button in Ex.P-2 and Ex.P1 are similar. He proved his report as Ex.PW25/A. The shirt has been identified as Ex.PW18/A1 and the button with thread as Ex.PW18/A2.
50. ASI Dalip Singh was examined as PW-26. He fully corroborated the testimony of PW-19, He also deposed that he recorded the statement of Vinod Kumar Gupta which is Ex.PW9/B and his endorsement is Ex.PW26/B, sent the rukka for registration of FIR through Ctr. Vijay. He handed over the custody of accused to the Ct. Rajender. He identified the case property as well as he identified the accused.
51. During cross examination he stated that he was on emergency duty on that day and was present outside police station. He along with Ct. Vijay reached the spot on his motorcycle. They reached the spot within 15 State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 22 ::
minutes. He found the accused, parents of deceased, brother of deceased, children of deceased and public persons on the spot. He does not know who informed the parents of deceased. The house was constructed upto 2nd floor. There were two rooms on the ground floor. Rajiv Tomar entered the room and inspected the body. It took 20-25 minutes to record statement of complainant. 2-3 members of the FSL headed by a female reached the spot.
52. IO of the case was examined as PW-27. He fully corroborated the testimony of PW18 & PW19. He also proved the scaled site plan as Ex.PW27/A. He moved application for preserving dead body in the morturay and proved the application as Ex.PW27/B. He proved the inquest papers as Ex.PW27/C. He moved application u/s 27/D for conducting post mortem. He identified the case property as well as accused.
53. During cross examination he stated that he along with Ct. Praveen and driver reached the spot in govt. gypsy. ASI Dalip, Ct. Rajender and Ct. Vijay were already present on the spot. The parents and brother of deceased were also present. Brother of accused was State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 23 ::
also present there. ASI Dalip had already called mobile crime team. Rukka was sent in his presence. Accused was on the spot within the custody of Ct. Vijay when he reached there. Crime team was also present. There were only two members in the crime team. i.e. Incharge ASI Rajbir and finger print expert. Three members from FSL reached there at the spot at 3:00 pm. It was told by the accused that he was having lifted FIR with the Sandeep.
54. Thereafter PE was closed. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein he stated that he does not know about the recovery of button and broken pieces of bangles, piece of plywood of broken sofa and other articles. He dispute his presence on the spot and that he made calls to his father-in-law and brother that Pinky has died. He alleged that he has gone to take articles at that time. He stated that he has been falsely implicated. He wished to lead evidence in defence. Thereafter, the case was fixed for defence evidence.
55. Smt. Jyoti Gupta was examined as DW-1. She deposed that on 01.02.2016 Umesh Gupta her brother- in-law (Jeth) was at her home at about 10:30 or 11:00 State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 24 ::
am and she provided him breakfast. At about 1130 am he left her house. After 10-15 minutes some person came to inquire about her husband. On inquiry that person told that there is crowd in front of house of her Jeth(accused). She reached there and found that her Jethani was died.
56. During cross examination by Ld. APP she stated that she does not know the address of house where accused was living with his family at the relevant time. Accused was living in a rented accommodation. She met wife of accused on 28.01.2016 on the occasion of birthday of her daughter. Her husband was at shop at that time. Mobile phone number of her husband is 9015372249. accused did not make any call and also did not receive any call during the period, he was at her home. Accused had not come to her house for breakfast on any day prior to 01.02.2016. It takes only 5 to 7 minutes on foot to reached house of accused from her house. She does not know if accused himself informed his relatives that his wife had died by committing suicide. She does not wear wrist watch and therefore she is not sure of time given by her. She did not inform State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 25 ::
this fact to the police.
57. Thereafter, DE was closed. The case was fixed for arguments.
58. I have heard Ld. APP for the State, Ld. Defence counsel for accused and perused the record.
59. Ld. APP submitted that it is a case where the accused committed the murder of his own wife by strangulating her. The reason of causing murder is that he suspected that his wife is having illicit relations with one Sandeep examined as PW-12. The fact that he used to beat her and also suspected her having illicit relations with the other persons is deposed by Vinod Kumar PW-9 who is the father of the deceased and also Smt. Sushma PW10 the mother of the deceased. Both the witnesses though initially stated that the relations between accused and deceased were cordial but when they were cross-examined by APP both stated that the relations between the accused and deceased were strained. Accused used to beat the deceased Pinky only because he suspected that she is having relations with the other persons. Even the suggestion given by the defence that accused never beat her was State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 26 ::
denied by the witnesses. Ld. APP submitted that in this case the landlord Yatender was examined as PW-4. He stated that accused was living in his house as tenant with his wife and two children. This fact otherwise is also not denied by the accused that he was living there with his wife and the two children. On that day also accused was present with his wife and his younger son at home as deposed by PW-4. The dead body was found in the house. There is no evidence of any forced entry in the house. The door and the bolt of the door were found intact which clearly shows that there was no forced entry in the house. The accused alleged that she died as she committed suicide by hanging but this fact is not supported by the medical evidence. Accused also alleged that she committed suicide by hanging but no such evidence is there on the record. The chunni which was found wrapped around her neck was not found tied with any other object on the ceiling or the window. The doctor also opined the death is not due to hanging but due to strangulation. Accused himself informed his brother as well as father of deceased that she died due to hanging which shows that he was creating false State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 27 ::
evidence in this regard.
60. The bangle of the deceased was found broken and one button was also found on the spot. Which shows that there was some struggle also i.e. why the piece of bangle was there and the button was also there. The button must be of the shirt of the person with whom the deceased struggled. That button was found to be of the shirt of the accused only, which he got recovered from the almirah of his house. Ld. APP submitted that as there were only three persons in the house one was a child of 2½ years of age, the accused and the deceased, therefore, it was for the accused to tell as to how the offence has been committed if he has not committed the offence. He alleged that he had gone to bring articles but no such evidence has been brought on record. None of the witness stated that he was having any of the articles in his hand. Infact he also examined one defence witness DW-1 who is none else but wife of his own brother. She stated that accused came to her house between 10.30 to 11:00 but this defence evidence is infact against the defence taken by the accused. The evidence also shows that he himself State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 28 ::
made call to his brother. The time of call is at 9:00:05 and the second call was made at 9:02:03 he himself informed his father-in-law about death at 11:33:27 and 11:43:28. Keeping in view all these facts Ld. APP submitted that as there were strained relations between two. There is no forced entry. There is nothing on record that she had committed suicide. The button of the shirt of the accused was also found on the shop as established by the report Ex.PW25/A. Under the circumstances it is only the accused who committed the offence. The prosecution has proved and established this fact. It is prayed that accused be held guilty and convicted for the offence of murder of his wife by strangulating her.
61. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that it is not the case based upon the ocular evidence. There is no eye witness. The case is based upon circumstantial evidence. Ld. Counsel submitted that it is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the chain must be complete. Ld. CVOunsel submitted that in this case there is no chain infact. All the witnesses have turned hostile. The prosecution alleged that there were State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 29 ::
strained relations between the deceased and Sandeep PW-12, but no such evidence has been brought on record. Sandeep himself denied about his relations with Pinky. Vinod Kumar and Sushma were examined as PW-9 and PW-10. They are the parents of deceased but they have also not supported the prosecution case in this regard. Ld. Counsel submitted that under the circumstances motive itself is not proved and established.
62. Ld. Counsel submitted that infact accused was not at home at the relevant time. The testimony of DW-1 clearly shows that at about 10.30 the accused came to her house she provided him breakfast and at about 11:30 am he left his house. It was only after 10-15 minutes thereof that some person asked her about her husband and when she inquired as to what is the matter, that person told that there is a crowd at the house of her jeth. Ld.Counsel submitted that under the circumstances it is clear that the accused was not at home at the relevant time. The police was already there when she reached and according to her crowd was also there.
63. Ld. Counsel submitted that one chunni was also State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 30 ::
found wrapped around the neck of Pinky. That Chunni was sent for analysis to FSL. The report is Ex.PW27/A, 23/A and according to the report the fibers found on the neck which were taken on the lucoplast did not tally with the fibre of the chunni which clearly shows that this chunni was not used for the commission of offence.
64. Ld. Counsel submitted that the child of the accused persons Goldy was also examined. He also stated that the relations between the accused and the deceased were very cordial and they never quarreled and even the landlord examined as PW-4 stated that the relations were cordial and he had never heard them fighting with each other. Ld. Counsel submitted that under the circumstances there is no evidence against the accused that he committed the offence. The onus which was on the prosecution had not been discharged. It is prayed that accused be acquitted.
65. After hearing the arguments and going through the record I found that no doubt the child examined as PW3 and landlord Yatender PW-4 did not say anything that the deceased and the accused used to quarrel with each other for any reason. Infact PW4 stated that he State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 31 ::
had never heard them quarreling with each other. So far as PW9 and PW10 are concerned thay also stated that their relations were cordial. But during the cross- examination by Ld. APP & by defence they stated that accused and deceased used to quarrel with each other and accused also used to beat her. The reason of beating was that accused suspected that deceased is having illicit relations with some other persons. Both also stated that they also used to receive calls from her daughter that she is being beaten and then PW9 used to visit the house of the deceased to talk to the accused not to beat her. They also stated that accused used to tell them that deceased is having illicit relations. From this coupled with the testimony of Sandeep examined as PW12 it is clear that Sandeep used to talk with Pinky. Though he alleged that there was nothing but there is one memory card recovered from the pocket of the shirt of accused. The recording of which has been proved on record and the CD has also been placed on record which shows that there were some intimate talks between Sandeep & Pinky. This recovery of SD card from the pocket of the accused which is the memory State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 32 ::
card of mobile phone of deceased itself shows that accused had heard the recording of the same and i.e. why he was disturbed.
66. There is one more aspect in this case that there was none else in the house except the accused and the deceased. PW-4 though did not support the prosecution story on other facts but he also stated that accused was at home at that time. It is also important to note that according to PW9 it was accused who made call to him and informed that the deceased had died and the record shows that he also informed his brother Bhuvneshwar Gupta that deceased had died. The call detail record has been placed on record which shows that he made two calls to his brother and one call to his father-in-law i.e. PW9. He informed that deceased had committed suicide but surprisingly there is no such evidence brought on record. He does not say even in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that he saw the deceased hanging or that he brought down the deceased from the ligature. When the police came and other persons arrived they saw deceased lying on the floor and not on the bed. One chunni was found wrapped around the State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 33 ::
neck. There is no evidence on record of any forced entry. No bolt was found broken. However there are signs of struggle. One broken bangle was found on the spot which is of the deceased and one button was also found lying near the body. This button was seized from the spot. The button was also sent to FSL. Accused when arrested got recovered his shirt. The shirt and button were sent to FSL for examination. The report is proved as ExPW25/A. The shirt is identified as Ex.PW18/A1 and the button with thread recovered from the spot is identified as Ex.PW18/Article2. It is not alleged that the shirt is not of accused. The report Ex.PW25 establishes that button with thread found on the spot is of the same shirt which accused got recovered. This fact also shows that accused was present on the spot and it was only in the scuffle that one button of the shirt was broken which was found on the spot. This also corroborates the testimony of PW-4 that accused was also present on the spot. His making calls to his brother and to his father-in-law also establishes that he was on the spot as reflected from the cell ID chart placed on record. Accused has alleged that State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 34 ::
he was not at spot.
67. During cross-examination he stated that he had gone to bring something and this is also deposed by his brother PW-8 Bhuvneshwar Gupta when he appeared in the witness box. He stated that when he reached the spot he saw his brother who told him that he had gone to bring the articles. But it is important to note that neither accused nor PW-8 says that there were any article in his hand when he was there. The police officials who reached there also does not say that there was any article in the hands of accused. Accused had also not examined any person/shokpeer where he had gone to take articles. However, one defence witness was examined who is the wife of brother of the accused Umesh. She stated that accused came to her house at 10:30 or 11:00 and went away at 11:30 am but that does not help the defence as accused does not alleged that he has gone to the house of his own brother. Even otherwise the accused has himself made call to his brother informing that his wife had committed suicide. But no such evidence is on record that she committed suicide. Medical report clearly shows that she died due State Vs. Umesh Kumar SC Nos.59027/16 :: 35 ::
to strangulation. Keeping in view all these facts it is clear that accused was with the deceased in the house. There is no evidence of any forced entry in the house. There is no evidence that anything went missing. The house was also not found ransacked. There is only evidence of some scuffle as the bangle was found broken and one button was also found on the spot that button tallied with the button of the shirt of accused only, which he got recovered. There is also no evidence of hanging. Keeping in view all these facts and that it was only he who was at home at the relevant time. It was for the accused to explain under what circumstances his wife died but he is silent about the same. In view of all these facts in my opinion the onus which was on prosecution has been fully discharged. It is established that it was the accused who murdered his wife by strangulating her. I therefore, hold him guilty and convict him for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC.
Let he be heard on the quantum of sentence on 08.06.2017.
Announced in the open court today on 05.06.2017 (VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL) ASJ/Pilot Court/North District Rohini Courts/New Delhi.