Delhi District Court
Sc No. :01/18 vs (1) Anees Pradhan on 18 December, 2018
Page: 1/68
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, SPL. JUDGE,
(PC ACT) CBI03, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of :
SC No. :01/18
FIR No. :127/09
Police Station :Najafgarh (CB)
Case ID No. :
441026/16
Under :U/s 302/201/34 of
Section Indian Penal Code,
1860.
File received : 27.11.2018
by way of
transfer vide
circular no.
2790927925
/ Case
Transfer/Judl
.Gaz./DWK/2
018 dated
22.11.2018.
Reserved for : 03.12.2018
judgment on
Judgment : 18.12.2018
announced
on
Page: 2/68
State
Versus
(1) Anees Pradhan
S/o Sh.Mohd.Haneef
R/o A26, JJ Basti
Goyla Dairy
Najafgarh
Delhi
(2) Bhura
S/o Akhtar
R/o Pole No.64, Qutub Vihar
Goyla Dairy
Najafgarh
Delhi
(3) Bhuru
S/o Fakhruddin
R/o Jhuggi Near Mobile Tower
Jhuggi Basti
Goyla Dairy
Najafgarh
Delhi
(4) Jaibun
W/o Bhuru
R/o Jhuggi Near Mobile Tower
Jhuggi Basti
Goyla Dairy
Page: 3/68
Najafgarh
Delhi ... Accused persons
Date of institution : 28.09.2012
Date on which file received by transfer: 27.11.2018
Date on which judgment reserved : 03.12.2018
Date on which judgment pronounced: 18.12.2018
JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution case in brief is that on 07.09.2008, at about 6.30 p.m.a call was received from mobile no. 9711293341 at PS Najafgarh which was recorded vide DD NO. 61A and by which it was informed that one girl has committed suicide. This call was untraced as mobile phone was switched off. On 09.09.2008, at about 8.45 a.m.another call was received from the same number vide DD no. 13A by which it was informed that "my bhatiji had committed suicide, no clue of dead body, police may be sent." On the same date at about 4.13 p.m. another call was received from the same number vide DD No.41A informing "dead Page: 4/68 body of my daughter is lying at Khaira Kabristan, police be sent". PCR reached the spot. Local police also reached there alongwith SDM. It was found that one Shehnaz was buried in the Kabristan of Khaira road. The dead body was exhumed and inquest proceedings were conducted by SDM. The complainant Sh.Fakhruddin is grandfather of deceased Shehnaz. He stated before SDM that for the last 221/2 years, one Ali Ahmed @ Bhura had illicit relations with Jaibun (mother of Shehnaz). He tried to make Bhura and Jaibun understand but they did not listen and continued with illicit relations. The complainant also informed that for the last several months Bhura also made illicit relations with deceased Shehnaz and it was with consent of Jaibun. One girl was also allegedly aborted by Shehnaz who was 17 years of age. The complainant also stated that on 07.09.2008 in the evening at about 3.00 p.m.Ali Ahmed @ Bhura told that he had finished Shehnaz. At that time, one Shaukat and Inaam were also present. On the Page: 5/68 basis of complaint, the present case was inquired as parents of deceased were claiming that deceased Shehnaz had committed suicide.
2. Post mortem of deceased Shehnaz was conducted and cause of death was stated as asphyxia and possibility of being smothered was not ruled out as per report dated 10.09.2008. Viscera was preserved. However, on 22.10.2008, the doctors informed that definite opinion regarding cause of death could not be given till report of viscera was received.
3. The police had again sought definite opinion of the doctor but the doctor opined that definite opinion regarding cause of death cannot be given without report of chemical anaylsis of viscera.
4. Further, since the report of viscera and vaginal swab was not available as the same had been sent to FSL, Rohini, therefore, police had registered the Page: 6/68 case on the basis of statement of Fakruddin and initial post mortem on 21.04.2009.
5. Viscera report was received vide report dated 27.05.2009and as per the same, there were no signs of poisoning. Final opinion regarding cause of death was given on 21.07.2009 and it stated, "
since the body was in advancing stage of decomposition, the ligature marks and other injuries could not be appreciated on the body of the deceased, hence the possibility of hanging (asphyxial death other than smothering by a soft ligature material cannot be ruled out).
6. During the course of investigation, case was transferred to Crime Branch. The investigating officer examined various persons. He examined Inaam, Gayur and Sada. For the sake of brevity, the whole statements are not being reproduced here but the gist of statement of Inaam is that Bhura had met them near Kabristan and it was Page: 7/68 Bhura who had arranged for burial of Shehnaz. Gist of statement of Gayur is also to the same effect and he suspected Bhura and one Anees Pradhan to be involved in the murder of Shehnaz. Gist of statement of Sada is also similar. He also stated that they found the Shehnaz been buried like cats and dogs. The spot was shown by Salma, who was caretaker of the Kabristan. In short, they informed that Shehnaz was buried hurriedly and without observing rites and rituals.
7. The IO found statements of these three persons as contradictory and not reliable.
8. IO also examined Salma, who was caretaker of Kabristan. As per Salma, three persons namely Bhura, one Pradhan and the third one, whose name she did not know, came there with dead boy of a girl and quickly buried her and went away.
Page: 8/68
9. IO also examined Jaibun (mother of deceased Shehnaz). As per Jaibun on 07.09.2008, she asked Shehnaz to prepare food but as Shehnaz refused, she slapped her 23 times and went to the roof. After about 1520 minutes, she peeped through window and found that Shehnaz had hung herself with chunni. She shouted and her husband came there and broke open the door. Her husband went to call his brothers. He also went to Anees Pradhan. 2025 persons gathered and Shehnaz was taken to Kabristan. She also stated that her brothers in law told her to falsely implicate Anees and Bhura.
10. The IO has also examined Mir Hassan, who is son of Sada. He stated that Jaibun told him that it was Bhura who had killed Shehnaz. He also examined one Barkat Ali, who claimed to have seen Bhura killing Shehnaz by strangulating her. He also examined Shehzad on whose tractor the dead body of Shehnaz was carried to Kabristan. IO Page: 9/68 again examined Jaibun. He also examined Bhuru, who is father of deceased. He also stated that Shehnaz committed suicide. It has come in his statement that the deceased was buried in the night. They came back from Kabristan at 9.00 p.m.
11. IO had also interrogated suspects Anees Pradhan and Bhura. Both stated that they are being falsely implicated in this case. IO has also examined various other persons such as Firoz, Rafiq, Mohd. Yakub, Mustaq, Dilshad, Nawab Ali etc. Some of them stated that it was suicide and some stated that it was murder.
12. IO did not believe statements of witnesses, who stated that it was murder. IO found various contradictions in their statements. He believed statements in which it was stated that it was suicide.
Page: 10/68
13. IO also relied upon the post mortem conducted by the medical board which held that deceased might have committed suicide by hanging. Accordingly, IO had cancelled the case and filed cancellation report before the ld.ACMM, Dwarka.
14. On being served with the cancellation report, complainant had appeared and had filed protest petition. Thereafter, ld.Magistrate after hearing both parties was of the opinion that there was sufficient material on record to show that deceased was murdered and accordingly, summoned all the accused u/s 302/201 r/w Section 120B/34 IPC. After summoning of accused persons and supplying them with copies, case was committed to this court.
15. Thereafter, the arguments on the point of charge were heard and after hearing the argu ments on the point of charge, accused Anees Prad Page: 11/68 han and Bhura @ Ali were charged of having com mitted murder of deceased Shehnaz pursuant to their common intention under Section 302/34 IPC whereas all four accused persons were charged un der Section 201/34 IPC for having caused evidence to disappear in connection with evidence of mur der by causing dead body of deceased Shehnaz to be buried.
16. All accused persons pleaded not guilty to the aforementioned charges and claimed trial.
17. At trial, prosecution had examined 18 wit nesses.
18. PW1 Mohd.Sada is the younger brother of ac cused Bhuru and he has deposed on oath regarding there being illicit relations between accused Jaibun and accused Bhura@ Ali. He further deposed on oath that on the date of incident, in absence of ac cused Bhuru, deceased was first raped by accused Page: 12/68 Bhura @ Ali and thereafter, she was murdered by strangulation and thereafter, accused Bhura @ Ali had spread the wrong message that deceased had committed suicide.
19. PW1 further deposed on oath that thereafter, he alongwith Inaam, Gyaur, Yaqub and Mustaq had gone to Kabristan, Dhansa Stand, Najafgarh at about 9.00 p.m.where care taker Salma told them that deceased had been buried.
20. PW1 further deposed on oath that thereafter he returned from Kabristan leaving behind Mir Hasan, Gayur, Inaam and Gulbahar to guard the place where deceased was buried and on the next date, they went to police station Najafgarh to ap prise about the entire facts to the SHO. However, their complaint was not registered.
21. PW1 further deposed that on the third day, they called the media and police and SDM also Page: 13/68 reached there and in their presence, body of de ceased was dug up. After the body was dug up, PW1 came to know that deceased Shehnaz was buried without following the rituals as prescribed in the Muslim Religion.
22. PW1 also admitted on being cross examined by Ld.Addl.PP for State that accused Bhura @ Ali had made extra judicial confession to him that he had had killed deceased Shehnaz.
23. PW2 is Mohd.Gayur and he has deposed on oath that on the date of incident, his neighbour, namely, Barkat had come to his house and told that accused Bhura@ Ali had killed the daughter of accused Bhuru. He further deposed that he alongwith his brothers had gone to the house of accused Bhuru but the house was found locked. He further deposed that thereafter, all the brothers had gone to the graveyard on a tractor and on their way, accused Bhura @ Ali had met them and Page: 14/68 he told them that he had buried deceased Shehnaz. It is further deposed to by him that on reaching the graveyard, care taker Salma also told about burial of deceased Shehnaz. He further deposed on oath that on the next date, they had gone to the Police Station to lodge complaint but since police insisted for a complaint from the parents, therefore, police did not lodge any complaint. He further deposed on oath that on the third day, they had gone to the graveyard and had called the media persons. He further deposed that thereafter, body of deceased Shehnaz was exhumed.
24. PW3 Md.Inaam deposed on oath that on the date of incident, accused Bhura @ Ali had informed him that deceased, who happens to be niece of PW3 had expired. He further deposed that thereafter, he apprised all his brothers and one person, namely Ramesh came there and he called the police at 100 number. He further deposed that one person by the name of Barkat Ali also reached Page: 15/68 there and he told them that accused Bhura @ Ali had killed his niece deceased Shehnaz in his presence. He further deposed on oath that thereafter, they had gone to Police Station Najafgarh at around 9.00 p.m. and when they had reached near BDO Office, accused Bhura @ Ali, who was coming from opposite direction on a motorcycle confessed to have killed deceased Shehnaz. He further deposed that on the next day, they had gone to Police Station to lodge the complaint but the same was not lodged. He further deposed that thereafter, on the third day, they had gone to the graveyard and had called the Media and thereafter, investigating officer alongwith Tehsildar and media persons had reached the graveyard and in their presence, body was exhumed.
25. PW4 Salma is the care taker of the graveyard and she has deposed on oath that at around 8.00 p.m., accused Anees Pradhan, accused Bhura @ Page: 16/68 Ali and one another person came there and started digging the grave. She further deposed that even the prescribed fee of Rs.500/ was not deposited by them and they had given Rs.300/ to her in lieu of the receipt. She further deposed that thereafter accused Bhura @ Ali had buried the body of deceased Shehnaz, whom she knew since her childhood. She further deposed on oath that all the three persons have left the graveyard at around 9 9.30 p.m.. She further deposed that three days after burial of dead body, some media persons alongwith some police officials had come to the graveyard and thereafter, body of deceased was exhumed and sent for post mortem examination.
26. PW5 Meer Hasan deposed on oath regarding there being illicit relationship between accused Jaibun and accused Bhura @ Ali. He further deposed on oath that in the month of September, 2008, his neighbour Barkat Ali told him that accused Bhura @ Ali and accused Anees Pradhan Page: 17/68 had killed Shehnaz. He further deposed on oath that this fact was apprised to the SHO, PS Najafgarh but he did not take any action. He further deposed on oath that deceased Shehnaz was buried under the stone bearing name of Rafiq. He further deposed that said grave was dug up and dead body was taken out and sent to hospital for post mortem.
27. PW6 Dr.Sreenivas M. had deposed on oath that on 05.05.2010, a medical board was constituted comprising of him as Chairman and Dr.Sunil and Dr.Vijay Dhankar as members to review the case of deceased Shehnaz and on the basis of post mortem report, inquest paper, CFSL reports, subsequent opinion, FIR and 15 photographs of dead body were examined by the board and they had given the report Ex.PW6/A.
28. PW7 Yakub deposed on oath that on the date of incident at about 8.15 -8.30 p.m., his brother Page: 18/68 Inaam had come to his house and told him that daughter of accused Bhuru had committed suicide by hanging herself. He further deposed that thereafter one person from his neighbour namely Barkat had also come to his house and told him that the daughter of accused Bhuru namely Shehnaz was killed by accused Bhura @ Ali and he was witness of the incident. He further deposed that thereafter, they went to the house of deceased but the same was found locked. He further deposed that while they were going towards BDO Office, accused Bhura @ Ali met them on the way and told them that he had buried the body of deceased Shehnaz in the graveyard. He further deposed on oath about taking out the body of deceased from the graveyard and sending of the same to mortuary of hospital for post mortem.
29. PW8 Dr.Parvinder Singh from RTRM Hospital had deposed on oath regarding conducting of post mortem of deceased and giving his report Page: 19/68 Ex.PW8/A.
30. PW9 Retired SI Suraj Bhan was posted as ASI at PS Najafgarh and he had deposed on oath that on the basis of rukka handed over to him by Inspector Abhay Singh, he had registered the present FIR vide Ex.PW9/A.
31. PW10 Retired ASI Dharamvir Singh was on the emergency duty on 07.09.2008 and he had deposed on oath that DD No. 61B was received to the effect that one girl has committed suicide near Kalu Ki Dairy at 25 Foota Road. Accordingly, he alongwith Constable Amit reached there. However, no one was present at the spot and mobile phone from which call was made, was also found switched of. After that they had returned to the police station.
32. PW11 Sh.Surender Singh was SDM, Najafgarh and on 09.09.2008, he had reached at the Page: 20/68 graveyard on receipt of information from PS Najafgarh regarding burial of one girl without getting post mortem conducted. He further deposed that in his presence, body was exhumed and same was sent to Mortuary of RTRM Hospital through police officials. He also proved his death report Ex.PW11/A. He also proved making of request to the Hospital for getting postmortem of deceased Shehnaz conducted. He further deposed on oath that he had also recorded the statement of grandfather of deceased namely Fakruddin and uncle of deceased namely Gayur vide Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/D respectively.
33. PW12 ASI Kartar Singh has deposed on oath regarding the collection of FSL result from FSL, Rohini.
34. PW13 ASI Satyawan was working as MHCM, PS Najafgarh and he had produced the original register No. 19 with regard to entries of deposition Page: 21/68 of case property with him. He further deposed on oath that two sealed parcels were deposited by SI Ved Prakash on 17.09.2008 and one on
28.09.2008.
35. PW14 SI ASI Satyapal had deposed on oath that he had taken viscera in sealed wooden box from Najafgarh on 26.09.2008 and deposited the same with FSL, Rohini.
36. PW15 HC Naresh Kumar had deposed on oath that on receipt of a call vide DD No. 13A on 09.09.2008, he accompanied ASI Hari Singh to Jhuggi Basti near Qutub Vihar and they had met one Barkat Ali there. He further deposed that Barkat Ali had accompanied him and ASI Hari Singh to the hut of deceased, who allegedly committed suicide on 07.09.2008. However, hut of deceased Shehnaz was found locked and nobody was there.
Page: 22/68
37. PW16 Inspector Akash Rawat was posted as Inspector in Antihomicide Section, Crime Branch, Sector18, Rohini, Delhi and he had deposed on oath that on 15.10.2009, he received the case file for the purpose of further investigation. He deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses during investigation and he also visited the place of incident alongwith SI Ved Prakash. He further deposed that he also made request for Constitution of Medical Board which was constituted on 05.05.2010 and Medical Board had given its report Ex.PW6/A. He further deposed that based upon further investigation, he had filed the final report of cancellation.
38. PW17 Retd. ASI Hari Singh has deposed on oath that Daily Diary No. 72B dated 07.09.2008 PS Najafgarh is with regard to FIR No. 509/08 dated 04.09.2008 for the offence of theft under Section 379 IPC.
Page: 23/68
39. PW18 IO Retired ACP Abhay Singh Yadav deposed on oath that he carried out initial investigation of this case after the registration of case. He deposed on oath that he recorded the statement of witnesses and had made local inquiries. He further deposed on oath regarding preparation of tehrir Ex.PW18/A for getting the present FIR registered. He further deposed on oath that he had prepared the site plan and had also examined the place of incident where he had seen that the door of the room was having bolt broken from inside. He further deposed that he had obtained viscera result and had obtained opinion from autopsy surgeon.
40. No other witness was examined. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed.
41. After the closure of prosecution evidence, ac cused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was put to them. All accused persons denied to have been in Page: 24/68 volved in the present offence and had refused to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, the de fence evidence was closed.
42. After the closure of defence evidence, the matter was posted for final arguments.
43. I have heard Sh.Brijesh Kumar, Ld.Addl.PP for State and Sh.R.S.Mishra and Sh.K.K.Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused Anees, Bhuru, Jaibun and Bhura @ Ali. I have also carefully perused the charge sheet and evidence led on record.
44. It was submitted by Ld.Addl.PP for State assisted by Ld.counsel for complainant that in the present case, although there was one eye witness Barkat Ali but since he expired prior to his examination, therefore, there is no eye witness to the incident.
45. However, since PW Barkat Ali had told various prosecution witnesses of having witnessed Page: 25/68 the rape and murder of deceased Shehnaz, therefore, evidence of prosecution witnesses is admissible as per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is an exception to the hearsay evidence.
46. It was submitted that it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that they were told by PW Barkat Ali that he had seen accused Bhura @ Ali killing deceased at the house of accused Jaibun.
47. It was further submitted that since PW Barkat Ali had told this fact immediately after seeing the murder, therefore, evidence of prosecution witnesses is not hearsay evidence and the same is admissible as per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
48. It was further submitted that there are other circumstances which have come on record which unerringly points towards guilt of accused persons.
Page: 26/68
49. It was submitted that none of accused persons and in particular accused Bhuru and Jaibun, who were the parents of deceased, informed the police regarding the death of deceased Shehnaz.
50. It was submitted that the manner in which deceased Shehnaz was hurriedly buried also points towards the guilt of accused persons.
51. It was submitted that deceased Shehnaz was buried in the night and none of the neighbours or relatives were joined in the burial ceremony which is an important circumstance pointing towards the guilt of accused persons and said fact is proved on record by PW Salma, who was the care taker of the graveyard.
52. It was further submitted that accused persons were in such a hurry to bury deceased Shehnaz that they did not even deposit the burial fees and even proper burial ceremony was not performed Page: 27/68 of deceased Shehnaz, which also points towards the guilt of accused persons.
53. It was further submitted that apart from this, other circumstance which points towards the guilt of accused persons is that when prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW3 Mohd.Inaam were going towards the graveyard in search of dead body of deceased Shehnaz, then on their way, they had met accused Bhura @ Ali, who had confessed about killing of deceased Shehnaz and this confession of accused Bhura @ Ali has been proved on record by the evidence of PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW3 Mohd.Inaam and this confession of accused Bhura @ Ali also proves on record that deceased Shehnaz was murdered.
54. It was further submitted that in the present case, motive to commit murder of deceased Shehnaz was also proved on record by the prosecution witnesses, who had deposed on oath Page: 28/68 that deceased Shehnaz and her mother i.e. accused Jaibun were having illicit relations with accused Bhura @ Ali and that is why deceased Shehnaz was killed by accused Bhura @ Ali. Therefore, it is proved on record that accused Bhura @ Ali had a motive to commit murder of deceased Shehnaz. Accordingly, it was concluded by submitting that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Shehnaz was murdered by accused Bhura @ Ali and all accused persons had caused the evidence to disappear with regard to offence of murder by burying the deceased Shehnaz in the dead of the night.
55. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld.counsel for accused persons that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
56. It was submitted that in the present case, neither the complainant Fakruddin nor the eye witness Barkat Ali could be examined as they both Page: 29/68 expired prior to their examination. Therefore, whatever prosecution witnesses have deposed on oath is based upon hearsay and the same is not admissible in evidence.
57. It is further submitted that prosecution is relying upon various circumstances to hold accused Bhura @ Ali and Anees Pradhan guilty for the offence of murder of deceased Shehnaz and all accused persons guilty of destroying the evidence.
58. It was submitted that in the matter of circumstantial evidence, motive for commission of crime becomes relevant and in the present case, motive of crime has not been proved.
59. It was further submitted that there is no incriminating substance coming on record against accused persons that police was not informed regarding death of deceased Shehnaz.
Page: 30/68
60. It was submitted that PW3 Mohd.Inaam had informed the police thrice from his mobile phone, firstly on 07.09.2008 and twice on 09.09.2008 and in all the three calls, PW3 Mohd.Inaam had informed the police regarding commission of suicide by deceased Shehnaz and no call was made regarding murder of deceased.
61. It was further submitted that deceased Shehnaz was not buried in suspicious circumstances as all prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur, PW3 Mohd.Inaam and PW5 Meer Hasan, who are the relatives of deceased Shehnaz, had accompanied accused persons to graveyard for the purpose of burying deceased Shehnaz.
62. It was further submitted that since deceased was a muslim, therefore, burying of a dead body in the night is not an incriminating circumstance as under the Muslim religion, it is permissible to bury the dead in the night and this fact has been proved Page: 31/68 by the admission of prosecution witnesses in their cross examination.
63. It was further submitted that in the present case, even the medical opinion do not support the prosecution story that deceased Shehnaz was murdered. It was submitted that as per evidence of PW6 Dr.Sreeniwas M., who was the Chairman of Medical Board, possibility of deceased committing suicide was not ruled out as per his report Ex.PW6/A.
64. It was further submitted that in the report Ex.PW6/A, PW6 Dr.Sreenivas M. has given detailed reasons as to why deceased Shehnaz could not have been smothered.
65. It was further submitted that the fact of deceased Shehnaz having committed suicide is further corroborated by the evidence of PW18 ACP Abhay Singh Yadav, who has deposed on oath that when he visited the place of incident, he had found Page: 32/68 the bolt broken from inside of the door which also supports the defence of accused persons that deceased Shehnaz had committed suicide by hanging by locking herself in the room and accused persons being parents had broken the door of the room and had brought the body down.
66. It was concluded by submitting that there is no eye witness to the incident and whatever prosecution witnesses have deposed on oath is hearsay evidence which is inadmissible and circumstances which have been brought on record against accused persons do not unerringly point towards the guilt of accused persons. Therefore, prosecution has miserably failed to prove that deceased Shehnaz was murdered by accused Bhura @ Ali and Anees Pradhan pursuant to their common intention and all accused persons had caused evidence to disappear with regard to murder of deceased Shehnaz. Accordingly, a prayer was made to acquit accused Bhura @ Ali Page: 33/68 and Anees Pradhan for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and all accused persons under Section 201/34 IPC.
67. I have considered the rival submissions of respective counsels and have carefully perused the material available on record.
68. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that there is no eye witness to the incident. PW Barkat Ali, who was the alleged eye witness, had expired prior to his deposition in the court. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence.
69. The law with regard to appreciation of circumstantial evidence has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 wherein a three Judge Bench has laid down five golden principles which constitute the "panchsheel" in respect of a Page: 34/68 case based on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the decision in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622: (1973) 2 SCC 793, it was opined that it is a primary principle that: (A) the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(B) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(C) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved;
(D) that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused Page: 35/68 (E) that it must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
70. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706 : 1991 SCC (CRI) 407, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be satisfied: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should Page: 36/68 not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. A similar view has been reiterated in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 172.
71. In Ram Singh v. Sonia and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1218, while referring to the settled proof pertaining to circumstantial evidence, Supreme Court reiterated the principles about the caution to be kept in mind by Court. It has been held therein in para 39 that "......in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances Page: 37/68 gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts."
72. In Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 90, after referring to the aforesaid principles pertaining to the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, Supreme Court held in para 14 that "......it must nonetheless be emphasised that whether a chain is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be attempted."
73. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, I shall proceed to scrutinize and evaluate the circumstances to find out whether the said circumstances establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt or not?
Page: 38/68
74. The prosecution is relying upon the following circumstances to prove the guilt of accused persons:
1. Motive of the Crime
2. Extrajudicial confession made by accused Bhura @ Ali.
3. The burial of deceased Shehnaz in suspicious manner in the night.
4. Noninforming the police regarding death of deceased.
5. Death of deceased being homicidal and not suicidal in nature.
75. I shall discuss each circumstance separately to find out as to whether circumstance has been proved or not and whether circumstances taken cumulatively leads to inescapable conclusion that accused persons only are guilty of the offence.
Page: 39/68 Motive of the Crime
76. PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW5 Meer Hasan have deposed on oath that accused Jaibun was having illicit relations with accused Bhura @ Ali and the same was being objected to by them but she continued with the same.
77. The said fact was denied by accused persons in the cross examination by giving suggestion to these witnesses.
78. Further, accused Bhura @ Ali and accused Jaibun were in illicit relations has not been proved on record as PW3 Mohd.Inaam and PW7 Yakub, who also happens to be brothers of PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and relative of PW5 Meer Hasan have not corroborated the testimony of PW1 Mohd.Sada,PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW5 Meer Hasan.
Page: 40/68
79. Secondly, it has come in the evidence of PW1 Mohd.Sada and PW5 Meer Hasan that family of accused Bhuru, Jaibun and deceased had shifted to Delhi 08 days prior to the date of incident and prior to that, family of accused Bhuru was staying in Sampla, District Rohtak, Haryana for about 1 1/2 year.
80. Therefore, as per evidence of PW1 Mohd.Sada and PW5 Meer Hasan, family of accused Bhuru was not staying in Delhi for around 11/2 year prior to the date of incident. Therefore, any of the witness having knowledge of accused Jaibun and accused Bhura @ Ali being in illicit relations also does not arise as PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW3 Md.Inaam were admittedly staying in Delhi at that point of time.
81. Even assuming that accused Jaibun and accused Bhura @ Ali were in illicit relations, then also prosecution has not been able to establish on Page: 41/68 record as to what was the motive for accused Bhura @ Ali to have killed deceased Shehnaz. There is nothing on record to suggest that deceased Shehnaz was killed as she objected to relationship between accused Bhura @ Ali and Jaibun.
82. Therefore, in the present case, motive for committing murder of deceased Shehnaz by accused Bhura @ Ali and Anees Pradhan has not been established on record.
Noninforming the police regarding death of deceased
83. The prosecution was required to prove on record that family of deceased had not informed the police regarding her death and, therefore, this was an incriminating substance.
84. The fact of police being informed regarding death of deceased Shehnaz on the date of incident Page: 42/68 has been proved on record by the prosecution witness i.e PW3 Mohd.Inaam.
85. As per evidence of PW3 Mohd.Inaam, on the date of incident, one person, namely Ramesh had called the police at 100 number from the mobile phone of PW3 Mohd.Inaam regarding death of deceased Shehnaz.
86. The said deposition made by PW3 Mohd.Inaam that he himself had not called the police but one Ramesh had called the police is the false deposition made by PW3 Mohd.Inaam as it has come in the cross examination that he had not stated this fact in the statement given to the police that it was Ramesh, who had called the police from his mobile phone number.
87. Further, as per previous statement of PW3 Mohd.Inaam given to police, it was he, who had Page: 43/68 called the police regarding death of deceased Shehnaz.
88. The fact of police being informed on 07.09.2008, regarding the death of deceased Shehnaz, is further corroborated by the evidence of PW10 ASI Dharamvir Singh, who had reached at the place of incident on receipt of information regarding death of deceased.
89. PW10 ASI Dharamvir Singh proved on record that he had received information regarding a girl having committed suicide but when he reached at the spot, the caller was not available and even his mobile phone was found switched off.
90. The police officials were further informed on 09.09.2008 regarding death of deceased and this fact has been proved by PW15 HC Naresh Kumar.
Page: 44/68
91. Therefore, in the present case, police was duly informed by PW3 Mohd.Inaam, who happens to be the uncle of deceased Shehnaz regarding her death and if accused Bhuru and Jaibun, who were parents of deceased Shehnaz had not informed the police personally, then it is not a circumstance which creates suspicion regarding the role of parents of deceased Shehnaz in concealing the death of deceased Shehnaz.
92. What was material in this case was that police should have been informed regarding death of deceased Shehnaz and in case, if it was informed by uncle of deceased Shehnaz i.e. PW3 Mohd.Inaam, then it was sufficient compliance and it cannot be said that accused persons had tried to conceal the death of deceased Shehnaz by not informing the police. Therefore, this circumstance has not been proved on record by the prosecution that police was not informed regarding death of deceased Shehnaz.
Page: 45/68 The burial of deceased Shehnaz in suspicious manner in the night.
93. The prosecution was also required to establish on record that deceased Shehnaz was buried in the night hurriedly without other relatives being informed and without following the Muslim rituals of burial.
94. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW4 Salma, who was the care taker of the graveyard and she has deposed on oath that on the date of incident at about 8.00 p.m., accused Anees Pradhan and accused Bhura @ Ali accompanied by one unknown person had come there and had buried the dead body of deceased Shehnaz without taking receipt of Rs.500/.
95. PW4 Salma had also deposed on oath that only three persons were present at the time of Page: 46/68 burial and no other person was present even outside the graveyard.
96. It was the defence of accused persons that uncles of deceased had also accompanied them to the graveyard at the time of burial and they were waiting outside the graveyard.
97. The said defence of accused persons has been established on record by the admission made by PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW7 Yakub in their examination in chief that they had gone to the graveyard in search of body of deceased Shehnaz in the night. Therefore, going to the graveyard at the night by PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW7 Yakub, who are uncles of deceased Shehnaz, is an admitted fact of prosecution. Further, PW1 Mohd.Sada deposed that they had left behind Meer Hasan, Gayur, In aam and Gulbahar to guard the place where de ceased was buried.
Page: 47/68
98. It has also come in the evidence of PW4 Salma that she was suffering from fever on that day and she was lying on the cot. Therefore, possi bility of PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW7 Yakub being present outside the graveyard, as is the defence of accused persons, cannot be ruled out as it was not expected from PW4 Salma to be aware about persons, who were present outside the graveyard having regard to night time and to the health condition of PW4 Salma at that point of time.
99. Further, burial of deceased Shehnaz in the night is also not a suspicious circumstance as it has come in the cross examination of PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW4 Salma that it is permis sible under the Muslim religion to bury the de ceased at night.
100. It was voluntarily deposed by PW1 Mo hd.Sada in his cross examination that burial has to Page: 48/68 be according to Muslim rituals and tradition. He had further deposed in his examination in chief that when the body was exhumed, it was found that it was buried without following the rituals as prescribed in the Muslim religion as there is no kaffan (Shroud) on the body and no wooden planks inside the place of burial.
101. The said deposition of PW1 Mohd.Sada that deceased was buried without following the Muslim rituals and tradition has not been corroborated by PW4 Salma in whose presence, deceased Shehnaz was buried and who was the care taker of the graveyard.
102. Further, the photographs at the time of exhuming the body of deceased which are part of the judicial record also do not support the testimony of PW1 Mohd.Sada.
Page: 49/68
103. In the photographs, it is clearly visible that while body was being taken out, it was having a kaffan (shroud) on the body and wooden planks inside the place of burial are also visible.
104. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that burial of deceased at night was done without following the Muslim tradition and rituals.
105. It was further deposed to by PW1 Mohd.Sada that when the body was exhumed, it was found to have been buried near the stone placard of Yakub. However, PW5 Meer Hasan did not corroborate the testimony of PW1 Mohd.Sada and he deposed that body was exhumed from the stone placard of Rafiq. Therefore, there is a contradiction as to from where the body of deceased Shehnaz was recovered.
106. Further, testimony of PW1 Mohd.Sada and PW5 Meer Hasan is not corroborated by PW4 Salma, care taker of the graveyard and also by Page: 50/68 PW11 Sh.Surender Singh, SDM in whose presence body was exhumed as both PW4 Salma and PW11 Sh.Surender Singh have nowhere deposed that body was exhumed from stone placard either of Yakub or Rafiq.
107. Further, even the photographs of exhumation do not corroborate the testimony of PW1 Mohd.Sada and PW5 Meer Hasan. Therefore, even this fact has not been proved on record.
108. It has also come on record in the statement of PW11 Sh.Surender Singh that he had recorded the statement of Fakruddin, who happens to be grandfather of deceased Shehnaz and that of Gayur, who happens to be uncle of deceased and he had proved on record the statements which were recorded in his own handwriting Ex.PW11/C of Fakruddin and Ex.PW11/D of Gayur.
109. In both the statements of Fakruddin and Gayur Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/D respectively, it Page: 51/68 is specifically mentioned that accused Bhura @ Ali had told them regarding suicide of deceased Shehnaz and he also asked some of the relatives to accompany him for the purpose of burial. Therefore, statement of Fakruddin and Gayur Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/D respectively also proves on record that burial of deceased was not done in suspicious manner and all the family and relatives were duly informed about the burial.
110. Therefore, this circumstance of burying the deceased Shehnaz at night is not incriminating against accused persons.
Extrajudicial confession made by accused Bhura @ Ali
111. The prosecution has also relied upon an important circumstance i.e. extra judicial confession of accused Bhura @ Ali regarding he murdering the deceased Shehnaz.
Page: 52/68
112. To prove the extra judicial confession, prosecution examined PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW3 Mohd.Inaam, who are uncles of deceased Shehnaz and all have deposed on oath that when they were going towards the graveyard in search of body of deceased, then accused Bhura @ Ali had met them on the motorcycle and he had told them that he had killed deceased Shehnaz.
113. It is a settled principle of law that extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and it should be accepted with circumspection and it should be generally corroborated by other material particulars.
114. In the present case, the alleged extra judicial confession made by accused Bhura @ Ali has not been proved on record as evidence of PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW3 Mohd.Inaam has not been corroborated by PW5 Page: 53/68 Meer Hasan and PW7 Yakub who had also accompanied them to the graveyard in the night.
115. PW5 Meer Hasan has not corroborated regarding accused Bhura @ Ali making confession to have killed deceased Shehnaz and PW7 Yakub has only deposed that accused Bhura @ Ali had told them about burial of deceased and he had not deposed that accused Bhura @ Ali confessed to have killed the deceased. Therefore, making of confession by accused Bhura @ Ali is itself in doubt as material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW5 Meer Hasan and PW7 Yakub have not supported the extra judicial confession made by accused Bhura @ Ali.
116. Another fact which creates a doubt that accused Bhura @ Ali had made a confession of having killed deceased Shehnaz is the statement of Fakruddin Ex.11/C and Gayur Ex.PW11/D recorded by PW11 Sh.Surender Singh.
Page: 54/68
117. In the said statement, accused Bhura @ Ali is telling witnesses about commission of suicide by deceased Shehnaz. Therefore, it is not believable that accused Bhura @ Ali, who had told grandfather of deceased Shehnaz i.e. Fakruddin and uncle of deceased Shehnaz i.e. Gayur that deceased Shehnaz had committed suicide, will later on, incriminate himself by confessing to PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW3 Mohd.Inaam that he had killed the deceased.
118. Another fact which creates a doubt regarding making of extra judicial confession by accused Bhura @ Ali before PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW3 Mohd.Inaam is the evidence of PW3 Mohd.Inaam, who also happens to be uncle of deceased Shehnaz.
Page: 55/68
119. As per his evidence, eye witness Barkat Ali had told him that accused Bhura @ Ali had killed his niece Shehnaz.
120. However, the police call which was made by PW3 Mohd Inaam at 100 number on 07.09.2008 is with regard to suicide by deceased Shehnaz which stands proved on record by the evidence of PW10 ASI Dharamvir Singh.
121. Therefore, if accused Bhura @ Ali had confessed to have killed deceased Shehnaz, then PW3 Mohd.Inaam should have informed the police about murder of deceased Shehnaz and not about her suicide.
122. Further, even Fakruddin, who happens to be grandfather of deceased Shehnaz, and whose statement was recorded on 10.09.2008 also did not tell the SDM in his statement Ex.PW11/C that accused Bhura @ Ali had confessed about Page: 56/68 murdering the deceased Shehnaz in front of his sons, namely, PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd.Gayur and PW3 Mohd Inaam.
123. Further, even on 09.09.2008, when the police was informed, then also no information was given regarding murder of deceased by accused Bhura @ Ali as has been proved on record by the evidence of PW15 HC Naresh Kumar.
124. Further, in the present case, even death of deceased to be homicidal is in doubt as per report of Medical Board Ex.PW6/A proved on record by PW6 Dr.Sreenivas M.
125. Therefore, in the present case, neither the extra judicial confession has been proved on record nor alleged confession is being corroborated by material particulars to show that deceased Shehnaz was murdered. Hence, prosecution has Page: 57/68 failed to prove on record the making of extra judicial confession by accused Bhura @ Ali.
Death of deceased being homicidal and not suicidal in nature.
126. The prosecution was also required to prove on record that death of deceased Shehnaz was homicidal in nature.
127. The only eye witness to the incident as per prosecution case was Barkat Ali. However, he had expired prior to his deposition.
128. However, PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW5 Meer Hasan and PW7 Yakub have all deposed on oath that they were told by Barkat Ali that he had witnessed the killing of deceased by accused Bhura @ Ali. Therefore, whatever PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW5 Meer Hasan and PW7 Yakub have deposed is hearsay evidence and the same is not admissible.
Page: 58/68
129. The contention of Ld.Addl.PP for State that evidence of PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW5 Meer Hasan and PW7 Yakub is admissible as per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is required to be rejected.
130. Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an exception to the rule which makesh hearsay evidence to be admissible in the court of law. However, to make the hearsay evidence admissible as per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the witness who had seen the offence being taking place should state the facts regarding offence with continuity and such statement should be contem poraneous with the act which constitutes an of fence to rule out possibility of concoction.
131. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that none of the witnesses i.e. PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW5 Meer Hasan and PW7 Yakub were present at the time when allegedly Barkat Ali had seen accused Page: 59/68 Bhura @ Ali killing the deceased Shehnaz as they have admitted this fact in their cross examination.
132. Therefore, the alleged narration by Barkat Ali after the alleged killing of deceased Shehnaz, to PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW5 Meer Hasan and PW7 Yakub was not a spontaneous and contemporane ous act and, therefore, the hearsay deposition made by PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW5 Meer Hasan and PW7 Yakub is not admissible as per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
133. Further, even the fact of Barkat Ali witnessing the alleged killing of deceased Shehnaz by accused Bhura @ Ali at the house of accused jaibun is not supported by the testimony of PW3 Mohd.Inaam, who happens to be uncle of deceased Shehnaz, and brother of PW1 Mohd.Sada, PW2 Mohd Gayur and PW7 Yakub.
Page: 60/68
134. It has come in the examination in chief of PW3 Mohd.Inaam that after hearing about killing of deceased Shehnaz by accused Bhura @ Ali from Barkat Ali at the house of accused Jaibun, PW3 Mohd.Inaam had gone to the house of accused Jai bun alongwith his brothers and after making in quiries from nearby dairy, he had come to know that no such incident had taken place at the house of accused Jaibun.
135. Therefore, prosecution own witness i.e. PW3 Mohd.Inaam did not believe the eye witness Barkat Ali witnessing killing of deceased Shehnaz by ac cused Bhura @ Ali at house of accused Jaibun.
136. Further, it has also come in the testimony of PW15 HC Naresh Kumar that he had gone to the place of incident on 09.09.2008 alongwith ASI Hari Singh and there, they had met Barkat Ali, who had taken them to the place of incident, where deceased had committed suicide.
Page: 61/68
137. PW15 HC Naresh Kumar nowhere has de posed that Barkat Ali had told them that he had seen the murder of deceased Shehnaz being com mitted by accused Bhura @ Ali.
138. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 Mohd.Inaam and PW15 HC Naresh Kumar creates a doubt about Barkat Ali, being a witness to the murder of de ceased Shehnaz.
139. Further, death of deceased Shehnaz being homicidal is also not corroborated by the medical evidence.
140. In the present case, final post mortem of de ceased Shehnaz was conducted by PW8 Dr.Parvin der Singh and he had given the post mortem exam ination report Ex.PW8/A and as per the same, no poison was detected in the body of deceased Shehnaz as per viscera report and he opined possi Page: 62/68 bility of hanging (asphyxial death other than smothering) by a soft ligature material cannot be ruled out.
141. In the initial opinion, PW8 Dr.Parvinder Singh had stated that immediate cause of death is as phyxia and possibility of being smothered cannot be ruled out.
142. In the light of report Ex.PW8/A, a Medical Board was constituted in this case which was headed by PW6 Dr. Sreenivas M., being the Chair man of Medical Board and he had given his report Ex.PW6/A wherein detailed reasons have been given as to why death in this case was not on ac count of smothering.
143. The relevant opinion is being reproduced herein as under: Opinion was given as under:
1. Time since death is approximately 34 days at the time of P.M.examination.
Page: 63/68
2. "Immediate cause of death is asphyxia. Possibil ity of being smothered cannot be ruled out. How ever, Viscera has been preserved to rule out any as sociated poisoning".
Again on 22.10.2008, the doctor gave the opinion that "Definite opinion regarding cause of death cannot be given at this stage till the report of chemical anaylsis of viscera is made available by the I.O.".
The viscera was sent to FSL Rohini and the final result obtained as, "on chemical, Microscopic, TLC & GCMS examination, Metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, bar biturates, tranquilizers and insecticides, could not be detected in the viscera".
The Final opinion by the doctor regarding cause of death, "since the body was in advancing stage of decomposition, the ligature marks and other in juries could not be appreciated on the body of the deceased hence the possibility of hanging (asphyx ial death other than smothering) by a soft ligature material cannot be ruled out".
Opinion:
Serial wise answers to the queries raised by the po lice are as follows: Page: 64/68
1. No definite cause of death can be given in this case based on the documents and other evidence provided.
2. No External/Internal injuries have been men tioned in the PM report.
3. Not applicable.
4. The possibility that the deceased could have committed suicide by hanging via soft ligature, in the circumstances as stated cannot be ruled out.
5. There are no injuries/any other findings men tioned in the PM report to support asphyxial death by smothering.
Smothering as a mode of homicide is usually per petrated on children, elderly and persons of weak constitution. It is not reasonable to expect an adult healthy person to be overpowered easily so as to be smothered to death. Had a group of persons perpetrated this mode of assault on the deceased there ought to be signs of struggle on the body of the deceased.
In case of smothering injuries usually occur to the lips, mouth, nose and face; such injuries were not present in this case. (Such injuries are apparent even after decomposition sets in).
Page: 65/68 The deceased was not in an inebriated state as sub stantiated by the viscera chemical analysis report which was negative for alcohol and other common poisons.
In such a scenario one would reasonably expect the deceased to have offered some resistance to an assault. In such encounters, injuries are invariably inflicted on the body of the victim resulting from the struggle during the assault when he/she is over powered by a group of men. Such injuries are again conspicuous by their absence ( find no men tion in the PM report and also not found on the body as seen in the photographs).
The opinion of death occurring as a result of as phyxia due to smothering cannot be substantiated in this case.
The circumstantial evidence of the case seems to favour that the deceased committed suicide, by hanging:
a. The door of the room where she was allegedly found hanging was bolted from within and was subsequently broken down.
b. A chunni was found tied to a bolt.
In case where the ligature material is soft & the en tire body is not suspended but parts of the body are touching & are supported by ground i.e. partial hanging, the constricting force on the neck acting Page: 66/68 via the ligature material is not the entire weight of the body but only part of it, and if the duration of such partial hanging is short, the ligature mark caused on the neck might be faint and inconspicu ous.
These could be the reasons as to why no ligature mark could be appreciated at the time of post mortem examination, especially in the instant case where decomposition had set in and peeling of su perficial layers of skin had occurred at places on the dead body.
In these circumstances and scenario as mentioned above, the possibility that the deceased could have committed suicide by hanging via soft ligature, cannot be ruled out.
144. Therefore, as per the opinion given by the Medical Board vide their report Ex.PW6/A, possi bility of deceased Shehnaz committing suicide by hanging could not be ruled out. However, smother ing could not be substantiated as there was no poi son or alcohol found in the body of deceased and there was no injuries on the body of deceased.
145. Therefore, both medical reports Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW8/A do not give any opinion that death Page: 67/68 of deceased Shehnaz was homicidal in nature. On the contrary, report of Medical Board is suggestive of the fact that deceased Shehnaz had committed suicide by hanging which was the defence of ac cused persons in this case.
146. Therefore, the medical reports Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW8/A supports the defence of accused persons that deceased Shehnaz had committed suicide in this case and it was not the case of murder.
147. In the light of above discussion, none of the circumstance which could have established the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt has been proved on record by the prosecution to complete the chain of circumstances and to point unerringly towards guilt of accused persons. There fore, prosecution has failed to prove that accused Bhura @ Ali and Anees Pradhan have committed murder of deceased Shehnaz or all accused per sons pursuant to their common intention have Page: 68/68 caused evidence to disappear in connection with alleged murder of deceased Shehnaz.
148. In the facts, accused Anees Pradhan and Bhura @ Ali are acquitted under Section 302/34 IPC for the offence of having committed murder of deceased Shehnaz whereas all four accused per sons namely Anees Pradhan, Bhura @ Ali, Bhuru and Jaibun are acquitted under Section 201/34 IPC.
149. In terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C let accused persons furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/each with one surety each of the like amount with undertaking to appear before the appellate court as and when they receive notice from it. Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS DHULL DHULL Date: 2018.12.18 17:21:59 +0530 Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull) Dated: 18.12.2018 Spl. Judge (PC Act) (CBI)03 Dwarka Courts/New Delhi