Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs 1. Smt. Rajni, on 5 November, 2014

              IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH  KUMAR
      ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :NORTH EAST:
                      KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

              SC No.                                                           37/2011
              FIR No.                                                          55/2011
              Police Station                                                   Harsh Vihar 
              U/Section                                                        302// IPC
              Case received on allocation on                                   28.07.2011 
              Judgment announced on                                            05.11.2014
                                                              
State  Versus   1. Smt. Rajni,  
                    W/o Lt. Ram Prasad @ Babban
                    R/o B­4/138, Gali No.5, Harsh Vihar, Delhi.
                2.  Udaiveer @ Pappu,
                    S/o Ram Bahadur, 
                    R/o Village Chandoi Ka Majra,
                    Kaprol, PO­Chandoi, PS Ishlampur, 
                    Distt. Badayun, U.P.  
­:J U D G M E N T:­

1.

The above named accused persons were charge sheeted by SHO PS Harsh Vihar under Sec.302/201/34 and have faced trial for having committed the said offences.

2. Brief facts, as per prosecution are that on 10.04.2011 at about 9.50 p.m a PCR call vide DD No.8A, was received in the Police Station to the effect that "at D­4, Block, Gali No.5, Harsh Vihar, one lady alongwith her friend has killed her husband. Since 8.00 p.m dead body is lying here". SI Shailender alongwith Ct. Subhash were sent to the spot and (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.1 of pages 53 SHO, ATO, I­29 also reached at the spot, where at house no. 138, dead body of one person aged about 40 years was found lying on floor, whose named was revealed as Ram Prasad @ Babban, S/o Late Kishan Lal, R/o B­4/138, Gali No.5, Harsh Vihar, Delhi. The family members and relatives of the deceased were collected there. Dead body was randomly (sarsari) searched and no visible injury was found on the body of deceased, which could be resulted into unnatural death. By the order of SHO PS Harsh Vihar, inquest proceedings U/s 174 Cr.P.C were initiated by SI Yogender Singh, who on 11.04.2011 got conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased at GTB Hospital and thereafter, handed over the dead body of deceased to its claimant. On 18.04.2011 SI collected the Postmortem Report no.447/11 of deceased from GTB Hospital, wherein doctor opined the cause of death "shock as a result of ante mortem injury to head produced by blunt force impact". Viscera was preserved on the request of IO. IO made his endorsement on DD No.8A and got registered the FIR of instant case and inquiry was conducted from family members. Photographs of the scene of crime were got photographed through Crime Team, spot was inspected, rough Site Plan was prepared, statements of the eye witnesses i.e. Vicky and Nicky, son and daughter of deceased respectively were recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C and lateron their statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C were also got recorded through Ld. MM, wherein they stated that "their mother and father used to quarrel with each other. Their mother used to call Udaiveer @ Pappu, their neighbour, in the house, which was objected by their father. On 09.04.2011, when heater was not runing, their mother called Pappu at their house for repair of electricity and asked for match box. When their father objected to the coming of said Pappu, his father started giving beatings to their mother (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.2 of pages 53 and also started abusing to Pappu in the name of mother and sister. Their mother while praising Pappu, asked their father as to why he is abusing Pappu, in the meantime Pappu came in the house and caught hold of their father from behind. Their mother picked up the cricket bat and hit with it on the head of their father, resultantly their father get down on the floor. With the help of Pappu, their mother laid down their father on the cot and tried to make him conscious but could not succeed. Urine was passed out (papa ka peshab nikal gaya) and they both (their mother and Pappu) took out the clothes of their father and burnt the same in Chulha and put another clothes on their father. Their mother told them if they disclose about this happening to anyone, she will beat them and will sent them to their father at place of god. Due to fear they did not disclose anything to anyone". During investigation both the accused confessed their crime and accordingly they were arrested in this case, their disclosure statements were recorded, pointing out memos were prepared, site plan of the place of occurrence and site plan of recovery of cricket bat were prepared. PCR form was collected. Case properties were taken into police possession. Arrest memos, personal search memos, medical examination and conviction slips were prepared in the matter. Viscera was sent to FSL Rohini for analysis. Statements of witnesses were recorded and then after completion of investigation, challan was filed in the court of concerned Ld. MM (NE), who after supply of copies etc., committed the case to the court of Sessions being the offence alleged in this case exclusively triable by the Court of sessions.

3. Arguments on point of charge were heard and charge under section 302/201/34 IPC against both the accused was framed and served upon them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution was called upon to adduce (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.3 of pages 53 evidence to prove its case as per law. Prosecution tendered 26 witnesses in all.

4. PW-1 Master Vicky (son of deceased and accused Rajni) and a material eye witnesses of the occurrence, confirmed that his deceased father and his mother used to quarrel very often as accused Pappu used to visit his house very frequently and his father used to ask his mother as to why she used to call Pappu but his mother never listen to his father. He also stated that in his house, food used to be cooked on heater. He confirmed that on 09.4.2011, at about 9.00 p.m there was tripping of electricity supply. His mother had gone to house of Pappu to take match box but Pappu came to their house and told that since electricity supply is there, he would repair it. Then his mother asked Pappu to repair the fault. In the mean time his father came there, who became angry on seeing Pappu, and asked his mother as to why she had called Pappu. His mother and father started quarreling on this issue. His father abused Pappu to which his mother objected. Than he went to sleep and his mother again called accused Pappu. Accused Pappu caught hold of his father from his back and his mother i.e. accused Rajni inserted cloth in the mouth of his father. His mother hit his father on his head/neck and on private urinary part (pishab wale raste par), consequent to which, his father fell down on the floor. Both the accused persons put his father on the cot. They removed clothes, which were worn by his father, and burnt them in the oven and put another pair of clothes on his father. His father expired. He categorically stated that accused Rajni (his mother) threatened him and his sister Nicky that if they disclose about these happening to anyone, then they both would be sent to their father at the place of God (agar kisi ko bole, to papa ke pass (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.4 of pages 53 bhagwan ke ghar bhijwa denge). Due to fear, they did not disclose these facts to anyone. He further stated that Pappu had brought a liquor bottle and his mother and Pappu had consumed liquor and had put empty bottle of wine near the cot of his father. Further his statement was also recorded by a Judge in a room. His mother called two women of the locality. Then his mother gave information regarding death of his father to Chacha Daya Chand. In the morning, somebody gave call to the police. He correctly identified the bat as Ex.PW1/P1 to be the same with which his mother namely Rajni had assaulted his father Ram Prasad on his neck and on his penis portion. He also proved on record his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C as Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. During cross examination he stated that the name of his chachaji is Dachan, who resides in his own house at D­1/611 Harsh Vihar for the last several years even prior to the date of occurrence and presently they are residing together in the house of his uncle. His dadaji, dadiji, chachaji are residing with them (four brothers and sisters). The distance between their previous residence i.e B­4/138 Gali No. 5 Harsh Vihar and the house of his uncle is about 1 km. His uncle, his dadaji and dadiji used to visit their previous residence occasionally. He stated that his uncle and grandparents were not aware of the quarrel taking place between his parents as neither he nor his siblings had ever conveyed the fact about the quarrel taken place between his parents. They are three brothers and one sister in total. Saurabh is the eldest brother and he is second one. On the day of incident, he and his sister Nicky only were present amongst their siblings. His younger brother Mohit was with his grandparents and he used to reside with them and his elder brother Saurabh had gone to attend one jagran and from (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.5 of pages 53 there he came back to home at about 2.30/3.00 a.m. When Saurabh had returned to home, he was awaken. Accused Rajni (his mother) was also at home and she was also awaken. His mother had already called two ladies of the neighbourhood and his grand parents had also arrived there. They i.e he himself, his sister and his mother were already there in the house, when Saurabh came back from jagran. His mother had told them that his father had expired due to consumption of heavy liquor. On the day of occurrence, he had not attended the school, however, his sister Nicky had attended her school on that day. He stated that they used to have dinner together along with their mother. The food used to be ready by 7.00 p.m and he alongwith his siblings used to go to bed by around 8.00 to 9.00 p.m. His father i.e deceased used to return home by 9.00-10.00 p.m. The house in which they used to reside was single storied constructed house. In the summer season, they used to sleep on the roof of the house. His parents i.e accused Rajni and deceased also used to sleep on the roof top. The quarrel between his parents used to take place in their presence in the house. He could not tell as why his elder brother Saurabh had left the studies. On the day of incident his father had not gone for his work and he was staying at home whole day. On that day, no quarrel had taken place between his mother and father in the day time. He stated that his father used to take liquor occasionally. When his father was in sober state of mind, no quarrel used to take place between him and his mother. He further stated that his mother always used to pick up the quarrel. During quarrel, his mother used to utter words "Aa mein tujhe bete ki kamai khilaoon, tu toh kuchch kaam karta nahi hai", since his elder brother also used to work. His father used to remain quite, when his mother (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.6 of pages 53 used to quarrel in the above manner. His father used to work and he used to go for his work daily. His mother used to meet co­accused Pappu and this was objected by his father and his mother used to utter to his father that mein toh usse milne jaungi. On this issue his father had never quarreled with Pappu prior to the day of incident. Nobody had taken them to the police station but police had come to their house. On the next day of occurrence they all siblings had gone to the house of their grandparents. The police had come to his grandparents' house after 10­15 days. his statement was recorded by the police in the PS and not at his grandparents' house. He was accompanied by his all siblings, grandparents and his mother. His uncle (chacha) had not accompanied them to the PS on that day. He was alone when his statement was recorded by the police but he had not read over the contents of his statement. At the time of incident, he was just promoted to class 7. He further stated that he had come to the court along with his grandparents and not with police for giving statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. He was asked by police officials to reach in the court for the said purpose. He confirmed that from the next day of the death of his father, he himself and his sister are residing with his grand parents and uncle. His mother had also accompanied them. She had remained with them for one or two days after the incident and thereafter, she was taken away by the police. After about 10/15 days of his coming to live with his grand parents, police officials had come over there and taken him to the P.S. for the first time and on the subsequent day, he had told them as to how his father had expired. His grand parents as well as his uncle were also taken to P.S and inquiry was made from them too. He was threatened by his mother accused Rajani not to disclose the same to anyone.

(SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.7 of pages 53 He stated that the date of occurrence is 09.04.2011. He confirmed that he had gone to the place of his grand parents and uncle on 10.4.2011. His mother was taken by police after 10/15 days of their shifting to the place of his grand parents and uncle. During that period she had remained with them at their grand parents house. He did not have any fear while staying with his grand parents and uncle. He could not narrate the incident, as to how his father was killed, to anyone including his grand parents and uncle prior to taking his mother by the police as he was threatened by her. Police had not visited his grand parents house, however, police had come first time at the place of occurrence after death of his father. Police had enquired on that day from him, his brother and sister regarding incident. He showed his ignorance as to what his brother and sister told to the police but he stated that he had not told anything to the police. Nothing was told to the police by his sister and brother in his presence on the day of occurrence or in the next morning. When he had come first time to the court with police officials, his grand parents had accompanied them. His grand parents had not tutored him as to what he had to depose. Police had interacted with him for some time say 10­15 minutes but he had not told him as to what he had to depose before the Judge. He denied that whatever he was tutored by his grand parents he had deposed before the Judge Sahab. He clarified that whatever he remember of his own he narrated the same. He denied that his father had died a natural death due to his post operation complications and falling on earth. He stated that at the time of occurrence, he was awaken. He was present in the room and not on the roof. It was a winter season. During winter season, they used to sleep in the room and not on the roof.

(SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.8 of pages 53 They did not raise hue and cry as they were threatened by both the accused persons. The incident lasted for about 2­3 hours. He stated that he was witnessing the scene of occurrence opening his eyes and he was weeping continuously but he did not raise any hue and cry during the occurrence and he was not crying loudly. After consuming liquor accused persons had kept the bottle near the cot. They had poured the liquor from the bottle into a glass. Only bottle was kept in the room near the cot. He had seen the bottle in the room on the next day. He did not sleep after the occurrence. Both the accused persons also did not sleep. His mother had called two ladies from the neighbourhood in the night itself. He conceded that being neighbourer he used to visit the house of those two ladies and viz a viz the ladies. He had not taken the police to the house of those two ladies. He had told about those two ladies to the police but they had not come. He did not go to the house where this occurrence had taken place subsequent to 10.4.2011. He stated that in his presence, police had lifted the bat Ex.PW1/P1.

PW­2 Dayachand (brother of deceased) stated that his brother namely Ram Prasad @ Babbal used to reside with his family in Gali No. 5 Harsh Vihar. He had sustained injuries in his stomach and he was operated and he was disturbed due to that. Further on 09.04.2011 at about 11.00 p.m, he received telephonic call that his brother Ram Prasad had expired. On receiving information regarding death of his brother Ram Prasad @ Babbal, he had gone to his house. He saw him lying dead. He was not having any enmity with anyone. He further stated that accused Rajani is his bhabhi (sister in law) and she is not the lady of good character. She was having illicit relation with her neighbour Udaiveer @ Pappu (correctly (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.9 of pages 53 identified). On this issue the quarrel used to take place between the deceased (his brother) and the accused Rajani and for this reason, his brother had started consuming liquor. He stated that he did not tell the same to anyone due to their fear of loss of reputation (badnami ke dar se nahi bataya).

During cross examination he stated that he had made statement to the police twice only. He had given his first statement to the police on 11.04.11. His brother expired on 09.04.11. Occurrence is of around 11­12 p.m when he had received call. Dead body of his brother was removed in the early morning. His second statement was recorded by the police in the PS after two months of his first statement. He also stated that he knew personally that the character of accused Rajani is not good and no body had told him about the same. He had never seen the accused Rajani and Udaiveer together. He denied that accused persons were not having illicit relations with each other.

PW­3 SI Mahesh Kumar (the then Duty Officer) proved on record the copy of FIR and his endorsement made on rukka as Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/A respectively. He also proved on record kaimi DD No.12A and DD No.13A (regarding departure of Insp. V.S. Poonia and Ct. Arvind) as Ex.PW3/C & Ex.PW3/D respectively. He also proved on record the requisite certificate U/s 65B as Ex.PW3/E bearing his signature at point A. PW­4 Ct. Dharmender Singh is the witness, who on 20.04.11 at about 5.00 p.m took an envelop containing copies of FIR, handed over to him by DO, for handing over the same to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, Joint CP Operation and DCP at their respective residences and accordingly, he had gone to the residence of all officers on his own Govt. Motorcycle DL 1 SS 2313 and handed over the copies of FIR to Officers.

(SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.10 of pages 53 PW­5 Sat Prakash (uncle of deceased) stated that deceased Ram Prasad @ Babban with his wife namely Rajni (correctly identified) and kids used to reside in the same locality in which he resides. Deceased used to meet him and he had been telling him that he is very disturbed (mein bahut pareshan hoon). On the occasion of Holi he had come to him and repeated the same thing. He had inquired from him if he was not having sufficient work, he could join him as he was also a plumber. The younger brother of deceased namely Daya Chand called him over telephone in the morning of incident that Ram Prasad had expired (khatam ho gaya hai). He stated that Ram Prasad had expired on 09.04.11. His statement Ex.PW5/A was recorded by police bearing his LTI at point A. He stated that he does not know anything else. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was concealing the true facts and resiling from his earlier statement given to the police and during that course he stated that accused Udai Veer (correctly identified) used to reside in the neighbourhood of deceased Ram Prasad. He had come to know that Rajni had established illicit relation with accused Udai Bir @ Pappu and on knowing this he had tried to convince the accused Rajni to desist from it but Rajni did not agree. Rajni continued her illicit relation with accused Udai Bir. He confirmed that since it was a family matter and keeping in view the reputation of family he had not told this relation to any other else, but subsequently all the persons came to know about the same.

During cross examination he stated that the distance between his residence and the residence of deceased Ram Prasad was around 5 kms. He had been to the house of Ram Prasad around 1 & 1½ months prior to the incident. He used to (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.11 of pages 53 visit the house of Ram Prasad in the intervals of 1­2 months or whenever the occasion arises. He came to know about the relations of Rajni and Udai Bir about 6­7 months prior to the death of Ram Prasad. As regards to source of information about the said illicit relationship, he stated that "Aisi baate pata chal jaati hai or gali mohalle se mujhe bhi pata chali". Further the members of their community are also residing at that locality. He did not call any panchayat or meeting of their community members in this regard. He denied that it was merely a rumor in the locality or that he was not knowing it personally. He stated that he himself had not seen accused Udai Bir sitting or talking with accused Rajni. Further on 11.04.2004 when IO got his statement Ex.PW5/A recorded, he was not knowing about the illicit relationship and I came to know about the same later on. He stated that his statements were read over to him by the IO and only thereafter, he put his thumb impression on his statement. Ram Prasad was residing in his own house at the time of incident. He did not call any meeting by calling the parents or other relatives of Rajni in this regard.

PW­6 Om Prakash (uncle of deceased) is the witness, who identified the dead body of deceased. His statement Ex.PW6/A bearing his LTI at point A in this regard was recorded by IO. He also proved on record request for postmortem form and inquest form 25.35(i)(b) as Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C respectively.

PW­7 Smt. Ram Wati (mother of deceased) stated that her son Ram Prasad @ Babban was blessed with four kids. Accused Rajni (correctly identified) is the wife of deceased Ram Prasad. She stated that being illiterate she is not able to tell the exact date or month but one year has passed since (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.12 of pages 53 th death of his son Ram Prasad and it was 9 day of the month and those were the days of Navratras of summer. Further accused Rajni had established illicit relation with accused Pappu (correctly identified), who used to reside in the neighabourhhood of her son Ram Prasad. She had tried to convince Rajni to mend her ways saying that she is mother of four kids and she should desist from her act but both accused continued with their such relation. She had not stated these things to any other persons due to the reputation of the family and it was a family matter. She further stated that both the accused for this reason had killed her son Ram Prasad.

During cross examination she stated that she had not stated to the police about her convincing to Rajni to discontinue her relation with Pappu. She could not tell as to if police had recorded her statement as she was not in right frame of mind on that day due to death of her son. On showing her statement Ex.PW7/DA, she admitted that it bears her signatures but she could not tell as to what was written therein. She stated that her son Ram Prasad (deceased) used to reside separately in the same locality at a walking distance of about half an hour. She used to visit the house of her son (deceased) may be in 15 days, sometime in one month or two months. She had been to the house of her deceased son one month prior to his death. She conceded that her deceased son had undergone surgery few years back prior to his death (kai saal pehle hui thi). The witness was read over the portion A to A of Ex.PW7/DA, wherein it is written that Babban had sustained injury in his stomach and due to this he was operated but she denies to have made such statement and further stated that he was operated about 10 years back. She denied that she was informed by deceased that he was (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.13 of pages 53 disturbed due to illness. She could not tell as to how many times her statement was recorded. Further on the day when her son had expired, she had gone to Sikri Mandir, Modi Nagar. She denied that she had not gone to Sikri Mandir and was very well present with Ram Prasad or that she had stated in her statement recorded by the police that they do not have suspicion on anyone or that she had stated to the police that she does not want any legal action against anyone. She stated that initially her deceased son had informed her about the illicit relation between accused Rajni and Udaibir. She had conveyed about the conduct of Rajni to the relatives of her parental side but nobody had given any heed towards it. The relatives from the parental side of Rajni had attended the funereal of her deceased son. She stated that she herself had not seen accused Udaibir and accused Rajni together. She denied that after death of her son, she had leveled a false allegation against accused Rajni or that it was merely as rumor that Rajni was having illicit relation with Udaibir.

PW-8 Dr. A. K Tyagi (Prof. Forensic Medicine, University College of Medical Science, GTB Hospital, Delhi) stated that he has seen PM report no.447/2011 dated 04.04.12 Ex.PW8/A prepared by Dr. Juthika Debbarma, Sr. Demonstrator, Department of Forensic medicine, UCMS and as per PM report doctor Juthika had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Ram Prasad @ Babblian whose body was brought to mortuary with alleged history of being hit by his wife and his wife's friend. There were three external injuries were present on his body and internally there was head injury in the form of suberrocnoid hemorrhage at various parts of brain and cause of death was given as shock as a result of ante mortem injures on the head produced by blunt force intact. However (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.14 of pages 53 the viscera was preserved as requested by IO. He further stated that he has seen chemical examination report of viscera dated 16.12.11 Ex.PW8/B prepared by Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemistry Sh. Bhartiya Arya and the report is negative for the presence of metallic poison of ethyl and methyl Alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides. After considering this report of chemical anylasis the cause of death in the case will remain the same. Subsequently on 18.07.11 he received an application along with a sealed parcel, said to be containing the weapon of offence in the case, for subsequent opinion sent by IO. On 25.07.11 he examined the weapon and considering the PM report he expressed his opinion Ex.PW8/C bearing his signature at point A that the weapon of offence was in the form of cricket bat which was broken at places was old and used and he gave his opinion that the injuries present over the body could be caused if the bat was hit with sufficient force on the head. Further weapon of offence was signed and re­sealed and was handed over back to IO along with sample seal Ex.PW8/D bearing his signatures at point A. He also stated that three photographs of the weapon of offence Ex.PW8/E, F & G bearing his signatures at point A, had also been taken and handed over to IO after examination and the bat depicted in the photographs is the same bat which was examined by him.

During cross examination he stated that external and internal examination of the deceased was done by Dr. Juthika and cause of death had also opined by her in the postmortem report and lateron after examination of weapon of offence, he had substantiated the opinion given by Dr. Juthika. It is based on the internal examination of head and brain of Ex.PW8/A. (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.15 of pages 53 Further description of the head injury has been given in the postmortem report under the head of internal examination of head and brain. The external injuries as mentioned in the postmortem report can be caused by blunt force impact. He conceded that there is no external visible injuries on the head, however, there was extensive effusion of blood underneath the scalp and above the skull bone and severe internal injuries can be caused even without any external injury over the head. Further he had considered the entire postmortem report while giving subsequent opinion. It has been clearly mentioned in his subsequent opinion that if a person is hit with sufficient force over the head by the weapon under examination, can result in the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report and hence the death due to head injury.

PW-9 Ct. Neeraj is the photographer, who proved on record five photographs of the spot taken by him as Ex.PW9/A1 to A5 and negatives there of as Ex.PW9/B1 to B6.

PW-10 Cont. Arvind Kumar is the witness to whom DO SI Mahesh Kumar handed over computerized copy of FIR and original rukka for further handing over the same to IO Inspector Virender Singh Punia on the spot i.e B­4/138 Gali no. 5 Harsh Vihar, Delhi and accordingly he took the said documents with him and handed over the same to IO at about 5.15 p.m. PW-11 Ct. Shiv Shanker (now HC) stated that on 15.06.2011 on the instruction of IO Inspector Virender Singh Punia, he had taken the vicera wooden box sealed with the seal of JD and one sealed envelope sealed with the seal of JD and sample seal of JD through RC no. 54/21/11 for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini and after depositing the same at FSL, he handed over the acknowledgment receipt and receiving copy of Road certificate to the MHC(M).

(SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.16 of pages 53 PW-12 W/Ct. Kamla is the witness, who on 21.04.2011 at about 1.45p.m had gone to GTB hospital with accused Rajani for getting her medical examination conducted.

PW-13 SI U. Balashankram, Incharge Crime Team, stated that on 10.04.2011 on receipt of a wireless message at his office at about 10.00/10.15 a.m he along with member of crime team reached at House No. B­4/138 Gali No. 5, Harsh Vihar for conducting inspection of the place of incident and commenced the inspection at about 10.50 a.m and completed at about 11.20 a.m. At the spot, he found one male dead body, aged about 37/38 whose name was revealed as Ram Prakash, which was photographed by Ct. Neeraj and IO SI Shailender Kumar was directed to get the postmortem conducted on dead body. He prepared his report Ex.PW13/A bearing his signatures at point A regarding the visit and inspection and handed over the same to IO later on. He stated that he has seen the photographs Ex.PW9/A1 to A5 and these photographs reflects the situation of the spot which he had found/seen on reaching at the spot.

PW-14 SI Shailender Kumar stated that on 10.04.2011 on receipt of DD No.8A mark PX (which was regarding killing of the husband by a lady with her friend) he along with Ct. Subash had gone to the spot i.e B­4/138 Gali No. 5 Harsh Vihar, where he saw one dead body of one young person whose name he came to know subsequently as Ram Prasad. He further stated that situation is reflected in photographs Ex.PW9/A1 to A5. He inspected randomly the dead body and there was no apparent injury on the dead body. In the meantime other police officials reached on the spot. Crime team officials and photographer were summoned. Crime Team Incharge SI U. Balashankram and Ct. Neeraj, photographer (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.17 of pages 53 came there. Photographer took the photographs. SI U. Balashankram inspected the spot. Dead body was got preserved at mortuary of GTB hospital on his written request, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW14/A. SI Yogender on being directed by SHO conducted the inquest proceedings.

During cross examination he stated that the call which was recorded vide DD No.8A was made from a PCO but the identity of caller could not be ascertained. He did not record the statement of owner of PCO from where the call was made.

PW­15 W/Ct. Sunita stated that on 10.04.2011, she was posted as computer operator at Chennel no.110 at PHQ, CPCR and on that day, at about 9:48:09am, she received a phone call from phone no.1122342870 and the name of the caller was Sohan Pal. R/o A­372, Harsh Vihar, Delhi­93, who informed that "B­4 Block, Gali No. 5, Harsh Vihar that ek lady ne apne dost ke saath mil kar, apne pati ko maar diya hai - 8pm ke karib, abhi tak laash yahin par hai". After receiving this information, she filled up the PCR form Ex.PW15/A and it was transferred to the communication department.

PW­16 HC Sandeep Kumar stated that on 10.04.2011, he had joined the investigation in this case with SI Shailender, to whom the DD no.8A was assigned. After receiving the above said DD, he accompanied SI Shailender to the spot and on reaching there, they found that SHO Insp. K.K. Upadhayay was already present there. On the direction of SHO, the dead body of one male person was removed to the mortuary of GTB hospital by him and SI Shailender and it was got preserved there. He was deputed in the mortuary to look after the dead body. On the next day, SI Yogender came to the mortuary and he got conducted the PM on the said dead body. Later on, on 24.04.2011, he collected the two parcels i.e. one box (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.18 of pages 53 containing visra and another parcel containing clothes of the deceased from the mortuary at the direction of IO Insp. V.S. Punia and same were handed over to Sh. V.S. Punia in the PS, who took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A bearing his signature at point­A. During cross examination he stated that he visited the spot in the morning of 10.04.2011 alongwith other police officials. The other family members of deceased Ram Prasad were present there. No inquiry was made from the family members of deceased Ram Prasad in his presence on that day regarding the manner the deceased had died. He stayed at the spot about half an hour. Some persons present at the spot were telling that the deceased Ram Prasad was not keeping well. Further in his presence no document was prepared by the IO.

PW­17 ASI Bhola Ram is the Duty Officer, who on 10.04.2011 at about 9.50 a.m received an information to the effect that "EK LADY NE APNE DOST KE SATH MILKAR PATI KO MAAR DIYA. RAAT 8 BAJE SE LAASH YAHIN HAI"

and reduced the same into writing vide DD No.8A Ex.PW17/A. PW­18 SI Yogender stated that he had joined investigation of the present case on 10.4.2011 with SI Shailender. On that day, SI Shailender received DD No.8­A and after receiving the aforesaid DD, he went to the spot i.e. B­4/138, Gali No.5, Harsh Vihar, Delhi. On reaching there, one dead body of a male was found lying on the floor of the said house. Crime Team was called who inspected the spot and took the photograph of the spot. Thereafter, the dead body was removed to the mortuary of GTB Hospital and it was got preserved there. On 11.4.2011, he was posted at PS Harsh Vihar and on the direction of the SHO/Ins.KK Upadhyay, he (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.19 of pages 53 went to the mortuary of the GTB Hospital. The identification of the dead body was got established by him through one Omprakash (maternal uncle of the deceased) and Rambhool (uncle of the deceased) and recorded their statements in this regard Ex.PW­6/A and Ex.PW­18/A respectively. Then, he made a request for postmortem vide his request Ex.PW­6/B. He also filled up the inquest report form 25.35(1b) Ex.PW­6/C bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, he got conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Ram Prasad. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. He made enquiry from the relatives of deceased in the hospital and also recorded the statements of Satyaprakash, Daya Chand and Smt.Rajni on 11.4.2011 in the hospital itself Ex.PW­5/A, Ex.PW­2/DA & Ex.PW­18/B respectively. Further on 20.4.2011, he again joined investigation of the present case with IO/Insp. Virender Singh Punia and he prepared the site plan Ex.PW­18/C at his instance. Ins.VS Punia constituted 2 teams - one team was being headed by him and the other by Ins. V. S. Punia himself. He alongwith his team went in search of the accused persons but without any result.

During cross examination he stated that when the site plan was prepared by the IO at his instance, no other police official was present there. He did not sign the site plan. His statement was recorded by the IO on 20.4.2011.

PW­19 Master Saurabh (son of deceased and accsued Rajni) stated that his deceased father used to drink liquor and oftenly a quarrel used to take place between his deceased father and mother. His mother used to call Pappu at their house and his father did not use to like his coming in the house. His mother used to call accused Pappu in their (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.20 of pages 53 absence. On 09.04.2011, a quarrel took place between his mother and father and on this he told his parents that if they continued with the quarrel then he will leave the house.

Thereafter, the matter was pacified by his mother and deceased father and he went in a jagarn, which had held in their colony after bolting the door from outside. At about 10.00 pm, his brother Vicky came to him in Jagarn and he told him that the quarrel was going on between their parents, but he did not go back to his house and remained in the Jagarn. However, his brother after informing him went back to his house. He came back to his house in the early morning after conclusion of jagran. On reaching there, he found that his father was lying dead on the floor. When he asked from his mother as to what happened, at that time accused Pappu was also present there. Thereafter, his mother and accused Pappu took him aside and threatened him "AGAR TUMNE IS BARE MAIN KISI KO BATAYA TO JAISE TUMHARE PAPA KE SATH HUA HAI TUMHARE SATH BHI HOGHA" On this he was so sacred and did not disclose anything to anyone. On 03.06.2011 he told all the facts to police and his statement was recorded in this regard. Certain leading questions were put to the witness by Ld. Addl. PP for state to which he conceded that on 09.04.2011 his mother called Pappu as the wire of heater on which he used to cook the food had burnt and on this his father got annoyed and started abusing his mother and on this he left his house for Jagran. He further conceded that his mother threatened him and instructed him that if some one asked about his father, he has to say that his father was ill and due to taking heavy liquor and hard work he had died.

During cross examination he stated that on 10.04.2011, around 20­25 Police officials reached at their house at about (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.21 of pages 53 9.00am . The police officials inquired from him about the cause of death of his father and he told to police officials that his father was not keeping well. No police officials met him on 11.04.2011 at his home. However, on 11.04.2011 he went to police station. He conceded that on 11.04.2011 police officials again inquired from him about the cause of death of his father. After 11.04.2011, he was called by police for inquiry about the death of his father only in the month of June, 2011. He himself did not approach the police to tell about the cause of death of his father. His father was the only earning member of his family. He conceded that his father was operated on his abdomen 3­4 years prior to his death or that his parents used to quarrel due to the habit of drinking of his father. Police got recorded his statement EX.PW19/DA at his home on 11.04.2011 and at that time his brothers, sister and his grand father were also present at the house. He also stated that he, his brothers and sisters are residing with their grand parents since 10.04.2011. He alongwith his brothers and sisters had shifted to their grand parents home from 10.04.2011 and since then no threat was ever received by him or his siblings. After 11.04.2011 his statement was recorded in June at Police Station and at that time his grand parents were with him.

PW­20 Ct. Subhash Chand stated that 10.04.2011 he along with SI Shailender went to the spot i.e H.No. 138, B­4/138, gali no. 5, Harsh Vihar, Delhi, where they found that dead body of one male person aged about 40 years was lying on the floor of the room and the name of that person (deceased) was revealed as Ram Prasad @ Babban s/o Late Kishan Lal. The relatives of the deceased were present there. The Crime Team also reached at the spot and they inspected the spot and took the photograph. Thereafter, the dead body (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.22 of pages 53 was removed to GTB hospital by SI Yogender.

PW­21 HC Harkesh stated that on 20.04.2011 he had joined the investigation of the present case with Inspector V.S. Punia, SI Yogender, ASI Prem Pal Singh, Ct. Sunil and they all went to the spot i.e H.No. B­4/138, gali no. 5, Harsh Vihar, Delhi, where they found that the aforesaid house was locked. Inspector V.S. Punia prepared the site plan. On inquiry from the neighbors, they came to know that after the death of her husband, Smt. Rajni w/o Sh. Ram Prasad started living with her mother in law at D­1/611, Gali no. 18, Harsh Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter, they went to D­1 Block, Harsh Vihar, Delhi, where Smt. Rajni along with her children met them. SI Yogender and Ct. Sunil were sent to some other place by Inspector V.S. Punia. The inquiry from the children of Smt. Rajni were made by Inspector V.S. Punia and Inspector V.S. Punia recorded the statement of Vickey and Nickey ( children of the deceased). Lady Ct. Shashi Mala was called from the Police Station. Thereafter, Smt. Rajni (accused) was also interrogated and during interrogation, accused Rajni admitted her involvement in the murder of her husband with co­accused Pappu @ Udaivir. Her disclosure statement was recorded. Accused Rajni was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW21/A and her personal search was conducted by Lady Ct. Shashi Mala. Thereafter, they went to Kamal Gate, Saboli Phatak near the house of contractor of electricity and from there accused Pappu @ Udaivir was apprehended at the instance of accused Rajni. He was also interrogated and during that course he also confessed his guilt, and then he was also arrested vide memo Ex.PW21/B bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of accused Pappu at point X. His personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW21/C. During the course of (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.23 of pages 53 interrogation accused Pappu made disclosure statement Ex.PW21/D bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of accused Pappu at point X. Thereafter, both the accused persons led the police party to the spot i.e B­4/138, and accused Rajni got recovered one cricket bat from the roof of latrine while saying that she gave bat blow on the head of her husband at the time of commission of offence. The said bat was sealed in a cloth parcel with the seal of VSP, and the parcel was taken into police possession vide pointing out cum seizure memo Ex.PW21/E. Accused Udaivir also pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW21/F. Thereafter, the medical examination of accused Pappu was got conducted by him. He correctly identified the cricket bat as Ex.PW1/P1. On putting a leading question (after taking permission of Court) he conceded that after the arrest of accused Rajni from D­1/611, gali no. 18, Harsh Vihar, Delhi, she led the police party to the spot i.e H.No. B­4/138 and from there she got recovered bat and thereafter they went to Kamal Singh Gate, near Saboli Phatak and from there accused Udaivir was arrested.

During cross examination he stated that except Inspector B. S Punia, they all were in civil dress and they went to the spot by different vehicles. He was with ASI Prem Pal on his own motorcycle. The site plan was prepared by Inspector Punia while standing outside the house and the house was closed at that time and at that time the site plan of inside of the house was not prepared. He stated that the site plan was prepared without scale by Inspector Punia but on showing the site plan Ex.PW18/C to the witness, it is admitted by the witness that the site plan is scaled one. He stated that as far as he remembers, in his presence Inspector Punia had (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.24 of pages 53 recorded the statement of Nicky, Vicky and Rajni in his own handwriting. Accused Pappu was not met them at B­4 Gali No. 5, Harsh Vihar rather he met them at Rumal Singh Gate, Saboli, Delhi. Accused Rajni was arrested at 8.00 p.m and before that interrogation (Poochh tach) was made from her which took considerable time. After arrest of Pappu, he was taken to the spot i.e B­4, Gali No. 5 Harsh Vihar and they reached at the PS at 12 mid night. The bat was got recovered by the accused Rajni from the roof of toilet constructed at first floor of the house at B­4 Gali No. 5. He could not tell as to whether any mark of identification was made on the bat by Inspector Punia or not. He claimed that in the seizure memo of bat, measurement of bat was written by IO but on showing the seizure memo of bat Ex.PW21/E to the witness, no measurements of the bat was found mentioned therein and the witness has admitted his signatures at point A of Ex.PW21/E. He claimed that both the accused persons were taken to GTB hospital for getting their medical examination conducted by himself and L/Ct. Shashi Bala but on showing the medical reports both dated 21.04.11 of Rajni and Pappu Ex.PW21/DA and Mark X respectively to the witness he conceded that names of L/Ct. Kamla and Ct. Som Dutt respectively are written therein. Further at the time of getting the lock of house No.B­4 Gali No.5 opened, except the police officials and the accused Rajni no other public persons were present there. No public person had joined in the investigation at the time of arrest of accused Pappu. He conceded that site plan was prepared at the instance of accused Pappu and at that time dead body and other articles were not available there.

PW­22 Ms. Nikki (daughter of deceased and accused Rajni) stated that she knew Pappu, who was residing in their (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.25 of pages 53 neighbourhood. On 09.04.2011 at about 9.00 p.m, her mother had asked match box from Pappu, on this her father asked her mother that when he was having match box with him, than why she had asked the same from Pappu. On this her mother gave a slap to her father. Thereafter, a quarrel had taken place between her parents. Her brother Saurav after getting her parents separated/pacified, went away for Jagran. Then her mother called Pappu, who caught hold the hands of his father and her mother inserted cloth in the mouth of her father. Thereafter, her mother gave cricket bat blow on the private part and on the neck of his father, accordingly, her father went down on the ground. Then her mother and Pappu lifted her father and laid him on the cot. Thereafter, clothes of her father were removed and burnt in Chulha and other clothes were put/worn to her father. Her mother and Pappu consumed liquor, brought by Pappu, together and put the bottle of liquor near the cot of her father. She stated that she did not raise alarm as she was threatened by her mother and Pappu while saying that if she raised alarm, they would kill her too like her father. Thereafter, her mother called two ladies from neighbourhood, who made a call to her chacha (uncle). In the morning some body called the police. His father was taken to hospital and she came to know that her father had expired. She correctly identified both the accused persons. She also correctly identified the bat Ex.PW1/D1 to be the same vide which her mother assaulted her father. She proved on record her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C as Ex.PW22/A bearing her signatures at point A. During cross examination she stated that on the day of incident electricity had gone, so they could not take their dinner. The electricity had gone at about 8.00 p.m, and before (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.26 of pages 53 8.00 p.m, her mother had cooked the chapaties and her father cooked the sabzi. She and her brother had taken their dinner but her mother and father had not taken the dinner. She used to go to sleep at around 9.00 p.m. On that night, she went to sleep with her Naani. Her brother had gone to see Jagran around 11.00-11.30 p.m. Pappu came to their house at around 9.30 p.m. She stated that today (i.e. on the day of recording of her statement before the court) neither any police official nor her dada and dadi had tutored her. She stated that her naani was not residing in the house in which her mother was residing. On the day of occurrence, her nani was not present in the house, however, she was present on the next morning. She stated that no body came to their house at the time when the quarrel took place between her father and mother. On that day, her mother had cooked food on gas stove. She conceded that some time her mother used to cook food on electric heater. The clothes of her father were burnt in Chulha. The chulha is used to lit by the wood sticks. Chulha was lit by her mother lateron to get clothes of her father burnt.

PW­23 L/Ct. Shashi Mala stated that on 20.04.2011 she was called by the IO at the house No. D­1/611 Gali No. 18 Harsh Vihar where ASI Prem Pal, HC Harkesh and Inspector Punia met her. Many persons were also present there at that time. In her presence IO made inquiry from the children of the deceased Ram Prasad. He also interrogated the wife of deceased Ram Prasad. Initially the wife of deceased namely Rajni told that she was not aware as to how her husband received injuries on his person but when her children were interrogated/inquired then she disclosed that she had illicit relations with Pappu @ Udai Veer and due to the illicit relations she conspired with accused Udaiveer and thereafter she gave (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.27 of pages 53 bat blows on the head. Thereafter, accused Rajni was arrested vide memo Ex.PW21/A and her personal search was conducted by her vide memo Ex.PW23/A, both memos bearing her signatures at point A and thumb impression of accused Rajni at point X. During the course of interrogation accused Rajni made disclosure statement Ex.PW23/B bearing her signatures at point A and thumb impression of accused Rajni at point X. Thereafter, accused Rajni got recovered one cricket bat from the roof of toilet at first floor while saying that she had inflicted injury on the person of deceased. Thereafter, the bat was taken into possession and sealed in a cloth parcel with the seal of VSP, vide memo Ex.PW21/E bearing her signatures at point B. Thereafter, accused Rajni was taken to GTB hospital for getting her medical examination conducted. She correctly identified cricket bat as Ex.PW1/P1 to be the same which was recovered by accused Rajni from the roof of toilet at first floor.

During cross examination she stated that she reached at D­3/611 Gali No. 18 Harsh Vihar at about 9.00 p.m. and Inspector Punia was accompanied with her. All the police officials were in uniform. She stated that she is not aware whether the incident had occurred at D­1/611 or not but she did not leave the place D­1/611 during investigation on 20.04.2011. IO had not prepared the site plan of recovery and arrest memo in her presence. The particulars of the case FIR were mentioned on the recovered bat by the IO.

PW­24 Insp. Dheeraj Singh stated that on 06.05.2011 investigation of the present case was assigned to him. On 20.05.2011, he recorded the statements of PWs (police officials). On 03.06.2011, he had also recorded the statements of PWs (relatives of the deceased). On 15.06.2011, the exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Shiv Shankar and (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.28 of pages 53 he recorded the statement of Shiv Shankar and MHC(M) in this regard. On 27.06.2011, he collected the PCR form Ex.PW15/A from PHQ. On 11.07.2011, he recorded the statement of child witness namely Nikki. On 13.07.2011 the statement of witness Nikki and Vicky Ex.PW22/A & Ex.PW1/A respectively were got recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. On 18.07.2011, he had sent the sealed pullanda containing weapon of offence i.e cricket bat alongwith PM Report to the Head of the Department Forensic Medicine, GTB Hospital alongwith his written request Ex.PW24/A for seeking subsequent opinion through Ct. Mehtab. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the court concerned. Lateron, on 04.08.2011 he obtained the subsequent opinion Ex.PW8/C from GTB Hospital and it was filed through a supplementary charge sheet. FSL report Ex.PW8/B was also filed in the present case through supplementary charge sheet by Insp.Vijay Vergiya.

During cross examination he stated that he did not record the statement of Ct. Mehtab. Prior to 06.05.2011, he did not join the investigation of the present case with the previous IO.

PW­ 25 SI Prem Pal stated that on 20.04.11 he along with SI Yogender, Ct. Sunil and HC Harkesh had joined the investigation of the present case with Inspector V. S Punia. On that day they had gone to the spot i.e House No. B­4/138, Gali No. 5 Harsh Vihar, Delhi, where they found that house was locked. On inquiry they came to know that Smt. Rajni W/o late Ram Prasad was living at D­1 Gali No. 18 Harsh Vihar, Delhi along with her mother in law after the death of her husband. Thereafter, they went there. Inspector V. S Punia constituted a team headed by SI Yogesh and Ct. Sunil and send them in the area to collect the information about the present case. In the house of D­1 Gali No.18 Harsh Vihar, (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.29 of pages 53 Delhi, the mother in law of Rajni namely Ramwati and Rajni along with her children found present. Inspector V. S Punia called L/Ct. Shashi Mala there. Accordingly she came there. The inquiry was made from Rajni and from her children separately and their statements were recorded by the IO. On inquiry/interrogation Rajni disclosed that there were illicit relations between her and her neighbour namely Pappu @ Udai Veer and she along with Pappu @ Udaiveer committed murder of her husband with the help of cricket bat. During course of interrogation accused Rajni had made her disclosure statement Ex.PW23/B bearing her signatures at point B and signatures of accused Rajni at point X. Thereafter, accused Rajni led them to her house i.e B­4/138 Gali No. 5 Harsh Vihar and Rajni opened the lock of the house and thereafter, they entered into the house. Accused Rajni led them to the roof of the house and from the roof of the latrine she got recovered one cricket bat while saying that the said bat was used by them while committing murder of her husband. The bat was seized and sealed in the cloth parcel with the seal of VSP and parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW 21/E. Accused Rajni had also pointed out the place of occurrence. In the meantime Inspector V. S Punia received a secret information that co­accused Pappu @ Udaiveer was working with the contractor of electricity at Rumal Singh gate, Saboli near Railway Phatak. Thereafter, they went at Rumal Singh gate, Saboli near Railway Phatak and on reaching there accused Rajni pointed out towards Pappu @ Udai Veer. Accordingly, accused Pappu @ Udai veer was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW 20/B and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW 21/C. During course of interrogation, accused Pappu made disclosure (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.30 of pages 53 statement Ex.PW21/D bearing her signatures at point B and signatures of accused Udaiveer at point X. Thereafter, accused Udaiveer led the police party to the spot i.e first floor of house no. B­4/138 Gali No. 5 Harsh Vihar, Delhi and he pointed out the place of occurrence where they had committed murder of Ram Prasad @ Babbal vide Pointing out memo Ex.PW 21/F. He correctly identified the cricket bat as Ex.PW1/P1 to be the same which was recovered by the accused Rajni from the roof of toilet at first floor. He correctly identified both the accused persons.

During cross examination he could not tell whether IO had prepared the site plan of place of recovery of bat. They reached at the place of arrest of accused Udaiveer at about 9.00 p.m. At the place of arrest of accused Udaiveer, there were shops. When accused Rajni pointed out towards the accused Udaiveer was present (moving) there. At that time, public persons were present there but no public person had joined the investigation as they had refused to join the same. The neighbours had told about the whereabouts of Rajni i.e D­1 Gali No. 18 Harsh Vihar, Delhi. Rough site plan of the spot was prepared by the IO on 20.04.11. The particulars of the FIR were mentioned by the IO on the bat at the time of sealing the same. He could not tell if the signatures of accused Rajni were obtained on the bat or not.

PW­26 Inspector Virender Singh Punia stated that on 10.04.2011 at about 9.50 AM DD No. 8A Ex.PW17/A was recorded at P.S Harsh Vihar regarding the fact that one lady has killed her husband with the help of her friend at B­4 Block, Gali No.5, Harsh Vihar, Delhi. After lodging the above said DD it was assigned to SI Shalinder, who left the police station along with Ct. Subhash. The ingredients/facts of the said DD (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.31 of pages 53 were also apprised by the Duty Officer to him being Inspector Investigation and the SHO. After receiving the information about the above said incident, he along with SHO went to the given address in DD No.8A and there they came to know that the incident had occurred at H.No. B­4/138 Gali No.5, Harsh Vihar. On reaching there SI Shalinder along with Ct. Subhash met them and one dead body of deceased, whose name was Ram Prasad @ Baban was revealed, was lying on the floor of the said house at ground floor. They formally examined the dead body and found that there was not visible injury on it. No eye witness came forward who had seen the incident. After giving instructions to SI Shalinder to complete the proceedings at the spot and to remove the dead body to mortuary etc., he and SHO left the spot. On 18.04.2011, he collected the postmortem report Ex.PW4/A from GTB Hospital, wherein doctor opined about the cause of death "shock as a result of ante mortem injury to head produced by blunt force impact". Thereafter, he discussed the matter with SHO and Sr. Officers and thereafter, he took over the investigation/inquiry. On 20.04.2011, he prepared rukka Ex.PW26/A bearing his signatures at point A, on the basis of DD No.8A and it was presented before the Duty Officer for registration of the FIR. After presenting the rukka before Duty Officer, he along with ASI Prem Pal, Ct. Harkesh and SI Yoginder and Ct. Sunil Kumar left the P.S. for the spot. On reaching the spot, the house no. B­4/138 was found locked and they came to know that the wife of deceased namely Rajni along with her children was residing with her mother in law at D­1 Block, Harsh Vihar. Thereafter, they went at D­1 Block, Harsh Vihar and Rajni wife of deceased, her mother in law and her children found present there. They made inquiry from the children of deceased Ram (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.32 of pages 53 Prasad and from her mother in law and Rajni. He observed that the children were scared at that time. Thereafter, they were inquired by him politely and they disclosed that their mother had killed their father with the help of neighbor namely Udaiveer. He recorded the statement of Vicky aged about 11 years. Thereafter, he called lady Ct. from P.S Harsh Vihar by making call to the Duty Officer. Subsequently, lady Ct. Shashi Mala came at the spot. Thereafter, in the presence of lady Ct. Shashi Mala, Rajni was interrogated. Initially, she tried to mislead them but later on she admitted her involvement in the murder of her husband along with Udaiveer @ Pappu. Thereafter, she was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW21/A at about 8 PM bearing his signature at point C and thumb impression of accused Rajni at point X. Her personal search was also conducted by lady Ct. Shashi Mala vide arrest memo Ex.PW23/A bearing his signature at point C and thumb impression of accused Rajni at point X. Thereafter, accused Rajni was interrogated in detail and during that course she made her disclosure statement Ex.PW23/B bearing his signature at point C and thumb impression of accused Rajni at point X. Thereafter, SI Shalinder and Ct. Sunil were sent in the locality to gather the information. Thereafter, accused Rajni led the police party to her house i.e. B­4/138, Gali No.5, Harsh Vihar and on reaching there she opened the lock and got recovered one old used cricket bat from the roof of latrine at first floor while saying that she attacked with the said bat on the head of her husband when her co­accused Udaiveer @ Pappu caught hold the deceased. Thereafter, the cricked bat was sealed in a cloth parcel with a seal of VSP and parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo cum pointing out memo Ex.PW21/A bearing his signature at point C. Site Plan (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.33 of pages 53 of the place of recovery Ex.PW26/B was prepared by him bearing his signature at point A. They came to know that co accused Udaiveer used to work at Rumal Singh Gate along with electric contractor. Thereafter, they went to Rumal Singh Gate and they laid a trap there and after about 10-15 minutes one person came there and accused Rajni pointed out towards that person as Udaiveer. Thereafter, he was apprehended and interrogated. During course of investigation he admitted his involvement in the present case. Accused Udaiveer was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW20/B and his personal search was also conducted vide personal search memo ExPW21/C both memos bearing her signatures at point C and signatures of accused Udaiveer at point X. Accused Udaiveer then interrogated in detail and during that course he made disclosure statement ExPW21/D bearing his signatures at point C and signatures of accused Udaiveer at point X. Thereafter, accused Udaiveer led the police party to the spot i.e. house no. B­4/138, Harsh Vihar, Gali No.5 and he pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW21/F bearing his signatures at point B and signatures of accused Udaiveer @ Pappu at point X. Thereafter, both the accused persons were brought to the police station. He recorded the statement of PWs and deposited the case property with MHC(M). On the next day both the accused persons were produced before the court concerned and from there they were remanded on one day PC. During PC they were interrogated and nothing new come out. Thereafter, on the next day they both were produced before the court concerned and sent to J/C. On 24.04.2011 HC Sandeep handed over two parcels sealed with the seal of JD along with sample seal of the above said seal to him and he took the (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.34 of pages 53 above said parcels into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he was transferred. He correctly identified the cricket bat (old and used) Ex.PW1/P1 to be the same which was got recovered by accused Rajni from his house. He confirmed that on 20.04.2011 site plan Ex.PW18/C was prepared by him bearing his signatures at point A. During cross examination he stated that on 10.04.2011 he along with SHO K. K Upadhaya went to the spot after receiving the DD No. 8A. SI Shailender was also present at the spot. They tried to trace the person who made the call at number 100 for the incident but he could not be traced out. He did not record the statement of any public person on 10.04.2011. On 18.04.2011, he had collected the postmortem report from the hospital. After receiving the postmortem report and knowing the fact that the deceased had died an unnatural death, no investigation was made till 20.04.2011. On 20.04.2011 they went to the spot i.e B­4/138 at about 5.00 p.m through the govt. vehicle but he could not tell the name of the driver of the vehicle. He had reached at D­1 block at about 6.00 p.m. The distance between B­4/138 and D­1 block is about 1 ½ kms. He had recorded the statement of Master Vicky in his own handwriting while sitting inside the house and it took around 30 minutes to him in writing his statement. He could not tell as whom the seal was handed over after sealing the bat. He stated that he had prepared the site plan of the recovery of the bat. He came to know from the neighbours of house no. B­4/138 that accused Udaiveer is working at Rumal Singh Gate with one contractor. Neither he nor IO had recorded the statement of that neighbour who informed about the employment of Udaiveer Singh. IO had recorded the (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.35 of pages 53 statement of some witnesses during inquest proceedings. He conceded that IO had recorded the statements of in­laws of accused Rajni. He also conceded that no body was suspected for the death of deceased. Only IO could tell about the caller who had made call from PCO as the investigation was handed over to him on 20.04.2011. No site plan of the place from which the call was made by the caller through PCO, was prepared by the IO.

5. After conclusion of evidence, statements of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they controverted all the incriminating evidence adduced against them as false and fabricated and pleaded innocence. Accused Rajni claimed that all the PWs have deposed against her at the instance of her in laws. She also claimed that her husband used to consume liquor in adequate quantity and on the day of incident when the electricity was not there, her husband fell down and he sustained internal injuries due to which he died. On the other hand accused Udaiveer claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the statement of co­accused Rajni. Further he was maintaining his family by labouring and has no concerned with the alleged incident.

6. Final Arguments were heard at length. I have gone through the entire records and given my prolonged consideration to the controversy in hand.

7. According to the contention of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the case of the prosecution launched U/s 302/201/34 IPC based on natural and trustworthy eye witnesses of the occurrence namely PW­1 Master Vicky, PW­22 Ms. Nikki (the minor children of deceased and accused Rajni) coupled with the medical and scientific evidence in consonance to the case of prosecution is crystal clear. Not only PW­1, PW­22 but even (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.36 of pages 53 PW­19 Master Saurabh have also completely remained consistent with the story of prosecution and despite of their cross examination at great length by the counsels for the accused persons, no dent could be caused in their testimonies. Moreover the PM report is also supportive to the case of prosecution as cause of death as come as "shock as a result of ante mortem injures on the head produced by blunt force intact", which suggests that deceased had died an unnatural death. Even for the sake of arguments if the plea as raised by the defence that the accused was an alcoholic person and 4­5 years prior to the occurrence he sustained stomach injuries and for that reason he used to remain sick and he died a natural death is accepted then this plea itself goes against the defence as because of the fact that the deceased used to remain unwell and he was an alcoholic person, an illicit relation was developed between the accused Rajni and Udaiveer and it was the motive for removal of the victim/deceased from their way. Moreover the postmortem report also no where suggests that deceased died a natural death. The weapon of offence i.e. the cricket bat Ex.PW1/P1 is proved on record. Not only the witnesses have duly identified the same but it is matter of record that the same was got recovered by the accused Rajni by herself from her house. Further both PW­1 & PW­22 have clearly confirmed that on sustaining of head injury from the cricket bat blows, their father (deceased) fell unconscious and his clothes were changed and the removed wearing clothes of deceased were got burnt in Chulha by the accused persons. Thus the case of prosecution is proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences charged with.

On the other hand, according to Ld. Counsel for accused (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.37 of pages 53 persons the prosecution has been failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of doubt for the reasons firstly, the testimonies of PW­1 Master Vicky and PW­22 Ms. Nikki (the minors) can not be believed upon being the tutored witnesses and the after thought. They are kids and were got influenced very easily. Further the time gap between the incident and date of recording of their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C and thereafter, U/s 164 Cr.P.C is very relevant and as such the testimonies of these witnesses can not be safely relied upon. It is a matter of record that the statements were recorded by the IO on 20.04.2011 i.e. after about more than 10 days of the incident. Even their statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C were got recorded by the police around three months from the date of occurrence and no plausible explanation for this undue delay has been furnished which is significant particularly where admittedly children were taken away to the house of their paternal grand parents on the next day of incident itself and further on the day of recording of their statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C they had gone to the Court alongwith their grand parents. The explanation put forwarded by prosecution that the kids were terrified by the accused persons particularly by Rajni by stating that "KISI KO BHI BATAYA TO TUMHAIN BHI PAPA KE PAAS PAHUCHA DAINGE" is not convincing in the circumstances where it is a matter of record that children were got shifted to their grand parental house on the very next day of incident. So no question arise of giving threats to the children. Further the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report are not in consonance with the case of prosecution. Admittedly neither any blood was oozed out from the head of the deceased nor the postmortem reflects any injury inflicted on the private part or on the head of deceased. The injury on (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.38 of pages 53 the back of neck can not be termed as the head injury. It being not an injury on the vital part of body, is not fatal. Further even for the sake of arguments if it is presume that accused Rajni was having illicit relationship with co­accused Udaiveer and the same fact was in the knowledge of deceased then why no quarrel was taken place between deceased and the accused Udaiveer prior to the date of incident? Further the incident for the first time was got recorded by lodging DD No.8A at around 9.50 a.m on 10.04.2011 on receipt of a telephonic call from a PCO by one Kanwar Pal R/o A­72, Harsh Vihar, Delhi i.e. "EK LADY NE EK DOST KE SATH MILKAR APNE PATI KO MAAR DIYA HAI. RAAT 8 BAJE SE LAASH YAHIN HAI", but surprisingly no effort was made to trace, examine and produce the said informant Kanwar Pal before the Court. Further it is matter of record that after receipt of the information, the police had firstly recorded the statements of PW Sat Prakash (maternal uncle of deceased) and Smt. Ramwati (mother of deceased) on 11.04.2011 and both of them had stated that the death of deceased was natural death. In fact, he had suffered an injury in his stomach around 4­5 years prior to the date of occurrence for which surgery was also taken place and due to which he used to remain sick and disturbed. Moreover, deceased was a habitual drinker and on the day of incident under the influence of alcohol, he fell down from the cot due to which he collapsed and died. He died a natural death and he was having no enmity with anybody. In his cross examination PW­1 has stated that after the occurrence, accused Rajni had called two ladies from the neighbourhood but he did not know their names, however, no where in the entire investigation any effort was made to find out as to who were those ladies and why those ladies were not joined in the investigation? The (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.39 of pages 53 very act of calling the ladies from the neighbourhood itself shows that the deceased had died a natural death. Further as per prosecution, the cricket bat (i.e. weapon of offence) was got recovered by the accused Rajni whereas according to PW Master Vicky, the bat was got recovered by the police official on the next day of occurrence itself. Further as per the testimony of PW Daya Chand he got the information about the occurrence on the same night itself and he immediately rushed at the spot where PW Ramwati was already present. If it was so, then why there was difference in testimonies of both of the said witnesses.

8. After giving my anxious thoughts to the aforesaid rival submissions and perusing the entire material place on record, I have come to the considered opinion that the prosecution has remained successful in proving its case against the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused Ranji and Udaiveer @ Pappu are liable to suffer an order to conviction U/s 302/201/34 IPC against them.

9. It is evident from above detailed facts and brief recapitulation of evidence and statements of accused persons that firstly the factum of death of Ram Prasad (the deceased) and the presence of accused persons at the spot on the relevant date and time is not disputed.

One of the main pleas raised on behalf of the accused persons that the postmortem Ex.PW8/A (wherein none of the external injuries as mentioned in the report is found on head or the private part) is not supportive to or in consonance to the case of prosecution does not inspire any confidence as PW­8 Dr. A.K. Tyagi, who appeared before the court to depose on behalf of Dr. Juthika Debbarma (who had conducted (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.40 of pages 53 postmortem on the dead body of Ram Prasad @ Babban and had noted three external injuries on the body of deceased and internally there was head injury in the form of suberrocnoid hemorrhage at various parts of brain), confirmed that the cause of death was "shock as a result of ante mortem injures on the head produced by blunt force intact".

Perusal of the PM Report dated 11.04.2011 Ex.PW8/A reveals that time since death was described as about one and half day. The date and time of conducting postmortem mentioned in the PM report as 11.04.2011 between 12.05 p.m to 1.00 p.m. It apparently corresponds with time of the incident as given in FIR as in the night of 09.04.2011. In the case, PW­8 Dr. A.K. Tyagi had examined the weapon of offence, sought by the IO for obtaining subsequent opinion, wherein he expressed his opinion vide report Ex.PW8/C that "the injuries present over the body could be caused if the bat was hit with sufficient force on the head." In the cross examination of PW­8, findings of the doctor as to nature of injuries, cause of death as well as his opinion as to weapon produced by the police could not be controverted or shattered by the accused persons. Further in his cross examination PW­8 Dr. A.K. Tyagi confirmed that the external injuries as mentioned in the postmortem report can be caused by blunt force impact. He categorically stated that there was extensive effusion of blood underneath the scalp and above the skull bone and severe internal injuries can be caused even without any external injury over the head. It has been clearly mentioned in his subsequent opinion that if a person is hit with sufficient force over the head by the weapon under examination, it can result in the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report and hence the death due to head injury. The Chemical Examination Report of viscera (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.41 of pages 53 dated 16.12.2011 Ex.PW8/B also does not support the plea of the accused persons.

Further in this case, accused Rajni has taken an another defence that her husband used to consume liquor in adequate quantity and on the day of incident, when the electricity was not there, her husband fell down and he sustained internal injuries due to which he died. Meaning thereby, she is claiming that at the time of occurrence her husband was under the influence of liquor and he fell down and sustained injuries which proved fatal, but her said plea is falsify by the medical evidence brought on record specially the testimony of PW­8 Dr. A.K. Tyagi, who in his deposition has categorically stated that Chemical Examination Report of viscera dated 16.12.2011 Ex.PW8/B prepared by Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemistry Sh. Bhartiya Arya is negative for the presence of metallic poison of ethyl and methyl Alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides. Further the Postmortem Report wherein cause of death has been given as "shock as a result of ante mortem injures on the head produced by blunt force intact" is not in consonance/plea raised/taken by the accused. The injuries mentioned in the Postmortem Report can not be sustained by a person merely by falling under the influence of liquor. Significantly PW­8 has clarified this fact in his cross examination while stating that if a person is hit with sufficient force over the head by the weapon under examination, it can result in the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report and hence the death due to head injury.

Another plea of the accused persons that the death of Ram Prasad (the deceased) was "natural one" as he had (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.42 of pages 53 suffered an injury in his stomach around 4­5 years prior to the date of incident for which the surgery was also performed and due to which he used to remain sick and disturbed is also falsified by the postmortem report Ex.PW8/A which does not find mentioned any traces of such old injuries and the surgery performed. Moreover, no documentary material like treatment papers, discharge summary, OPD card etc. has been placed on record by the accused persons to establish their said claim. Even otherwise, this plea itself goes against the defence as it further strengthen the claim of prosecution that as the deceased used to remain unwell and he was an alcoholic person, the illicit relation was developed between the accused Rajni and Udaiveer and it was the motive for removal of the victim/deceased from their way. Moreover the postmortem report also no where suggests that deceased died a natural death.

To establish its case that the accused persons namely Ranji and Udaivir are those assailants, who in furtherance of their common intention had caused death of Ram Prasad @ Babban, the prosecution has examined two star witnesses i.e. PW­1 Master Vicky and PW­22 Ms. Nikki, who are incidentally minor son and daughter respectively of deceased and accused Rajni and have witnessed the incident. In their respective statements (which were recorded after getting satisfied about their capabilities and capacity) PW­1 & PW­22 have fully corroborated with the story of prosecution. Their presence at the spot i.e. at the house of Rajni and deceased, being their minor children is natural one and the same remained undisputed too. PW­1 Master Vikcy has confirmed in his deposition that his deceased father and his mother used to quarrel very often as accused Pappu used to visit his house (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.43 of pages 53 very frequently and his father used to ask his mother as to why she used to call Pappu but his mother never listen to his father. He also confirmed that on 09.4.2011 at about 9.00 p.m accused Pappu came to their house as due to tripping of the electricity supply and his mother had gone to house of Pappu to take match box but Pappu came to their house by which his father (who came there in the mean time) became angry (on seeing Pappu there) and they started quarreling on this issue. He further confirmed that accused Pappu caught hold of his father from his back and his mother i.e. accused Rajni inserted cloth in the mouth of his father. His mother hit his father on his head/neck and on private urinary part (pishab wale raste par), consequent to which, his father fell down on the floor. Both the accused persons put his father on the cot and they removed clothes, which were worn by his father, and burnt them in the oven and put another pair of clothes on his father. His father expired. He categorically stated that accused Rajni (his mother) threatened him and his sister Nicky that if they disclose about these happening to anyone, then they both would be sent to their father at the place of God (agar kisi ko bole, to papa ke pass bhagwan ke ghar bhijwa denge). Due to fear, they did not disclose these facts to anyone. Like wise PW­22 Ms. Nikky has also confirmed that on 09.04.2011 at about 9.00 p.m, when her mother had asked match box from Pappu, on this her father asked her mother that when he was having match box with him, than why she had asked the same from Pappu. On this, her mother gave a slap to her father and thereafter, a quarrel had taken place between her parents. Her brother Saurav after getting her parents separated/pacified, went away for Jagran. Then her mother called Pappu, who caught hold the hands of his father and her mother inserted (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.44 of pages 53 cloth in the mouth of her father. Thereafter, her mother gave cricket bat blow on the private part and on the neck of his father, accordingly, her father went down on the ground. Then her mother and Pappu lifted her father and laid him on the cot. Thereafter, clothes of her father were removed and burnt in Chulha and other clothes were put/worn to her father. Her mother and Pappu consumed liquor, brought by Pappu, together and put the bottle of liquor near the cot of her father. She stated that she did not raise alarm as she was threatened by her mother and Pappu while saying that if she raised alarm, they would kill her too like her father. They being the most natural and trustworthy witnesses inspire confidence and can be relied upon. The testimonies of these witnesses are further corroborated by PW­19 Saurabh, who besides confirming the presence of both the accused persons in the house of deceased also confirmed that her mother used to call accused Pappu in their absence and on 09.04.2011 a quarrel took place between his mother and father on that issue (to which he got pacified at the time of leaving for jagran) and at about 10.00 p.m, his brother Vikcy came to the jagran and informed him that quarrel was still going on between them. He further confirmed that after conclusion of Jagran, when he reached his house in early morning, he found his father lying dead on the floor and both the accused persons were present there and they took him aside and threatened "AGAR TUMNE IS BARE MAIN KISI KO BATAYA TO JAISE TUMHARE PAPA KE SATH HUA HAI TUMHARE SATH BHI HOGA". He further confirmed that his mother threatened him and instructed him that if some one asks about his father, he had to say that his father was ill and due to taking heavy liquor and hard word, he was expired.

(SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.45 of pages 53 As regards to the plea that PW­1, PW­19 & PW­22 can not be relied upon being the kids, who can be easily influence and tutored particularly in view of the time gap between the incident and date of recording of their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C and thereafter, U/s 164 Cr.P.C, I find the same not convincing in the present set of circumstances where accused Rajni is the mother of these witnesses and it can not be expected from them that they would implicate their mother falsely or without any reason. The kids (particularly of the age group of PW­1 & PW­22) are generally remain close to their parents specially to their mother and it is beyond imagination that a kid will depose against his/her mother on the tutoring of some other person. The testimonies of all these witnesses which have already been discussed in details hereinabove remained consistent not only to the case of prosecution but they are mutually supporting each other and despite of passing through a litmus test of their cross examination, they remained intact and un­shattered. Ld Counsel for accused persons could not extract anything to discredit their testimonies or to create any doubt as to their veracity and truthfulness. Moreover, the careful perusal of the testimonies of PW­2 Dayachand (brother of deceased), PW­5 Sat Prakash (uncle of deceased) and PW­7 Smt. Ram Wati (mother of deceased) shows that they also do not support/corroborate the defence version, rather, they all corroborated with the case of prosecution particularly on the point that the accused persons were having illicit relationship between them, which was the motive for committing the murder of the deceased. Further the claim of these witnesses that the deceased used to remain well and he was not having any enmity with anybody indirectly support the prosecution as what else could be the motive (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.46 of pages 53 behind killing except the illicit relation between the accused persons. The weapon offence i.e. cricket bat has been duly produced, identified and proved by the prosecution.

It is pertinent to mention here that in their respective testimonies PW­1 & PW­22 have categorically stated that clothes of their father were removed by the accused persons and the same were burnt in Chulha and other clothes were put/worn to their father by the accused persons and the testimonies of these witnesses remained intact and un­ shattered in that regard. The very act on the part of accused persons i.e. removing and destroying the wearing clothes of the deceased and replacing them with the new one, further strengthen the case of prosecution that it were the accused persons only, who had killed the deceased and removed/ destroyed the evidence i.e. wearing clothes of deceased.

The remaining witnesses tendered by prosecution are though police officials, nonetheless their evidence also supports and supplements the version given by public witnesses. There are no vital lacunae in evidence of official witnesses adversely affecting prosecution case. It therefore stands established with aid of evidence on record beyond reasonable doubt that they were the accused persons, who had committed the offences alleged. Thus both of them are liable to suffer an order of conviction against them U/s 302/ 201/34 IPC and they are convicted thereinunder accordingly.

10. Put up on 10.11.2014 for consideration on the point of sentence.

(Announced in Open court                (RAKESH KUMAR) 
          th 
on 05 November, 2014)                                   Addl. Sessions Judge/North East
                                                            Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 


(SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.)        Page No.47 of pages  53
               IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH  KUMAR
      ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :NORTH EAST:
                      KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

              SC No.                                                           37/2011
              FIR No.                                                          55/2011
              Police Station                                                   Harsh Vihar 
              U/Section                                                        302// IPC
                                                              
State  Versus                   1. Smt. Rajni,  
                                    W/o Lt. Ram Prasad @ Babban
                                    R/o B­4/138, Gali No.5, Harsh Vihar, Delhi.
                                2.  Udaiveer @ Pappu, 
                                    S/o Ram Bahadur, 
                                    R/o Village Chandoi Ka Majra,
                                    Kaprol, PO­Chandoi, PS Ishlampur, 
                                    Distt. Badayun, U.P. 
13.11.2014

­:ORDER ON SENTENCE:­

1. Vide the judgment dated 05.11.2014 both the accused persons were held guilty of the commission of offence punishable U/s 302/201/34 IPC and they were convicted therein under.

2. Today I have heard the rival submissions of Sh. S.K. Raghuvanshi, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as of Sh. Tarun Gautam, Ld. Amicus Curiae for convict Rajni and also of Ld. Counsel for accused Udaiveer on the point of quantum of sentence.

3. Ld. Amicus Curiae for convict Rajni submitted that the (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.48 of pages 53 present case does not cover within the ambit of rarest of rare case. Convict is a middle aged lady having no previous involvement in any crime. She is not a previous convict. It is further pleaded that the conduct of the convict Rajni during the trial remained good and unblemished and requested for taking lenient view on the point of sentence. Convict is behind the bar since the inception of case and she has an inclination to get herself reformed, so that she can play a positive role in the society.

It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for convict Udaiveer that convict Udaiveer is a married man having the responsibility of his wife, an eight year old child and widow mother. There is no one at his house to look after these dependents as his father has already passed away. He is not a previous convict. It is also submitted that the conduct of the convict Udaiveer during the trial remained good and requested for taking lenient view on the point of sentence. Convict is behind the bar since the inception of case and he has an inclination to get himself reformed, so that he can play a positive role in the society. On the contrary, Ld. Addl. PP for the State urged that the convicts have committed the murder of an innocent person and has no respect for life of human being. Convict Rajni with the help of his lover convict Udaiveer has killed her husband, without any fault, who was opposing her relationship with the convict Udaiveer. A precious human life has departed from this earth untimely, having no fault of his. Considering the circumstances under which an innocent man was killed by the convicts, particularly for fulfilling their desire to continue their illicit relationship, which was opposed by the deceased, they became devil and killed him in the gruesome manner. They have ruined the life of the kids of deceased, from whom the (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.49 of pages 53 shelter of their father have been snatched by the convicts, which they were badly needed at this crucial stage of their upbringing. Thus it is a fit case in which capital punishment is to be awarded and he requested for awarding capital punishment.

He further pleaded that the court dealing with an offender in respect of his offence must have regard to the following purposes of the sentencing:­

(i).The punishment of the offenders.

(ii).The reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence).

(iii).The reform and rehabilitation of offenders.

(iv).The protection of the public and the society, and

(v).The making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.

Ld. Addl. PP for the State also placed reliance upon a decided case cited as Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 wherein the following illustrations of murders which fall within the category of rarest of rare cases and deserves death penalty were given:­

(i).When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.

(ii).When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g. murder by hired assassin for money or reward; or cold­blooded murder for gains of a person vis­a­ vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.50 of pages 53 or in a position of trust; or murder is committed in the course of betrayal of the motherland.

(iii).When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community, etc. is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath; or in cases of bride­ burning "or dowry deaths" or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again to marry another woman on account of infatuation.

(iv).When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed.

(v).When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a person vis­a­vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community.

He further stated that in Bachan Singh's case the Constitution Bench observed that the death penalty contemplated by Section 302 IPC is not unreasonable and is not against the public interest and it does not violate Articles 19 or 21 of the Indian Constitution. In the same decision it was also observed that judicial discretion cannot be fettered by attempting to make an exhaustive enumeration by one way or the other. Hence, it follows that five principles referred to in Aloke Nath Dutta's case justifying award of death penalty can only be treated as illustrative and not exhaustive. In Holiram Bordoloi Vs. State of Assam 2005 (3) SCC (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.51 of pages 53 793, it was held as under:­ "that pre­planned, calculated, cold­ blooded murder has always been regarded as one of an aggravated kind. A murder diabolically conceived and cruelty executed would justify the imposition of the death penalty on the murderer."

4. Sentencing is a very difficult process. At one end there is a question of personal liberty and at the same time on the other hand the question of larger interest of society is involved. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner­stone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society.

Friedman in his "Law in Changing Society" stated that, "State of criminal law continues to be - as it should be- decisive reflection of social consciousness of society". Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix.

The socio­economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of the accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in the sentencing policy. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing of an appropriate sentence. The loud cry for justice by the society in cases of heinous crimes like rape or kidnapping etc. must be heard.

5. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid (SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.) Page No.52 of pages 53 submissions made at bar and also carefully perusing the observation given by their lordships in the aforesaid cases and also analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case, the relationship between the victim and the convicts, the circumstances and the manner in which the offence was committed and the established facts placed on record by the prosecution and the fact that the convicts belong to a poor strata of society and their conduct and behaviour during the trial, I am of the considered view that the instant case does not fall within the category of rarest of rare cases. Accordingly, the convicts i.e. Rajni and Udaiveer are awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for each and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/­ (Rs. Five Thousand Only) by each, in default of payment of fine, SI for six month for the offence U/s 302/34 IPC for each. They are further awarded sentence to undergo U/s 201/34 IPC sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years for each with further direction to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/­ by each, in default of payment of fine SI for three months for each.

6. Order on sentence qua the convicts pronounced accordingly. Both sentences shall run concurrently.

7. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C be also given to the convicts.

8. Copy of the judgment and this order be given to the convicts free of cost.

9. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.

(Announced in Open court                                        (RAKESH KUMAR) 
on 13 November, 2014)                                Addl. Sessions Judge/North East
          th 


                                                             Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 




(SC No.37/2011) (FIR No.55/11, PS Harsh Vihar) (State Vs. Smt. Rajni & Anr.)        Page No.53 of pages  53