Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Mohd. Julkar Nain Ansari on 23 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; FTC : E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No.70/2017
Unique Case ID No.702/2016
FIR No.132/2015
U/S: 302 IPC
P.S: Jafrabad
State Versus 1. Mohd. Julkar Nain Ansari
S/o. Mohd. Mustafa Ansari
R/o. Vill. Muslimabad, PS. Haspura,
District Aurangabad, Bihar.
Date of Institution : 05.06.2015
Date of Arguments : 23.08.2019
Date of Judgment : 23.08.2019
JUDGMENT
Case of Prosecution FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 1 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari
1. Criminal law was set into motion on 24.02.2015 at about 2.47 pm when a call was received at PS Jafrabad that at H.No.C1312, Gali No.13/1, Near Panchayati Dharamshal, Chauhan Bangar, tenant of the caller has committed murder of his wife. The said information was recorded vide DD No.16A, pursuant to which Inspector C.L.Meena alongwith HC Shiv Kumar, Ct. Ajay Kumar & Ct. Krishan went to the spot in the official vehicle . The said house was built up to fourth floor and, one dead body was lying on a folding iron cot in outer room on the ground floor of the said house. One Nafeesh S/o. Yusuf relative of the landlord informed that body is of Smt. Shahjahan W/o. Julkar Nain and further informed that Julkar Nain husband of deceased Smt. Shahjahan has confessed murder of his wife by strangulation in their presence and that they have caught hold him. During enquiry, HC Sanjeev and Ct. Krishan also reached at the spot and custody of Julkar Nain was handed over to them after taking from the persons present at the spot. The dead body was checked with the assistance of one lady, who was present there and marks of strangulation were found on the neck of the deceased. Nafeesh and other persons, who were present at the spot informed that husband of the deceased Julkar Nain was telling about the illhealth of his wife since morning and some of them were taking her to Shastri Park hospital but on the way to the hospital, Julkar Nain started compelling them that he want to take his wife to the house of his sister and during conversation he said "
FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 2 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari Main Phans Jayunga". On suspicion they checked Smt. Shahjahan and found injury marks on the neck and face of Smt. Shahjahan and thereupon, they brought back Smt. Shahjahan and Julkar Nain to their house and made lie Smt. Shahjahan on a cot and made enquiries from Julkar Nain, who admitted that he killed his wife by strangulation. The tenanted room of accused at first floor was inspected. Crime team was called. Accused Julkar Nain during investigation in presence of other staff also confessed that he committed murder of his wife by strangulating her with Chunni and pressing her neck, due to suspicion on her character. Accused also got recovered the chunni which he used in the commission of offence. Accused was arrested. Further investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation chargesheet U/s. 302 IPC was filed before the Court.
2. On appearance, in compliance of section 207 IPC, copies were supplied to accused and as offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions, present case was committed to Sessions Court.
Charge framed against the accused
3. Charge against accused was framed u/s. 302 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 3 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari Witnesses examined
4. Prosecution examined 21 witnesses to prove its case. The brief summary of the deposition of Prosecution Witnesses is as under:
5. PW1 is Sh. Hasim Mohammad, who identified the dead body of Shahjahan. He deposed that later on he came to know that Shahjahan was murdered by her husband.
6. PW2 is SI E.S.Yadav Incharge Crime Team, who visited at the spot and proved his SOC report as Ex.PW2/A. He deposed that at about 3.30 pm they received the call regarding murder.
7. PW3 is HC Ziley Singh, who was working as photographer in the crime team. He took 13 photographs of the spot and proved the same as Ex.PW3/A1 to Ex.PW3/A13.
8. PW4 is W/HC Shashi Kala, who was working as channel operator in CPCR, PHQ on 24.02.2015 and received a call at about 2.40 pm. She proved PCR form as Ex.PW4/A and certificate u/s. 65B of Evidenc Act as Ex.PW4/B. FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 4 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari
9. PW5 is HC Sanjeev Kumar, who deposed that on 24.02.2015 at about 3/3.30 pm when he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Krishan Kumar in the area, he received a call from DO for reaching at the spot i.e Gali No.13, Near Panchayati Dharamshala, Chauhan Bangar. He deposed that he alongwith Ct. Krishan reached at the spot, where SHO and other police staff were already present. He deposed that accused was also present there alongwith his two minor children. He is also a witness of recovery of one dupatta from the room situated at first floor of the house.
In his crossexamination he deposed that accused remained in his custody till 10/10.30 pm and statement of caller was also recorded in his presence.
10. PW6 is HC Shiv Kumar, who after receiving DD No.16A alongwith SHO Inspector C.L.Meena and other police staff visited at the spot. He deposed that they found one lady lying on the cot at ground floor in a room and 45 persons were also present there. He further deposed that during enquiry someone informed the SHO that in the morning husband of the deceased was trying to take her to hospital on the pretext of her illness but in the mid of the way husband stated that he wanted to take her to his sister's home, due to which the person, who accompanied him got suspicion and took him back. He further deposed that during enquiry husband of the deceased disclosed that he had murdered his wife. He is also witness of FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 5 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari disclosure statement of accused i.e Ex.PW6/A. He also identified his signature on the seizure memo of chunni/dupatta lying in the room at the first floor of the house as Ex.PW6/B. He also got the present case FIR registered from duty officer.
11. PW7 is Ct. Ajay, who also reached at the spot alongwith SHO and other police staff after receiving DD No.16A. He deposed that SHO checked the dead body through the ladies present there and found that there was a mark on the neck and face of the deceased. He also accompanied the dead body to the mortuary GTB hospital. He deposed that on 25.02.2015 postmortem was conducted and after postmortem dead body was handed over to father of the deceased. He also identified his signature on seizure memo Ex.PW7/A regarding the exhibits and sample seal which were handed over by the doctor to SHO after postmortem.
12. PW8 is ASI Satbir, who was working as duty officer on 24.02.2015 at PS Jafrabad from 8 am to 4 pm. He deposed that at about 2.47 pm, he received a call from wireless operator regarding the murder which he recorded vide DD No.16A and handed over the same to Inspector C.L.Meena, the then SHO and thereupon he recorded the departure of SHO alongwith HC Shiv Kumar, Ct. Ajay Kumar and Ct.Krishan in govt. vehicle. He proved DD No.16A as Ex.PW8/A. FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 6 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari
13. PW9 is ASI Chanderpal, who was also working as duty officer at PS Jafrabad on 24.02.2015 from 4 pm to 12 mid night. He deposed that at about 6 pm he received the rukka brought by HC Shiv Kumar and got registered the present case FIR. He proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW9/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW9/B and certificate u/s. 65B of Evidence Act as Ex.PW9/C.
14. PW10 is Inspector Mahesh Kumar draftsman, who deposed that on 08.05.2015, he prepared scaled site plan at the instance of Inspector C.L.Meena and proved the same as Ex.PW10/A.
15. PW11 is Dr. Vishwajeet Singh, Sr. Demonstator, Forensic Medicine Department, UCMC & GTB hospital, who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Smt. Shahjahan on 25.02.2015 and proved his report as Ex.PW11/A. He opined the cause of death asphyxia as a result of antemortem ligature strangulation and that injury no.1 and internal injury to neck is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further proved his subsequent opinion that ligature mark present around neck of the deceased corresponds to the ligature material i.e Chunni given for examination and proved the same as Ex.PW11/B. FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 7 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari
16. PW12 is Dr. Susheel Bansotra, CMO GTB Hospital, who deposed that 22.05.2015 accused was produced before him for medical examination with the request of blood sample. He deposed that he had taken the blood sample of the accused and handed over it to the IO and proved his report as Ex.PW12/A.
17. PW13 is Md. Mehmood landlord of the house, where accused was residing as tenant. He deposed that accused Julkar Nain was residing as a tenant alongwith his wife Shahjahan and two sons in a kitchen situated at first floor of his house @ rent of Rs.500/ Rs.600/. He deposed that on 24.02.2015 at about 6.30 am, accused Julkar had got down from first floor and asked the key of the main gate of the house from his wife by stating that he wanted to go outside. He deposed that his wife asked him about the key and he informed her about the place, where the key was kept and thereafter, his wife handed over the key to accused and she went for morning walk. He further deposed that within 23 minutes accused again came back and started calling his wife and as at that time his wife was not in the house he asked him about the reason, on which accused replied that his wife was ill and was not able to speak. PW13 further deposed that he alongwith his younger son Sahil went to the room of accused at First Floor, where he found that wife of accused was lying on the mat and on making enquiry accused informed that she was suffering from diarrhea FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 8 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari since last night. He further deposed that he got down from first floor and went outside on the road and brought one rickshaw to take his wife to the hospital. As per PW13, in the meantime his wife also returned from the park and they brought down wife of the accused from first floor and made her to sit in Erickshaw as on one side of Shahjahan his wife sat and on another side accused. He further deposed that when Erickshaw reached at a distance of 200300 meters from the house accused stopped the E rickshaw and they were following Erickshaw and on enquiry his wife informed that accused wanted to take her wife to the house of his sister at Mayapuri. He deposed that he insisted the accused to take his wife to the hospital but accused refused to take her to hospital by stating that she was no more and he made request to take back to house and body of Shahjahan made to lie on the cot at ground floor. PW13 deposed that both the sons of accused were sleeping in the room when they left for hospital and on checking the dead body they found that there was a mark on the neck of Shahjahan and her face started becoming blackish. He further deposed that accused informed his father inlaw and within 1 ½ 2 hours he arrived at the spot alongwith relatives and he requested them to take the accused in a room and to ask about the real story and after about 45 minutes, Suphian, brother inlaw of accused came outside and informed that accused had killed his wife as he had some doubt on her character. He further deposed that father of Shahjahan stated that he wanted to make a call at 100 number FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 9 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari but he asked him to wait for some time and thereafter, on his request, Nafees made a call at 100 number at about 2.45 pm. In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW13 deposed that only two rooms were occupied by two tenants including accused Julkar Nain at first floor at the time of incident. He further confirmed that they used to allow the accused to use another room situated at first floor in case of need as he was having two small sons. He denied the suggestion that his son Sajid was having illicit relations with Shahjahan or that he committed her murder. He further denied the suggestion that at that night accused was sleeping in another room and his son Sajid had bolted the room, where accused was sleeping or that his son Sajid killed Shahjahan, who was sleeping in the kitchen.
18. PW14 Md. Wakil is father inlaw of the accused, who deposed that marriage of Shahjahan was solemnized with accused Mohd. Julkar Nain in the year 2008 and at the time of incident accused was residing at Matka Gali, Chauhan Banger alongwith his family in a rented premises. He further deposed that on 24.02.2015 at about 6/6.30 am, accused made a call to him and informed that Shahjahan had died. He further deposed that during interrogation accused admitted that he had killed his wife.
In his crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW14 Md. Wakil confirmed that on 24.02.2015, he saw the injury marks over the FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 10 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari neck and mouth of his daughter and on his asking from his son inlaw i.e accused Julkar Nain Ansari, he confessed about committing murder of his daughter by pressing the neck and mouth of his daughter.
In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that he reached at the place of incident at about 9.30 am. He further confirmed that police officials gave 12 slaps to the accused in their presence and then he admitted his guilt.
19. PW15 is Nafees Ahmadrelative of landlord of the accused, who deposed that on 24.02.2015 at about 9/9.15 am, he received phone call of Sajid, who told him to reach their house immediately and when he reached at his house, he saw a dead body at ground floor and that she was the wife of accused Julkar Nain Ansari, who was residing as a tenant at first floor in a roomcumkitchen alongwith his family. He further deposed about the incident as told to him by his Mausi and that he made a call at 100 number on the request of the uncle of the deceased.
In his crossexamination by Ld.Addl. PP for the State, he confirmed that he had also enquired from the accused and initially accused repeated the plea of illness of his wife but thereafter, he confessed before them that he strangulated his wife Shahjahan with chunni and thereafter, with hands as he had suspicion on the character of Shahjahan.
FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 11 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he confirmed that prior to making confession at ground floor, accused was enquired at first floor. To a specific question he deposed that nobody threatened the accused in his presence and volunteered that the confession was made voluntarily by the accused and he was not pressurised by anyone.
20. PW16 is Mohd. Sajid son of the landlord, who also deposed on the lines of other family members i.e. his father PW13 Md. Mehmood and mother PW17 Smt. Anwari Begum. PW16 deposed that accused had told that his wife was suffering from dysentery and he had given some tablets to his wife, on which they asked him why he had not informed in the night itself. He further deposed that they had also enquired from the accused and accused told that he was suspecting his wife, therefore, he had murdered his wife by using a chunni for strangulation and in the presence of police also accused admitted that he had killed his wife by strangulation.
In his crossexamination, he deposed that police reached at their house between 89 am and police left their house after about 1 hour i.e about 10 am alongwith dead body.
21. PW17 is Smt. Anwari Begumwife of the landlord. She has also deposed on the line of statement of her husband PW13 Md. Mehmood and FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 12 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari his son PW16 Md. Sajid. She also deposed that her husband called a rickshaw puller and she went to the tenanted room with accused, where she saw that his wife was lying there and she tried to talk with Shahjahan but she did not respond and thereafter, she screamed and then helped the accused for taking his wife to rickshaw. She deposed that after some distance when Shahjahan was being taken to hospital, accused got stopped the rickshaw and when she enquired why he stopped the rickshaw, on which he replied " Main Phuns Jayunga". She also deposed that they enquired the accused to tell as to what had happened but he did not reply properly and after great persuasion accused admitted that he had committed murder of his wife by strangulation with chunni and he also confessed when police made enquiries from him.
In her crossexamination she deposed that Nafees came at first and thereafter, police came to their house i.e after about 3045 minutes from arrival of Nafees to their house.
22. PW18 is HC Vikas, who was deputed to deliver the copy of FIR to concerned Ilaqa Magistrate, DCP and Joint CP.
23. PW19 is SI Vineet, who joined the investigation with IO on 25.02.2015 and went to GTB mortuary and after getting postmortem of the FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 13 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari deceased conducted handed over the dead body to her family members. He deposed that concerned doctor also handed over one sealed pullanda, two sealed envelops alongwith the sample seal, which he handed over to IO and were taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW7/A.
24. PW20 is ASI Mahipal Singh, who was posted as MHC(M) on 24.02.2015 at PS Jafrabad. He proved relevant entries made in register no.19 regarding deposit of case property and entries for sending the sealed envelops to FSL Rohini vide entries Ex.PW20/A to Ex.PW20/C.
25. PW21 is Inspector C.L.Meena Investigating Officer, who narrated the steps taken during investigation and proved various memos prepared by him. He deposed that he interrogated accused and accused in presence of all the persons present at the spot confessed his guilt that he had doubt on character of his wife and as such committed her murder.
In his crossexamination, to a specific question he deposed that he had not asked about the specific question regarding delay in giving information to the police as the witnesses had explained the conduct of accused and the reason for informing the police when they came to know about the death of deceased. He further deposed that none of the witnesses informed regarding regular quarrel between accused and deceased.
FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 14 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari Statement and Defence of accused
26. Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the case of prosecution and claimed himself innocent. He took the defence that he was not present on the night of incident i.e. 24.02.2015 at his house and was working in his factory situated at a distance of 100 meter from his tenanted house. He stated that he came back from factory at about 6.30 am and opened the door and went inside the room and saw that door of the room was lying open and his wife was also lying there. He called his wife but no response came. Thereupon he called the landlord, who enquired from him and he told that his wife was not well and after giving her medicine, he went to his factory and thereupon Erickshaw was called and she was taken to hospital. He further stated that on the way he told his landlord that he was not having sufficient money and wanted to take his wife to the house of his sister for getting her admitted in hospital. Thereupon, his landlord brought back the Erickshaw to his house and made a call to his father in law. Prior to that Sajid made arrangements for burial of his wife. Thereafter, his father inlaw and all other persons were thinking whether to call the police or not and at about 3.00 pm they called the police and handed over him to them. He stated that he was beaten by Sajid as well as by the police officials after locking in a room and that Sajid also threatened him once. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.
FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 15 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari Arguments and conclusion
27. Arguments have been addressed by Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as also by Sh. Sushil Sharma, Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused.
28. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that accused committed the murder of his wife as he was having suspicion on her character. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further argued that accused made extra judicial confession in presence of his father inlaw as well as other residents of the tenanted premises. It has been further argued that accused alongwith deceased and his two children was present in tenanted premises and it was for the accused to disclose those circumstances, which occurred in the closed room in his presence. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further argued that postmortem report corroborates the fact that murder of Shahjahan took place on the intervening night of 23/24.02.2015 at about 2 am due to strangulation as also disclosed by accused in his disclosure statement.
29. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that there is inordinate delay in reporting the incident to the police although police station is situated at a distance of 300400 meters from the spot. It has been further argued that statements of other tenants who were residing at FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 16 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari the first floor, children of accused and of Mohd. Sofiyan were not recorded by the IO. Ld. Defence Counsel pointed out contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the timing of arrival of the police at the spot. It has been further argued that wife of the accused was having illicit relation with son of the landlord and therefore, they all have deposed against the accused.
30. In section 300 IPC, the definition of culpable homicide appears in an expended form. Each of the four clauses requires that the act which cause death should be done intentionally, or with the knowledge or means of knowing that death is a natural consequence of the act. An offence cannot amount to murder unless it falls within the definition of culpable homicide.
31. In order to bring home the guilt of accused in respect of offence of murder, the prosecution was required to prove: (1) that the death of Shahjahan was homicidal in nature; (2) that it was the accused who had caused bodily injury to the deceased i.e Shahjahan;
(3) that the accused had intention to cause the death of his wife Shajahan or that accused knew it to be likely to cause death or that the accused was well aware that the injury caused to FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 17 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
32. It is a settled law that criminal jurisprudence begins with presumption that unless otherwise proved the person facing the trial would be deemed to be innocent. The burden to prove the charge against the accused is on the prosecution and not on the accused. The prosecution if fails to connect the act of the accused with ultimate crime and where the material links constituting the chain of circumstantial evidence are found missing then the benefit of the same goes in favour of the accused. Now let me examine as to what extent prosecution has proved its case.
33. Whether the death of Shahjahan was homicidal in nature?
In order to prove the fact that death of deceased Shahjahan was homicidal in nature the prosecution has examined PW11 Dr. Vishwajeet Singh, Sr. Demonstrator Forensic Medicine Department, GTB Hospital, who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and proved his report as Ex.PW11/A. PW11 deposed that cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antermortem ligature strangulation and injury no.1 and internal injury to neck is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. It is relevant to note here that as per the case of prosecution the death of Shahjahan had taken place around 2 am on the intervening night of FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 18 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari 23/24.02.2015 and postmortem examination of dead body of deceased was conducted 25.02.2015 at 2.10 pm. As per opinion of PW11 Dr. Vishwajeet Singh, time since death was about 1 ½ day, which is also proximate to the time of incident. The postmortem report Ex.PW11/A clearly proves that death of Shahjahan was due to antemortem ligature strangulation and thus was homicidal in nature.
34. Motive: In case of State of UP vs. Babu Ram (2000) 4 SCC 515, it was held that motive is generally a difficult area for any prosecution to bring on record what was in the mind of the accused. Even if the investigating officer would have succeeded in knowing it through interrogation that cannot be put in evidence by them due to the ban imposed by law. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended.
As per prosecution case, accused was having suspicion on the character of his wife and therefore, he committed her murder. Accused has also taken a defence as put to PW13 Mohd. Mehboob landlord of the accused & PW17 Smt. Anwari Begum that murder of Shahjahan was committed by their son Sajid as he was having illicit relations with Shahjahan. Thus, as per defence of the accused his wife was having illicit relations with PW16 Sajidson of the landlord. Suspicion on the character FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 19 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari of his wife Shahjahan can be a motive for accused to commit the murder but it is very improbable for the person having illicit relations with that woman. Even otherwise, all the material independent witnesses are family members of PW16 Sajid, who have also deposed regarding the extra judicial confession made by the accused in their presence.
35. Extra Judicial confession: It is settled law that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Before acting upon it, the court must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. PW17 Smt. Anwari Begumwife of the landlord where accused was residing as a tenant deposed that on the day of incident at about 6 am, accused came to them and demanded the key of the lock of the main door on the pretext that his wife is ill and when she enquired from him as to what had happened to his wife he told that his wife is suffering from dysentery. She further deposed that her husband called a rickshaw puller and she went in the room of the accused and tried to talk with his wife but she did not respond and thereafter, she screamed and then helped the accused for taking his wife to Rickshaw. When Shahjahan was being taken to hospital as per PW17, accused got stopped the rickshaw, on which she asked why he stopped the rickshaw and the accused replied "Main Phans Jayunga" and that he wanted to take his wife to the house of his sister at Maya Puri. The fact that PW17 Anwari Begum sat on one FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 20 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari side of Shahjahan and accused on the other side and at a distance of 200 300 meters from the house accused stopped the Rickshaw while saying that he wanted to take his wife at the house of his sister at Govind Puri is also admitted by accused in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, which can be read u/s. 313 (4) Cr.P.C against accused. This conduct of the accused that instead of taking his wife to hospital he stopped the Rickshaw for taking his wife to the house of his sister shows that accused was aware that on examination in the hospital the doctors would come to know about the cause of death after seeing injuries on the neck of his wife. Apart from this, PW14 Md. Wakil father inlaw of the accused has specifically deposed that during interrogation accused admitted that he killed his wife. He deposed that when he saw the injury marks over the neck and mouth of his daughter, his son inlaw I.e accused Julkan Nain Ansari confessed about committing murder of his daughter while pressing the neck and mouth of his daughter and when police came at the spot even then he confessed about committing murder of his wife. PW15 Nafees Ahmed, PW16 Md. Sajid and PW17 Angoori Devi, they all have deposed that accused admitted that he had committed murder of his wife by strangulation with chunni.
36. The main contention of Ld. Defence Counsel was regarding delay in giving information to the police about the incident. It was FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 21 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari submitted that father of the deceased reached at the house of accused at about 9.30 am and allegedly accused confessed about the crime but even then first information was given to the police at about 2.40 pm. In this regard, PW13 Mehmood deposed that father of Shahjahan stated to him that he wanted to call at 100 number but he told him to wait for sometime. PW15 Nafees Ahmed also deposed that the family members of the deceased after seeing the body were of the view that their daughter had been murdered and thereafter, they started asking the accused as to what happened to their daughter and the accused initially repeated the same thing i.e illhealth of Shahjahan but later on he confessed before them that he had strangulated Shahjahan and committed her murder. From the testimony of prosecution witnesses it appears that the landlord and his family members as well as father & other family members of the deceased took much time to enquire from the accused as to how Shahjahan died and thereafter, they made a call to police. Accused in his statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C has also stated that his father inlaw and all other persons were asking whether to call the police or not and at about 3 pm, they called the police and then handed over him to them.
37. Both the sons of accused were of tender age at the time of incident. PW14 Md. Wakilfather inlaw of accused in his testimony recorded on 07.02.2017 deposed that two sons of her daughter are now FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 22 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari aged about 5 years and 3 years meaning thereby that they were of age about 3 years and 1 year at the time of incident. PW13 Md. Mehmood has also confirmed that both the sons of accused were sleeping in the room when they left for the hospital. Even otherwise, accused has not claimed that his sons were in position to give statement at the time of incident regarding his presence or otherwise. Md. Sofiyan is brother inlaw of the accused, who came alongwith PW14 Md. Wakil at the spot. Prosecution has examined three witnesses from the premises, where the accused was residing as a tenant apart from his father inlaw and PW15 Nafees Ahmed. It is settled law that it is quality of evidence and not quantity which matters.
38. Defence of the accused: Accused has taken two contradictory pleas; one as put to PW13 Mehmood that accused was sleeping in another room and his son Sajid had bolt the room where accused was sleeping and another as stated in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C that accused was not present on the night of incident i.e 24.02.2015 at his tenanted house and was working in a factory situated at a distance of 100 meters from his tenanted house. Accused further claimed that he returned from his factory at about 6.30 am and called his wife but no response came and when his landlord enquired from him he told them that his wife was not well and after giving her medicine he went to his factory. Both pleas of accused appear to be an afterthought as no evidence is led by accused regarding his FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 23 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari second plea that he was not present at the tenanted premises on the intervening night of 23/24.02.2015 or that he was working in a factory at a distance of 100 meters from his tenanted premises. It is not the defence of accused that he had informed his father inlaw PW14 Md. Wakil or anyone else that he was bolted in a room by Sajid. No call was made by accused to police at any point of time, although at the time of his arrest one mobile phone make Nokia was also recovered from his possession as mentioned in the personal search memo Ex.PW6/B.
39. The testimony of prosecution witnesses PW17 Smt. Anwari Begum, PW13 Mehmood & PW16 Md. Sajid appears to be reliable and trustworthy. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. All these witnesses have categorically deposed that on 24.02.2015 at about 6.30 am, accused asked for the key of the main gate of the house and thereupon told them that his wife was suffering from dysentery and he wanted to take his wife toe the hospital. On the way to hospital he stopped the Rickshaw and asked them to allow him to take his wife to his sister's house. When they enquired, accused said " Main Phans Jayunga". Accused has also got recovered the chunni with which he strangulated his wife and as per subsequent opinion of PW11 Dr. Vishwajeet Singh i.e Ex.PW11/B, the ligature mark present around neck of the deceased corresponds with the ligature material (chunni) given for examination. Two contradictory pleas FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 24 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari taken by accused also point out towards his guilt. Accused had motive and intention to kill his wife as he was having suspicion on her character. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, I am of the considered view that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed murder of his wife Shahjahan. Accused is accordingly held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC. Let accused be heard on point of sentence. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Announced in the open court Location:
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2019.08.23 16:58:09 +0530 on 23.08.2019 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) ASJ/FTC/ECOURT Shahdara/KKD/Delhi FIR No.132/2015, PS. Jafrabad Page 25 of 25 St. Vs. Mohd.
Julkar Nain Ansari