Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil Kumar on 12 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 03, NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No. 630/2018
State V. Sunil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Rajender Prasad,
R/o H. No.C-259, Sector-IV,
DSIIDC, Bawana, Delhi.
FIR No. 270/2018
U/s 302/498A/316 IPC
Police Station Bawana
Assigned to Sessions 20.09.2018
Charges framed on 01.10.2018
Arguments heard 12.04.2024
Judgement pronounced on 12.04.2024
Decision Acquittal
Appearance : Sh. P.K. Samadhia, ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Kanhiya Singhal, ld. Counsel for the
accused.
JUDGMENT
1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that the accused treated his deceased wife with cruelty for demand of dowry and SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 1 of 45 on dated 19.06.2018 in a room situated in the premises C-259, Sector-4, DSIIDC, Bawana, the accused had committed murder of his wife by causing multiple injuries on her body when she was pregnant of full term foetus. FIR u/s 498A/302/316 IPC was registered against the accused. Investigation was carried out. Accused was arrested and charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence u/s 498A/302/316 IPC.
2. CHARGE:
That, on the basis of material available on record as well as evidence collected by the IO during the course of the investigation, ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 01.10.2018, framed charges against the accused u/s 302/498A/316 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
That, in order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 25 witnesses namely PWS Name of the Nature of the Documents proved witness witness PW1 Sh. Arjun Father of This witness being the father deceased of the deceased had got recorded his statement SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 2 of 45 Ex.PW1/P1 before ld.
Executive Magistrate and alleged that the accused, his son-in-law tortured his deceased daughter for demand of dowry and murdered her.
PW2 Sh. Ashok Brother of This witness being the brother deceased of the deceased has deposed that after one year of marriage, accused (his brother-in-law) started giving beatings to his deceased sister on trivial matters. The accused demanded money from her deceased sister and she was repeatedly harassed for demand of dowry and had been killed by the accused.
The Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of his father PW1 in his presence.
His statement was recorded by the Police.
PW3 Sangeeta Sister of This witness is the real sister deceased of the deceased who has also deposed that her sister was subjected to harassment for demand of dowry by the accused and she was murdered by the accused.SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 3 of 45
PW4 Sh. Gaurav Public Witness This witness has deposed that Gulia in the first week of July, 2018, he was working in a Nextron Lab, DSIIDC, Bawana. One police official visited his lab and served upon him a notice for taking the footage from CCTV outside their lab. The recording of the month of June, 2018 were seen on the screen by playing the footage from the DVR. The CCTV footage of the time around 4.00 pm in which one person was visible in the recording. He asked the copy of the footages and he handed over the same to the police in a pendrive. He had issued a certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act Ex.PW4/P-4.
PW5 Sh. Public Witness This witness has deposed that Ravinder he took the basement and Saharam ground floor on rent of the Thakrey premises C-259, Sector-4, DSIIDC, Bawana. On dated 19.06.2018, the workers namely Chander Kumar, Jai Kishan, Shatrughan and Pradeep were working in his factory and at about 9.15 pm, he alongwith the Jai Kishan came to his ground floor, wash SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 4 of 45 his hand and went to his home. At about 10.00 pm, his worker Chander Kumar made a telephone call to him and informed him that "Sunil ki wife ko koi chaku maar diya aur usme kuch jaan hai". He instructed him to call the ambulance. After some time, Sunil made a call to him on his phone, who said, "Koi chhat per se aaker meri biwi ko maar ke chala gaya hai, aap jaldi se aa jao". He reached the factory on his bike and wife of Sunil was not there. She was already removed to the hospital. Police was already there and inquiries were made from him as to know that who had committed the offence.
PW6 Ct. Naveen Police Witness He has deposed that on dated 06.07.2018, he was called by Inspector Anupam Bhushan at Second floor, factory No.C- 259, Sector-4, DSIIDC, Bawana. He took measurement and prepare rough notes for scaled site plan at the instance of SI Ravi Rana. On dated 09.07.2018, he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW6/P-7 bearing his SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 5 of 45 signature at point A. PW7 Sh. Pradeep Public Witness This witness was working as LIC Agent for Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam on 19.06.2018 and he has deposed that he had visited the factory C-259, Sector-4, DSIIDC, Bawana to collect the instalment of the policy taken by the accused Sunil and his wife namely Sarita.
PW8 Sh. Jai Public Witness This witness was a worker at Kishan factory no.C-259, Sector-4, DSIIDC, Bawana on the day of the alleged offence i.e. 19.06.2018.
PW9 Sh. Mohan Public Witness This witness was the owner of Singh factory No. C-152, Sector-24, DSIIDC, Bawana, Delhi and has deposed that the accused Sunil with two persons namely Shivam and Sunil were working in his factory on 19.06.2018. Police gave him the notice for supply of CCTV footages of his factory of dated 19.06.2018 and he gave the CCTV footage of 19.06.2018 in his pendrive of his factory premises with the Certificate SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 6 of 45 u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The same is Ex.PW9/P-11.
PW10 Dr. Amit Doctor at On 19.06.2018, this witness Shokeen Maharshi was posted as Doctor on Valmiki Emergency Duty in Maharshi Hospital Valmiki Hospital and about 10.30 pm, one lady Sarita, w/o Sunil was brought to Casualty by his brother Ashok in unresponsive state. There was no sign of life. He prepared MLC of patient Sarita Ex.PW10/P-12.
PW11 Sh. Executive Upon receiving a telephonic Shashikant Magistrate, message from Police on dated Narela, Delhi 20.06.2018, he reached Dr. Ambedkar Hospital and got record the statement of the father of the deceased Ex.PW1/P1 who died within 7 years of marriage. He issued directions Ex.PW11/P-13 for the postmortem of the dead body.
PW12 Sh. Chander Public Witness On dated 19.06.2018, this Kumar witness was working in Bisen Ganpati Packaging at C-259, DSIIDC, Bawana alongwith the other workers.
SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 7 of 45 PW13 Dr. Vijay Specialist and On 20.06.2018, this witness Dhankar HOD, being the doctor in Department of Department of Forensic Forensic Medicines in Dr. BSA Hospital
Medicines, Dr. got conducted the postmortem BSA Hospital examination on the body of Sarita @ Pooja Aged about 24 years female on the instructions of the Executive Magistrate. His detailed report is Ex.PW13/P-14. Upon making a subsequent request, subsequent opinion Ex.PW13/P-15 and Ex.PW13/ P-16 was given by him.
PW14 SI Satya Police Witness On the intervening night of Dev 19/20.06.2018, he was posted as Incharge, Crime Team, Rohini and on received the call from Control Room, he alongwith HC Raj Kumar/ photographer reached at the spot at the second floor, C-
259, Sector-4, DSIIDC, Bawana and found that dead body of deceased Sarita was shifted to MV Hospital.
Thereafter, he reached to the MV Hospital and HC Raj Kumar took the photograph of dead body of Sarita. There were injury marks on the SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 8 of 45 forehead, head and backside of the head of deceased. One coffee colour gamchha was wrapped on the neck of the deceased.
PW15 HC Chander Police Witness This witness had registered the Pal FIR on the rukka sent by SI Ravi Rana. Computer printout of the same is Ex.PW15/P-19. He made endorsement on rukka Ex.PW15/P-20 and issued Certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act Ex.PW15/P-21.
PW16 Ct. Ranjit Police Witness On 19.06.2018, he was posted at PS Bawana as Constable. At about 10.03 pm, he received information through wireless operator that a lady was stabbed and locked in a room at C-259, Sector-4, Bawana.
The said information was received through mobile number 8377903408. He reduce the said information vide DD No.71B Ex.PW16/P-22.
PW17 Ct. Sanjeev Police Witness This witness has delivered the copy of the FIR to the Senior Officer as well as to concerned MM.SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 9 of 45
PW18 Ct. Praveen Police Witness On 19.06.2018, he was posted in PS Bawana as Constable and was on night Emergency Duty. At about 10.00 pm, he alongwith ASI Mahender reached at the spot at C-259, Sector-4, DSIIDC, Bawana from where he came to know that injured was taken to hospital. Beat Ct. Laddu Ram was also present there and he inquired the eye-witness but no eye-witness was found at that time.
PW19 SI Harish Police Witness This witness was posted at Chander Police Head Quater and on Pathak dated 19.06.2018 at about 10.00 pm, he received a call from mobile number 8377903408 at Channel No.156. Copy of computer printout of Form No.1 Ex.PW19/P-23. Certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act issued by this witness is Ex.PW19/P-24.
PW20 SI Ravi Police Witness On 19.06.2018, this witness Rana being posted at PS Bawana reached at the spot at C-259, Sector-4, DSIIDC, Bawana.
He inspected the spot and SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 10 of 45 found that there was a room on the second floor in front of stairs and the room was in open condition. One broken lock, served utensils and half brick were lying in the entry of the said room. There was blood lying on the floor near a bed in the room and some blood was also on the right side wall of the room.
PW21 Ms. Shashi Sr. Scientific She has examined Biologic Bala Pahuja Officer, and DNA Fingerprint. Her Biology, FSL, detailed report is Ex.PW21/P-
Rohini 36 (running into three pages).
She also prepared the allelic data annexed with the report Ex.PW21/P-31.
PW22 Ct. Ladu Police Witness On dated 19.06.2011, he was Ram posted at Beat Constable of the area C-259, Sector-4, DSIIDC, Bawana and at about 8-9 pm, someone called him and informed that someone has killed a lady. On this information, he reached there and saw that injured lady was got lying on the floor. A private vehicle which was passing through the said factory, he stopped and requested to take the said lady to the hospital.SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 11 of 45
PW23 ASI Police Witness This witness has joined the Mahender investigation with the IO. Singh PW24 HC Raj Police Witness This witness was posted as HC Kumar photographer at Mobile Crime Team and on receipt of call from Control Room at about 11.00 pm, he reached at the spot and on instructions of Incharge Crime Team, he took 13 photographs of the spot from Ex.PW24/A-1 to Ex.PW24/A-13. He took 16 photographs of the deceased in the Hospital Ex.PW24/B. He issued Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act ExPW24/D. PW25 Inspector Police Witness This witness being IO has Anupam carried out the investigation of Bhushan the case and has filed the charge-sheet.
4. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C:
At the time of recording of statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., all the incriminating evidence against the accused brought on record by the prosecution were put to the accused and the accused denied the same and has stated that he has SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 12 of 45 been falsely implicated.
5. ARGUMENTS:
Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the material witnesses have been examined and they all have support the case of the prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and there are incriminating evidence against the accused and make a submission that the accused may kindly be convicted for the offence u/s 302/498A/316 IPC.
Ld. counsel for the accused has submitted that accused is innocent and he is falsely implicated in the present case FIR. Therefore, the accused may kindly be acquitted from the charge u/s 302/498A/316 IPC.
6. PERUSAL OF RECORD:
The submissions of ld. Counsel for the accused as well as ld. APP for the State have been heard at length. The chargesheet as well as all the statements recorded by the IO during the course of the investigation and all the evidence recorded by the prosecution to prove their case has also been perused.SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 13 of 45
7. FINDINGS OF THIS COURT:
Having heard the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the accused and after gone through the chargesheet as well as the evidence led by the prosecution, this court is of the considered view that the case of the prosecution is that DD No.71B on dated 19.06.2018 PS Bawana was registered at about 10.03 pm night that in the premises C-259, Sector-4, Bawana, one lady received knife injuries and closed in the room. The said information was received on call made by the husband of accused from his mobile phone number 8377903408. The police reached at the spot and found that injured was taken to the hospital. The police reached at the hospital and received the copy of the MLC to which the said lady declared 'brought dead'. The statement of the parents of the deceased were recorded by the SDM concerned. Investigation was carried out. The husband of the deceased who made the 100 number call from his mobile phone was arrested. The charge-sheet was filed. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses including the parents of the deceased, sister and brother of the deceased and other witnesses to prove their case against the accused.
8. That, the complainant Arjun, father of the deceased had got recorded his statement before the concerned SDM whereby it SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 14 of 45 has been stated that he had solemnized the marriage of his daughter namely Sarita with accused Sunil. There was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage but after the marriage, accused Sunil started to beat her daughter and she was misbehaved. Her daughter was subjected to harassment and cruelty for demand of money and the accused Sunil had committed the murder of his daughter.
That, the deceased died when she was having the mature pregnancy and the charge was framed u/s 498A/302/316 IPC. PW1 Sh. Arjun, father of deceased has further deposed that he is having three sons and four daughters. His daughter namely Sarita had expired. The name of his elder daughter is Anari and was married with Subhash. His third daughter Sangeeta and fourth daughter Savita are unmarried. Sarita, deceased was his second daughter. It has also been deposed that his late daughter Sarita and accused Sunil were working together in a factory situated in Bawana, Delhi. Friendship developed between them and they decided to marry. Accused Sunil visited their house and requested him and his family that he wanted to marry with Sarita and they agreed for their marriage. He went to the native village of accused Sunil at District Faizabad, Ambedkar Nagar, U.P. where he met with the parents of the accused who told him SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 15 of 45 that he had to fulfill their demands of Rs.50,000/-, two wheeler vehicle and gold chain at the time of Tilak Ceremony. He returned to his home as he was unable to fulfill these demands. After one year since he visited the native village of accused and met with his parents, uncle of accused namely Rajmani and accused Sunil visited their house and requested to marry with his daughter Sarita. Rajmani requested that he would take responsibility of the parents of the accused and no demand of dowry from Sunil and his parents. Rajmani told him that he would perform the marriage of Sunil with Sarita on behalf of parents of accused Sunil and there is no demand of dowry from their side. At the time of marriage, T.V., fan, bed, gold ring and other household articles were given to the accused. After marriage, his daughter Sarita started residing in a tenanted premises in Delhi with uncle Rajmani and his wife. Both Sarita and accused lived peacefully for one year after the marriage. The marriage of sister of accused was fixed and accused asked his daughter Sarita to bring money from her parents so that he can arrange clothes and gifts for his sister. His late daughter conveyed the demand of accused to him and his family. He informed his daughter that he was unable to fulfill the demands. When his daughter conveyed his inability to fulfill the demands, the accused dropped his daughter at their house in SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 16 of 45 Delhi. He borrowed Rs.15,000/- and called accused at their house and handed over Rs.15,000/- to accused Sunil who took his daughter to his house. The accused left for his native village for attending the marriage of his sister. His late daughter remained with them at their home. When accused return after attending the marriage of his sister, he informed his daughter that his parents did not allow him to attend the marriage of his sister and he remained present at the house of the neighbourer in his native village at the time of marriage of his sister. Accused came to their house and informed that his father is demanding Rs.80,000/- for arranging function in a village for the community so that they can say that accused is married with Sarita. He expressed his inability to fulfill the demand of Rs.80,000/- . Accused took his daughter to his house in Delhi where he started harassing his daughter Sarita. His daughter informed them that accused giving beatings to her. Accused demanded money from his daughter as he wanted to purchase a vehicle namely Magic. His daughter conveyed the demand of money to them. He conveyed his inability to fulfill the demands of accused through his daughter. Accused started beating his daughter and demanded money from his late daughter who conveyed the same to them and he expressed his inability. His daughter was pregnant of seven months and they requested SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 17 of 45 accused to mend his way and treat his daughter Sarita properly. The accused did not mend his way and gave beatings to her on trivial matters.
That, six months ago, he was going to his native village at Gorakhpur, UP, when he was at Anand Vihar bus stand, he received a call of his daughter Sarita, who asked him, kaha per ho. He informed that he is sitting in a bus going to his native village. In the night hours when he was going to his native village and reached at Lucknow, he received telephonic call of his son Ashok, who informed him that Sarita had expired. He returned to Delhi from Lucknow. His son also informed him that he received a telephone call of accused Sunil at about 8.30 PM, who inquired as to where Sarita had gone and Sunil told that the house is found locked. His son Ashok informed to accused that Sarita had not come to his house. His daughter Sangeeta also informed him that at about 9.30 PM, she received telephone call of Sunil that some one had killed Sarita and closed the door. His son Ashok, Sangeeta and others went to the house where his late daughter Sarita and accused are residing in Delhi. At the ground floor of the house where accused and his brother Shatrugun met with his son and Sangeeta, accused Sunil informed that Sarita is lying dead in a room at second SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 18 of 45 floor. His son Ashok and his daughter Sangeeta informed that they found Sarita lying in blood near the bed in a room on second floor with a gamchcha wrapped around her neck. His son Ashok and daughter Sangeeta informed him that they took Sarita to a hospital at Pooth Khurd, where the doctor declared Sarita dead. The doctor asked them to take Sarita to Ambedkar hospital where postmortem will be conducted. He came to Delhi and reached at Dr. BSA hospital where he saw the dead body of his daughter and identified the same. His son Ashok and Sangeeta also identified the dead body of his late daughter. Dead body was handed over to them after post mortem.
That, the Executive Magistrate recorded his statement Ex.PW- 1/P-1 bearing his signature at Point A. His statement was recorded in presence of his son Ashok. His late daughter was pregnant at the time she was killed by the accused.
That, PW2 Ashok, brother of deceased has deposed that he had two brothers and four sisters. His eldest sister Anari was married with Subhash and residing in Dist. Gorakhpur (UP). His sisters Sangeeta and Savita are residing with them in Delhi and both are unmarried. His late sister Sarita was married with accused on 19.02.14 in accordance with Hindu Rites and SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 19 of 45 Ceremonies and marriage was performed in Delhi. His late sister Sarita and accused were working together in a factory at Bawana, Delhi. Both of them developed friendship and accused came to their house with proposal to marry with his sister Sarita. His parents also agreed to the proposal of marriage of accused with his sister. His father went to the native village of accused at Ambedkar Nagar, District Faizabad, U.P. where he met with the parents of accused, who demanded Rs.50,000/- cash, two wheeler vehicle, gold ring and gold chain. His father expressed his inability to fulfill his demands. After one year since his father visited to the parents of accused, accused along with his uncle Rajmani came to their house, who assured his father that he would take responsibility of accused regarding marriage and performed the marriage ceremonies on behalf of the parents of accused. Thereafter, his sister was married with accused on 19.02.14 and none other family members attended the marriage except uncle Rajmani and his wife. After marriage, his sister started resided with accused in a rented room in Delhi. After one year since the marriage, accused started giving beating to his late sister on trivial matters. About 3 months prior to the death of his sister Sarita, accused demanded money from my sister Sarita as accused wanted to attend the marriage of his sister at his native village. His sister SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 20 of 45 conveyed the demand of money to his father. His father gave Rs.15000/- to the accused for attending the marriage of his sister. Accused left his sister Sarita at their house and went to his native village in UP for attending the marriage of his sister. When accused returned to Delhi after attending the marriage of his sister, accused demanded Rs.80,000/- from his sister as the said amount is required for arranging a party in a native village in order to show that accused married with his late sister Sarita. The said Rs.80,000/- was demanded by the parents of accused, who wanted to host a party in a native village for showing the marriage between accused and Sarita. His late sister conveyed this demand of Rs.80,000/- to his father, who expressed his inability to fulfill the demand. The accused started harassing and giving beating to his sister Sarita. His sister was pregnant and she was not properly treated by the accused.
That, on 19.06.2018 at about 8.30 PM, his sister Sangeeta received a telephone call of accused, who asked her if Sarita had come to their house as his house is found locked. Accused told his sister Sangeeta that Sarita is not found any where as his house is found locked. His sister Sangeeta replied that how can Sarita came to their house when you did not allow her to visit their house. His sister Sangeeta told accused to find out where SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 21 of 45 Sarita had gone. His sister Sangeeta informed this fact to him that Sarita is not found at home as she received telephone call of accused Sunil. At about 9.30 PM, Sunil again made a call to Sangeeta and informed her that Sarita has been killed by some one and closed the door of the house. Sangeeta started weeping. He took the mobile phone set from the hand of Sangeeta and talked to accused to whom he requested to take Sarita to nearby hospital immediately. His father had gone to District Gorakhpur (UP) on that day. He made a call to his father who had reached near Lucknow (U.P.) and he informed this fact to him. He alongwith his sister Sangeeta, other relatives and neighborer went to the house of accused at C-259, Sector-4, near the canal, Delhi where accused was residing with his sister Sarita. At the ground floor of the house, accused along with his brother and other persons were sitting in a room. Accused informed that his sister Sarita is lying dead at the second floor of the house That, after going through the examination-in-chief of PW1, father of the deceased and PW2, brother of deceased, it reveals that they have made the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment against the accused but there is a material contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 on the ground that PW1 has deposed that he met with the parents of the SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 22 of 45 accused who told him that he had to fulfill their demands of Rs.50,000/-, two wheeler vehicle and gold chain at the time of Tilak Ceremony whereas the testimony of PW2 Ashok is a hearsay testimony inasmuch as he never visited the house of the accused and never met with the parents of the accused nor any demand was made by the parents of the accused to PW2, brother of deceased. It has also come on record in the evidence that he came to know about the love relationship of his sister Sarita with accused Sunil first time when he came to Delhi on the death of his mother. He had admitted that he did not like the said relationship of his sister with accused. However, his parents had decided the marriage of his sister with accused. He came to know about the decision of his parents to get his sister married with accused after the last rites of his mother. His mother expired in the year 2012 and the marriage of his sister was solemnized in year 2014. PW2, who is the real brother of the deceased has admitted that he did not attend the marriage of his deceased sister with accused.
9. That, perusal of the statement of PW1 made before the Executive Magistrate revealed that he has himself stated before the Executive Magistrate that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage and after going through the entire SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 23 of 45 statement, it has nowhere been stated that at any point of time, the demand of dowry was made by the accused to his daughter or her family members. Admittedly, it was a love marriage and the deceased was residing with the accused in a rented accommodation on the second floor of the premises C-259, Sector-4, DSIIDC, Bawana. So far as the demand of Rs.50,000/-, two wheeler vehicle, gold chain at the time of Tilak Ceremony as alleged to have made by the father of the accused is concerned, the same has no meaning and is worthless inasmuch as the parents of the accused did not arrange the marriage of accused with the deceased. The another allegation as alleged by PW1, father of the deceased that the marriage of the sister of the accused was fixed and accused asked his daughter Sarita to bring money from her parents so that he can arrange clothes and gifts for his sister, his late daughter conveyed the demand of accused to him and his family members. He informed his daughter that he is not able to fulfill the demands. When his daughter conveyed his inability to fulfill the demands, dropped his daughter at their house in Delhi. He borrowed Rs.15,000/- and called accused at their house and handed over Rs.15,000/- to accused Sunil who took his daughter to his house. The accused left for his native village for attending the marriage of his sister. His late daughter SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 24 of 45 remained with them at their home. The testimony of PW1 is not credible and does not inspire any confidence and is unable to prove the demand of dowry alleged to have been made by the accused inasmuch as it has come on record in evidence that when accused returned after the marriage of his sister, he informed his daughter that his parents did not allow him to attend the marriage of his sister and he remained present at the house of the neighbour of his native village at the time of marriage of his sister. It has also come on evidence that PW1, father of deceased took the loan of Rs.50,000/- from his neighbour Dalip for giving to the accused. Dalip was working in a factory and he had returned the amount to Dalip which he had borrowed but the prosecution did not examine the said Dalip to prove that Rs.50,000/- had been borrowed from him by PW1, father of deceased to give the said amount to the accused as demanded by him to purchase the clothes for the marriage of his sister.
10. It is worth mentioning that the PW1, father of the deceased has admitted in his cross-examination that "It is correct that accused Sunil had never demanded anything directly from me. It is correct that accused had never demand anything from my daughter in my presence".
SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 25 of 4511. It is also pertinent to mention that PW1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that he had not made any complaint to the police regarding beatings alleged to have been given by the accused to his daughter. He never ever made a call at 100 number to report any such incident. He did not make any complaint to Rajmani as his daughter was not happy in the matrimonial home. He never visited the village of Sunil after the marriage of his daughter with him. Therefore, the question does not arise to make the demand by the parents of the accused after the marriage. It has also been admitted by PW1 that his another daughter Sangeeta and Sarita used to take her deceased daughter to the Doctor when she was pregnant and his daughter never told anything whenever Doctor used to advice to Sarita during her pregnancy. Whatever has been deposed in the examination-in-chief of PW1 is only upon the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which were recorded subsequent to the statement made by PW1 before ld. Executive Magistrate to which no demand of dowry was made.
12. That, in order to prove their case, the prosecution has examined the real sister of the deceased namely Sangeeta as PW-3 who has deposed that after marriage, her sister started residing with SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 26 of 45 accused in a room situated in a factory in Delhi where accused was working. After one year of the marriage, accused started giving beatings to her deceased sister on trivial issues. About three years prior to the death of her sister Sarita, accused demanded money from her sister as accused wanted to attend the marriage of his sister at his native village, UP. The accused started harassing and giving beatings to her sister Sarita. Her sister was pregnant and she was not properly treated by the accused. Her sister Sarita used to talk on mobile phone and informed her that she has been harassed and beaten by the accused. She used to visit the room of her sister Sarita in the absence of the accused in order to give her food and money. She also used to take her sister to the doctor for her medical treatment when she was pregnant.
13. That, perusal of the examination in chief of PW-1, it has no where been stated that accused had ever made demand of dowry and if any demand for dowry was made, then PW-3 used to meet the deceased, as to why she did not make any complaint to the police or to the other authorities in respect of the allegations of demand of dowry alleged to have been made by the accused.
SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 27 of 4514. That, PW-3 has also deposed that at about 8:30 pm, she received a telephonic call on her mobile number 8860600381 from the mobile phone of the accused who asked her if Sarita had come to her house as his house is found locked. At about 9:30 pm, Sunil made a call to her and informed that Sarita has been killed by someone and door is lying closed. Her brother took mobile phone from her hand and talked to the accused and requested him to take the Sarita to nearby hospital immediately. Her brother also made a call to her father who had reached near Lucknow, UP and informed this fact to him. Thereafter, she along with her brother, other relatives and neighbours went to the house of accused at C-259, Sector-4, Bawana, Delhi. She alongwith others went to the said room where they found that Sarita was lying in a blood facing towards ground near the bed. She saw a gamchha tied around her neck. They checked her and immediately took her to Pooth Khurd Hospital where she was declared 'brought dead'.
15. That, perusal of the entire chargesheet as well as the statement recorded by the IO and other papers which were reduced into writing at the time of incident, it has been mentioned everywhere that no eye witness was found at the place of incident. Therefore, this case is based on circumstantial SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 28 of 45 evidence. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (Reliance placed on Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
16. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 29 of 4517. Reference is also made to a decision passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....".
18. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC
79), it was laid down by Apex Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:-
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 30 of 45 conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
19. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
20. That, the rules specifically pertaining to the circumstantial evidence has been mentioned in a book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) written by Sir Alfred Wills. It has been mentioned in the said book that : (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits;
SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 31 of 45(4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted".
21. It is the universal principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India that there is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments as far back as in 1952.
22. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case 'Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh', (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed thus:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 32 of 45 complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
23. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case 'Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra', (AIR 1984 SC 1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are:-
"(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 33 of 45 conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
24. That, perusal of the chargesheet, it reveals that as per the statement made by the PW-1, father of the deceased before Executive Magistrate where it has been stated that accused Sunil has killed his daughter and action may kindly be taken against him. During course of investigation, it has been written in the chargesheet itself by the IO that it appears that some unknown person had killed a lady and during further investigation, it has been mentioned in the chargesheet itself that parents of the deceased suspects that Sunil had killed Sarita.
25. It has been mentioned in the chargesheet itself that during the course of investigation, it was found that a factory in the name of Sri Ganpati Packaging is running in the basement and ground floor of the building i.e. C-295, Sector-4, DSIIDC, Bawana, Delhi in which the alleged incident taken place at second floor. The factory owner and his labour who were present on the day of incident, were examined. They stated that they were working in the factory in the basement and at the ground floor of the building since 9:00 am in the morning.
SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 34 of 45Shatrughan, the brother of the accused was also working in the factory. After lunch, Shatrughan came in the factory at around 1:30 pm, and since then, he was working on the ground floor of the machine (PVC Exuder) and he did not leave the machine till around 8:30 pm when LIC agent Pradeep came there. During that day, no one except Sunil went upstairs. Sunil has gone upstairs at around 4:30 pm and returned at around 5:00 pm.
26. It is further mentioned in the charge sheet itself that the factory owner of the factory where the accused Sunil was working i.e Atlas Box Factory C-152, Sector-4, DSIIDC, Bawana, Delhi and other workers were also examined. They stated that Sunil was working in the factory from 9:30 am and used to go for lunch at around 1:00 pm and returned at 1:30 pm. Further he went somewhere at around 4:00 pm and returned at around 5:15 pm. It was unusual as Sunil used to stay/ work in the factory after lunch and go to home at around 9:00-9:30 pm, so Sunil was asked where he is going but he did not give satisfactory reply.
27. It has also been mentioned in the charge sheet by the IO that CCTV Camera installed at the factory at C-152, Sector-IV, DSIIDCk, Bawana, Delhi and Nextron Pvt. Ltd. CG-45, Sector-
SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 35 of 45IV, DSIIDC, Bawana, Delhi were scrutinized. The accused Sunil may be seen going out of the factory several times including at 4:38 pm and returning at around 5:10 pm in the CCTV footage of Altas Box Factory. The CCTV footage of Nextron Pvt. Ltd. which is the factory adjacent to the factory where incident took place is not clear. However, one person may be seen going inside the factory at around 4:40 pm but the person is hardly to identify in the CCTV footage of the camera installed at the main gate of the factory Nextron Pvt. Ltd facing the gate of the factory where incident took place. The accused Sunil was thoroughly examined in confrontation with said facts and he revealed that the had married Sarita four years back. Soon after the marriage, Sarita started passing comments on him regarding his earnings etc and some of the acts of Sarita used to hurt him. Sarita used to abuse Sunil in front of other also. Sarita was a greedy lady and i.e why she was in relationship with others. She used to quarrel with the accused on trivial issues and abuse him.
28. That, on 19.06.2018, Sunil came to the home for going to toilet.
When he reached in the room, Sarita started quarreling with him and abused him on asking for a glass of water. Out of anger, accused Sunil pushed her inside on which Sarita fell on SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 36 of 45 the floor after hitting the wall. Sunil was very angry and he kept on hitting her after wrapping a turban lying in the room around her neck. He hit her with the corner of the wall by holding her hairs till she stopped reacting. Till then she was died. He came out of the room and closed the door. While going back to factory he locked the door with the spring fitted lock. He pretended as if nothing had happened.
29. It is worth mentioning that there is no eye witness of the incident and the examination of the accused was in the police custody in the PS and whatever has been recorded during the police custody, has no relevance in accordance with Indian Evidence Act. The perusal of the charge sheet reveals that version of the IO is also self contradictory inasmuch as he had gone through the CCTV footage of the factory which is adjacent to the factory where the incident had happened and after gone through the CCTV footage, one person who was seen in the CCTV footage was hardly to identify and this court is of the considered view that IO has not specifically mentioned in the charge sheet as to how and during the course of investigation, he came to conclusion that accused has killed his wife. It has come on the evidence that accused used to reside with his deceased wife in a room which was at second floor of SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 37 of 45 the factory i.e C-259, DSIIDC, Sector-IV, Bawana, Delhi and there was factory in the basement as well as on the ground floor and there was only one single entry which was inside the factory, to go to upstairs to the second floor. Then it is certain that someone had entered from the said main gate of the premises i.e C-259, DSIIDC, Sector- IV, Bawana, Delhi but the prosecution has failed to establish and proved that the accused had entered in the said factory and had gone to the room at second floor between 4:00 pm to 5:10 pm. PW-3 who is real sister of the deceased has also deposed that the accused has killed his sister because the room in which her sister was found lying dead is covered with iron grill and no body can enter the room from any other side except from stair case. But there is no evidence on record that accused had entered in the premises C- 259, DSIIDC, Sector-IV, Bawana, Delhi and had gone to the second floor to commit the offence. Perusal of the charge sheet, it self reveals that the site plan prepared by the IO Inspector Anupam Bhushan as Ex. PW-20/P-26 is itself defective and he has not prepared actual site plan as it has come on record that there is basement on the ground floor where the factory was running in the premises i.e C-259, DSIIDC, Sector-IV, Bawana, Delhi and perusal of the site plan reveals that only 3-4 stair case have been shown and there is no stair case mentioning in the SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 38 of 45 said site plan which leads from ground floor to second floor where the wife of the accuse was found dead. That it is no where mentioned in the site plan as to where is the basement or the ground floor where factory was running and machines were installed. The photographs which were taken by the photographer are also defective and no photo of the stair case or other place shown if there is any place to enter in to the said premises of the second floor where the incident had happened.
30. That, PW3 has admitted in her cross examination that she did not tell to the police in her statement that the room in which her sister was found dead and the same was covered with iron grill and no one can enter the grill from other side except the stair case.
31. That, the prosecution has also examined PW4 Sh. Gaurav and he is very material witness to prove the chain of circumstances and has deposed that he was working in Nextron Pvt. Ltd. situated at CG45, Sector4, DSIIDC, Bawana, Delhi. One police official visited his lab and served him a notice for taking the footage from CCTV outside his lab. The CCTV footage of the time around 4:00 pm, they noticed one person was visible SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 39 of 45 in the recording who was wearing vest. Police asked him for copy of the footage and he supplied the same to the police and in the further examination in chief, he deposed that when the footage was played at 4:40 pm, one person was visible on the screen as Ex.MO1. In the CCTV footage that person is entering the adjacent factory. It might be CD44 or CG46. This witness from where the CCTV footage was collected by the police has not able to tell the premises number of the factory whether it I CG44 or CG46 and in the cross examination this witness has admitted that "from the CCTV footage I can not say from where the person visible on screen came and where he has gone".
32. That, PW5 Ravinder Shrama has deposed that he took the basement and ground floor on rent of C259, Sector4, DSIIDC, Bawana, Delhi and was doing business from there by the name of Shri Ganpati Packaging. He was manufacturing PVC shrink sheet from the premises. Chander Kumar, Jai Kishan, Shtrughan and Pradeep were working in his factory. Chander Kumar and Murnal were living in the basement of C
259. Murnal was not working in his factory. On 19.06.2018, at SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 40 of 45 about 11:30 am, he reached C259 and instructed Jai Kishan to paint the old machine lying in the basement. Shatrughan (brother of accused) was working on the machine on the ground floor. He along with Jai Kishan went in the basement and started painting the old machine. At about 1:00 pm, Shatrughan came in the basement and told him that machine is not working properly and it requires greecing. He went upstairs and did the greecing and again went to the basement. At about 9:15 pm, he along with Jai Kishan came on the ground floor. He washed his hand and went home. At about 10:00 pm, Chander Kumar made a telephone call to him and informed that, "Sunil ki wife ko koi chaku maar diya hai aur usme kuch jaan hai". He instructed him to call the ambulance and after some time, Sunil made a call on his phone who said "koi chhat par se aaker meri biwi kko maar ke chala gaya hai aap jaldi se aa jao". He reached to the factory on his bike. Wife of the Sunil was not there and she was already removed to the hospital. Police was already there. He was taken to the PS by the police. He was beaten and police also made inquiries from him as to till if he know as to who committed this offence.
SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 41 of 4533. That, after perusal of the examination in chief of this witness, it reveals that his worker Chander Kumar told him on telephone and informed that, "Sunil ki wife ko koi chaku maar diya hai aur usme kuch jaan hai" and immediately thereafter, the accused Sunil made telephonic call by saying that "koi chhat par se aaker meri biwi ko maar ke chala gaya hai aap jaldi se aa jao". It means that the wife of the accused was dead at that time.
34. That, in the cross examination, this witness has deposed that he told the police in his statement that at about 8:00 pm, Shatrughan told him that Pradeep, LIC agent had come and money is to be paid to him and that is why he is going to upstairs to take money to be paid to the Pradeep, LIC agent. Again said, that time was around 7:30 pm. When Shatrughan came to him and told him that bhabhi is not at home, the room is lying locked and Rs.2000- is required to be paid to the LIC agent. He had given Rs.2000/- to Shatrughan and when he gone to the upstairs, Sunil broke open the lock of the room with a brick and he along with others entered in the room.
35. That, the case of the prosecution is also that it was only the accused who was lastly seen to go upstairs in the room where SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 42 of 45 the accused was residing with his wife. Though, the CCTV Footage does not corroborate the theory of the prosecution and as per the CCTV footage, it is not clear that the accused was going upstairs between 4.00-5.00 pm and therefore, the prosecution is not able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts that accused was lastly seen at the place of incident.
36. It has come on record that some utensils are lying outside the said room where the incident had taken place and one gamcha (cloth) was found wrapped around the neck of the deceased and for that purpose, the prosecution was duty bound to prove the chance prints but the prosecution has not been able to prove that the chance prints/fingerprints of the accused were found on any of the utensils or on the gamcha (cloth) which was found wrapped around the neck of the deceased.
37. That, it is admitted case of the prosecution that the place of incident was accessible and anyone who used to work in the basement and ground floor in the factory or from the outside can go upstairs to the place of incident and if anyone was having the access to the room where the alleged incident had taken place, then, how it is proved that the accused alone had visited the place of the incident between 4.00-5.00 pm. SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 43 of 45
38. That, PW25 Inspector Anupam Bhushan who has carried out the investigation has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not find any knife or any other sharp edged weapon at the place of incident and even the brick which was found near the lock, was also not in sharp or sharp edged condition. No photograph of the wall of the room was taken and therefore, the testimony of the prosecution witness cannot be considered at all as consistent and is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
That, PW25, IO of this case also did not obtain the CDR of the mobile phone of the family members of the deceased nor he has sent the gamcha (cloth) to the FSL to find the truth of this case and fingerprints of the accused have also not been matched with the gamcha wrapped around the neck of the deceased and in this case, the version of the prosecution is that it was only the suspicion that the accused had committed the offence of murder of his wife and on the basis of the suspicion without proving the same by substantiated evidence is not much credible. PW25 Inspector Anupam Bhushan has also admitted in his cross- examination that he did not send the pictures of the accused and the CCTV footage to the FSL to compare the Gait, Face, Appearance and other visible features of the person seen under CCTV footage. PW25 has also admitted that "It is correct that SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 44 of 45 the face of the person is not clear in the CCTV Footage".
"The gamcha was not sent to FSL to find out the traces of any biological sample of the accused".
That, the prosecution neither proved the chain of circumstances to completely establish nor the guilt of the accused alone, having committed the crime to be proven, much less beyond reasonable doubt.
39. That, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had visited the place of the incident between 4.00 - 5.00 pm when the alleged offence was committed. The evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient in any manner to hold that the accused had committed the offence of the murder of his wife. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable possible doubts. Hence, the accused is hereby acquitted from the charges of the offence u/s 302/498A/316 IPC.
40. Every page of this judgment is signed by this court.
41. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.04.2024 (SATISH KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03, (NORTH) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI SC No.630/2018 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 45 of 45