Delhi District Court
S C No. 28/14 State vs Geeta & Anr. on 23 December, 2014
S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
DISTRICT COURTS DWARKA ; NEW DELHI
S. C. No. 28/14
FIR No. 10/2013
Police Station Bindapur
Under Section 302/201/120B IPC
I.D. No. 02405R0095822013
STATE
Versus
1. Geeta
W/o Sh. Tara Chand
R/o E-111, Om Vihar Phase-V, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
2. Rakesh
S/o Sh. Nathu Ram
R/o H.No. B-30, Gali no.3, Khazoori Khas,
Delhi. ......Accused
Date of institution 06/04/13
Judgment reserved on 05/12/14
Judgment Pronounced on 20/12/14
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
Judgment Page no. 1 of 28
S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
1. Accused Geeta and Rakesh, brother-sister duo are facing trial in the present case on allegations that they committed murder of Inderjeet along with co- accused Bhagwan Singh (not arrested) on 06.01.2013.
2. The brief facts as noted in the charge sheet are that a DD no. 60 B was registered at PS Bindapur in respect of an unclaimed suitcase found near D-184, Sector 3, Phase-1, Dwarka, which was found on a rehdi wrapped in a quilt and tied with a red nylon rope. The said call was entrusted to SI Ashok Kumar who reached at the spot and on opening the quilt it was found that a brown color DELL suit case was concealed in it, in which a gunny bag was kept and inside the gunny bag a dead body of Inderjeet @ Inder was found.
3. During investigations of the case the accused Geeta was arrested who disclosed that she was having an illicit relationship with the deceased and the deceased was having an evil eye on her daughter, due to this reason she along with her brother co-accused Rakesh and Baghwan Singh (not arrested) made a plan to eliminate Inderjeet. On 06.11.2013 according to the plan the deceased was murdered at her house bearing no. E-111, Om Vihar, Phase-V, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and the dead body was deposed by putting it in suit case after wrapping it in a quilt.
Judgment Page no. 2 of 28
S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
4. The accused Geeta and Rakesh were arrested and the charge for the offences punishable U/s 302/120 B IPC, 302/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons. Both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution in all has examined 35 witnesses.
6. PW-1 Dr. B.N. Mishra conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Inderjeet on 08.01.2013 and proved his report as Ex. PW-1/A. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to haemorrhagic shock caused by cutting down of large vessel of neck by sharp edged weapon like knife. PW-1 also proved his subsequent opinion in respect of weapon of offence i.e. knife as Ex. PW-1/C.
7. PW-2 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., proved the record of mobile no. 9718304154 for the period 01.11.2012 to 20.01.2013 as Ex. PW-2/A and proved the Customer Application Form in the name of Ramji Ray as Ex. PW-2/B.
8. PW-3 HC Rohtash deposed that he was present along with IO/ Insp. Rajbir Singh when IO arrested the accused Rakesh vide arrest memo Ex. PW-3/A and proved the personal search memo of the accused Ex. PW-3/B. The witness deposed that the IO recorded the disclosure statement of the Judgment Page no. 3 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
accused Ex. PW-3/C and the motorcycle bearing no. DL-1SU-6456 was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW-3/D. The witness testified that the accused Rakesh led the police team to the house of his maternal grandmother from where he got recovered a knife and a pair of sport shoes of deceased. The witness proved the sketch of knife prepared by the IO as Ex. PW-3/E and seizure memo of knife & shoes as Ex. PW-3/F. The witness further deposed that the accused Rakesh also got recovered one black colour mobile phone of Cool Pad, three SIM Cards and one memory card and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/G. At the instance of the accused Rakesh, IO prepared the pointing out memo of the place where he kept the dead body in a suitcase vide Ex. PW-3/H. The witness deposed that accused also led them to a shop from where he purchased the said suit case. The witness further deposed that the accused persons led them to a shop from where the accused Geeta had purchased a quilt of same colour and style of which a pillow was with the shop-keeper. IO seized the pillow vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/I. The witness proved the knife as Ex. P-2, pair of shoes as Ex. P-3, Cool Pad mobile phone as Ex. P-4 and Sim Cards as Ex. P5-A to E.
9. PW-4 Deepak, Nodal Officer, Vodaphone proved the CDR in respect of mobile no. 8588030705 for the period from 01.11.2012 to 20.01.2013 as Ex. PW-4/A and Customer Application Form as Ex. PW-4/B. The witness also proved the CDR of mobile no. 9953211720 for the same period as Judgment Page no. 4 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
Ex. PW-4/D and Customer Application Form issued in the name of Inderjeet as Ex. PW-4/E.
10. PW-5 Naresh Kumar deposed that he sold the suit case from his shop to the accused Rakesh. The witness identified the said suit case as Ex. PX1.
11. PW-6 Laxmi Narayan from MTNL Telephone Exchange deposed that the telephone connection no. 25351377 was issued to Ram Dayal Saini and proved the copy of application form as Ex. PW-6/A.
12. PW-7 Leela Ram deposed that he is having a barber shop and the deceased used to come to his shop to meet his son. The witness deposed that the brother of the deceased came to his shop and inquired about the deceased to which he informed that he had seen the deceased at about 3 - 3.30 pm going towards a street.
13. PW-8 Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, TATA Tele Services Ltd., proved the CDR in respect of mobile no. 9211914070 for the period from 01.11.2012 to 20.01.2013 as Ex. PW-8/A. The witness deposed that the said mobile was in the name of the Satbir Singh as per Customer Application Form Ex. PW-8/B. The witness proved the cell ID chart with location as Ex. PW-8/C and the certificate U/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW-8/D. Judgment Page no. 5 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
14. PW-9 Ct. Hardeep Singh proved the scaled site plan of the place where the dead body was found as Ex. PW-9/A.
15. PW-10 Dinesh Kumar son of Leela Ram (PW-7) deposed that on the date of incident the deceased did not meet him nor he saw him.
16. PW-11 Mohd. Ansari saw luggage on the rehdi which was stationed outside his house and on notcing the luggage he made call to 100. He deposed that the inside the suit case there was a gunny bag inside of which a dead body was found. The IO seized the suit case, one blood stained quilt, two gunny bags, one nylon rope, one jute rope, one blood stained transparent polythene and rehdi vide seizure memo Ex. PW-11/A.
17. PW-12 HC Ashok Kumar deposed that he took the photographs Ex. PW-12/A1 to A11 of the bundle in which the dead body of a male was found.
18. PW-13 ASI Khazan Singh deposed that as In-charge of Mobile Crime Team, he inspected the spot from where the dead body was recovered and prepared his report Ex. PW-13/A. Judgment Page no. 6 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
19. PW-14 Ct. Anil Kumar, proved photographs Ex. PW-14/A1 to A11 of a vacant plot where some burnt clothes were lying. The witness proved its negatives collectively as Ex. PW-14/B.
20. PW-15 Ram Dayal Saini is running a PCO having telephone no. 25351377 and deposed that accused Geeta used to make call from his PCO. The witness deposed that on 06.01.2013 at about 3 - 3.30 pm she made a call from his PCO and went away.
21. PW-16 Ct. Shish Pal delivered copies of FIR to the Senior Officers.
22. PW-17 Satinder Kumar, brother of the deceased testified that the deceased was using mobile nos. 9211914070 & 9953211720 and was residing with him. The witness deposed that accused Geeta was having illicit relationship with the deceased and when they tired to reason out the deceased, the Geeta came to know this fact and she vacated the rented accommodation and started residing at Om Vihar. On the date of incident when the deceased did not come back to his house till 6.00 pm and his mobile phone was not answered then he along with his brother searched for the deceased and on the next morning they lodged a missing report in respect of their brother. At that time, they came to know that a dead body was found in the area of PS Bindapur and they left for DDU Hospital where they identified the dead body of Inderjeet and then they took the police officials to the residence of Judgment Page no. 7 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
accused Geeta, where Geeta was arrested. She was interrogated and have confessed to have murdered his brother Inderjeet. The witness proved the arrest memo of the accused Geeta as Ex. PW-17/A and her personal search memo as Ex. PW-17/B.
23. PW-18 Sudeshwar Tiwari deposed that as an Incharge PCR Van, he went to the spot where an unidentified suit case was found and in the suitcase a dead body was found. He proved the call book record as Ex. PW-18/A.
24. PW-19 Sushila, neighbour of accused Geeta deposed that on 06.01.2013 she saw accused was burning a fire in a vacant plot and the accused informed her that she is burning mattress which was infected by germs.
25. PW-20 Chandraprakash is the son of PW-19 and he also deposed that he saw the accused Geeta was burning a fire in a vacant plot on 06.01.2013 at about 8.30 pm.
26. PW-21 Devender Kumar, the brother of the deceased Inderjeet deposed on the similar lines of his brother PW-17 Satender Kumar. The witness further deposed that accused persons were arrested in his presence and the accused Rakesh got recovered a knife, shoes of the deceased and a Cool Pad mobile phone along with 3 SIM Cards. The witness proved the purchase bill of Cool Pad mobile phone as Ex. PW-21/A. Judgment Page no. 8 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
27. PW-22 Laxmi deposed that accused Geeta was inducted as a tenant in respect of ground floor of her property i.e. E-111, Phase-V, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar.
28. PW-23 Yusuf, deposed that he sold a quilt to the accused for Rs.550/-. The witness identified the quilt sold by him to the accused Geeta as Ex. P7 and pillow which was seized from him by the police during the course of investigation as Ex. P6.
29. PW-24 Asgari Begum is the owner of rehdi on which the dead body was found. The witness identified the suitcase from which the dead body was found in her presence as Ex. PX-1 and also proved the rehdi as Ex. P8. The witness further also identified the quilt Ex. P7 which was found on her rehdi in which suitcase Ex. PX1 was found.
30. PW-25 SI Raj Kumar deposed that FSL Team inspected the place of occurrence and collected some exhibits from the premises of accused Geeta and from a vacant plot in front of the said property. The exhibits were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-25/A & B. Judgment Page no. 9 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
31. PW-26 Ct. Sarita proved the arrest of accused Geeta as per arrest memo Ex. PW-17/A & B. The witness deposed that IO recorded disclosure statement of Ex. PW-26/A in her presence and also prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of accused Ex. PW-26/B.
32. PW-27 SI Samsher Singh proved the FIR in question as Ex. PW-27/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW-27/B.
33. PW-28 Ct. Mohit took the dead body to mortuary and after the postmortem collected 3 pullanda which were seized by SI Ashok vide seizure memo Ex. PW-28/A.
34. PW-29 HC Mahender Singh deposed that he deposited the seized case property to FSL.
35. PW-30 Dheeraj deposed that as per bill no. 1412, Ex. PW-21/A he sold a mobile phone make Cool Pad T20 to one Inderjeet.
36. PW-31 HC Karan Singh, the Incharge Malkhana deposed that the case property were deposited with the Malkhana and sent to the FSL as per entries Ex. PW-31/A to G. Judgment Page no. 10 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
37. PW-32 Ravi Kumar Mishra deposed that accused Rakesh was his employee and one Bhagwan Singh used to stay in his factory. The said Bhagwan Singh used to have meals at the residence of Geeta. The witness deposed that he was having motorcycle bearing no. DL-1SU-6456, which was also used by Bhagwan Singh on several occasions.
38. PW-33 Insp. Rajbir Singh was the IO of this case. He deposed that he got inspected the site from where the dead body was recovered. He also got examined the place of occurrence i.e. house of accused Geeta. During the course of investigation he inspected and got recovered weapon of offence, shoes and mobile along with its SIM cards.
39. PW-34 SI Ashok Kumar reached at the spot from where the dead body was found on receipt of DD no. 60B proved as Ex. PW-34/A. He prepared tehrir Ex. PW-34/B and got registered a FIR. At the instance of accused Geeta, site plan was prepared by the IO which is Ex. PW-33/A and also took part in the arrest of the accused Geeta. The witness proved the blood stained gunny bag from which the dead body was taken out as Ex. P-9.
40. PW-35 H.N. Chopra proved the CDR of the PCO no. 25351377 from the period 01.01.2013 to 15.01.2013 as Ex. PW-35/A and certificate U/s 65 B Evidence Act as Ex. PW-35/B. Judgment Page no. 11 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
41. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence the statement of accused persons was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. , the accused Geeta in her statement stated that she does not know deceased Inderjeet and as such she does not had any reason to murder him. The accused Rakesh also claimed his innocence and stated that he was not knowing the deceased nor he had any reason to murder him.
42. The accused persons did not lead any evidence.
43. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Legal Aid Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons.
44. It is evident that the case of the prosecution rests squarely on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution intends to prove following circumstances against the accused:
a) Homicidal death of Inderjeet.
b) The relationship between the accused Geeta & the deceased.
c) Purchase of quilt by accused Geeta in which suitcase(in which dead body was found) was wrapped.
d) Purchase of the suitcase by accused Rakesh in which the dead body of Inderjeet was found.
e) Accused Geeta seen by her neighbors burning fire/mattresses.
Judgment Page no. 12 of 28
S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
f) Presence of blood stains in the premises of accused Geeta where the deceased is alleged to have been murdered.
g) Recovery of mobile of deceased and weapon of offence from accused Rakesh.
45. Homicidal Death of the Inderjeet: The fact that deceased Inderjeet has died a homicidal death is not much of dispute and in this regard PW1 Dr. B.N. Mishra has proved his post-mortem report Ex. PW1/A in which it has been opined that the cause of death of Inderjeet was caused by cutting down of large vessel of neck by sharp edged weapon like knife etc., and the said injury is held to be sufficient to cause death. The manner of death is stated to be homicidal. The testimony of PW1 Dr. B.N. Mishra, has not been disputed by the defence and the report Ex. PW1/A conclusively proves that the death of deceased Inderjeet was homicidal.
46. The relationship between the accused Geeta & the deceased: Both the accused persons have denied that they were known to the deceased and have stated that they did not have any motive to murder him. On the other hand, the prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW17 Satender and PW21 Devender who are brothers of the deceased to indicate that the deceased was having an affair with accused Geeta. In the light of rival contentions, let us consider that whether the prosecution has been able to establish that the deceased and accused Geeta were in any relationship.
Judgment Page no. 13 of 28
S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
47. PW17 Satender brother of deceased deposed that the accused Geeta was earlier residing near to their house, just a street away on a rented accommodation and she was having an illicit relationship with the deceased. When the deceased was reasoned out about his relationship with the accused, the accused Geeta vacated the rented accommodation and started residing at Om Vihar. Similar is the deposition of PW21 Devender Kumar who further explained that the deceased was doing the business of selling milk and accused Geeta used to come at his shop to buy milk and she had an affair with the deceased.
48. The defence has challenged the testimonies of PW-17 and 21 on the ground that both the witnesses have not thrown much light upon the relationship between the Geeta and the deceased. It is argued that PW-21 has admitted in his cross-examination that for last 5-6 years he had not seen Geeta and she was never seen near their residence. It has been further contended that it has also come on record that accused Geeta is married and has 3 children therefore it cannot be believed that she was having an illicit relationship with the deceased.
49. After going through the testimonies of PW-17 and 21 it has emerged that both of them have identified the accused Geeta to be the person having relationship with the deceased and both of them have categorically deposed Judgment Page no. 14 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
that the accused Geeta was residing near their house at a distance of a street in a rented accommodation. The testimonies of both these witnesses to this effect has remained intact despite their lengthy cross-examination. Even the witnesses have not been put a suggestion that accused Geeta never resided near the residence of the deceased. No reason has been attributed to discredit the testimonies of these witnesses as to why they named accused Geeta of having an affair with the deceased. If not anything beyond but the testimonies of PW-17 and 21 atleast establishes that the accused Geeta was residing near the house of the deceased and was well acquainted with him.
50. The relationship between the deceased and accused Geeta found further strength from the testimony of PW-15 Ram Dayal Saini who runs a PCO having telephone no. 25351377. PW-15 deposed to the effect that the accused Geeta used to come to his shop to make calls from his PCO and also on 06.01.2013 at about 3-3.30 pm she came to his shop and made a call. The call record of the telephone no. 25351377 for the period 01.01.2013 to 15.01.2013 is Ex. PW-35/A. This record as well the CDR Ex PW4/D & Ex. PW-8/A shows that from the said PCO number of calls were made on the mobile numbers 9211914070 and 9953211720.
51. The Call Information Form Ex. PW-4/E of mobile number 9953211720 shows that this number was in the name of the deceased. Call Detail Record of this number is Ex. PW-4/D and this record also reflects that from the Judgment Page no. 15 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
PCO booth of PW15 calls were made to the mobile of the deceased. Although, the Customer Application Form of mobile no. 9211914070 shows that the mobile was in the name of one Satbir Singh but it has come in the testimony of PW-17 that 9211914070 was being used by the deceased. The call detail of mobile no. 9211914070 Ex. PW-8/A indicates that consistently the calls were made from the said PCO and from this mobile number as well.
52. PW-15 Ram Dayal Saini deposed to the effect that the accused Geeta used to regularly make calls from his PCO and also that a call was made by accused Geeta on 06.01.2013 between 3-3.30pm. The electronic evidence shows that a call was made at 9211914070 on 06.01.2013 at about 3.12pm. The record also indicates that number of calls were made at the mobile numbers of deceased from the said PCO. No other person except Geeta being the frequent caller from the said PCO could be making calls at the aforesaid numbers being in relationship with the deceased. Thus, this evidence also establishes that the accused Geeta was in regular contact with the deceased. PW22 Laxmi owner of the tenanted premises of accused Geeta also deposed that that the deceased used to visit the accused Geeta in the said premises and the accused Geeta informed her that the deceased was her cousin. Although in her statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC the accused Judgment Page no. 16 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
Geeta denied her acquaintance with the deceased but the testimonies of PW-17 & 21 and also of PW-15 & PW-22 coupled with electronic evidence demonstrates otherwise. Accordingly, it has to be held that the accused Geeta was well acquainted with the deceased.
53. Purchase of quilt by accused Geeta in which quilt was wrapped: Dead body of the deceased Inderjeet was found in a suitcase wrapped in a quilt which was lying on a rehdi Ex P-8 belonging to PW24 Asgari Begum. PW24 duly identified the said quilt as Ex P-7, the suitcase Ex. PX-1. In the photographs Ex PW12/A-1 to A-11, the case properties can be seen. It is the case of the prosecution that the quilt in which the dead body was found was purchased by the accused Geeta for the purpose of disposing off the dead body. The prosecution examined PW-23 Yusuf to establish this fact.
54. PW-23 Yusuf deposed that the accused Geeta came to his shop in January, 2013 to purchase a quilt which was costing Rs. 550/- but the accused gave him Rs. 420/- and told him that she would pay the remaining amount on the following day. However, on the next date the police arrested the accused. The witness specifically deposed that he knows accused Geeta because she was residing at a distance of a street from his shop. He also testified that during the course of investigation the police seized a pillow Ex P-6 from his shop vide seizure memo Ex. PW-23/I. Judgment Page no. 17 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
55. It has been submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the print of the pillow Ex. P-6 was similar to the quilt Ex. P-7 in which the dead body of deceased Inderjeet was found. The pillow and the quilt was produced before the Court and it was observed that the print of cloth of Ex. P-6 & 7 are same. The FSL report Ex F-4 finds that pillow and the quilt are found similar in respect of the color, texture, design, weaving pattern, number of weft per cm., type stitch and thread appearing under the UV light, micro appearance, solubility and burning.
56. Although, the testimony of PW-23 is attacked on the ground that the quilt of similar pattern & design as of Ex P-7 is easily available in the market therefore it cannot be concluded that the quilt in which the dead body was found was actually purchased by the accused Geeta from PW-23 Yusuf but it has to be taken into consideration that PW-23 is very much acquainted with the accused Geeta as she is residing just a street away from his shop. PW-23 specifically remembers the incident of purchase of the quilt by the accused Geeta as he deposed that the accused Geeta did not pay him the total cost of the quilt rather promised that she would be paying the remaining amount on the next day.
Judgment Page no. 18 of 28
S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
57. True it may be that the similar design quilt to Ex P-7 could be found in the market but it has to brone in my mind that is has perfectly matched to the pillow Ex P-6 which was seized vide Ex PW3/I as per the report Ex F-4. There is nothing on record which creates doubt on the testimony of PW-23 in respect of sale of quilt Ex. P-7 to the accused Geeta. Thus, in view of the report Ex F-4 and testimony of PW23 it stands proved on record that the quilt Ex. P-7 in which the suitcase having dead body of the deceased Inderjeet was found wrapped was in fact purchased by accused Geeta.
58. The purchase of suitcase by accused Rakesh in which the dead body of Inderjeet was found: It is further the case of prosecution that the suitcase Ex. PX1 in which the dead body of the deceased Inderjeet was found was purchased by accused Rakesh from PW5 Naresh.
59. PW5 Naresh deposed that on 08.01.2013, he was called at police station where he came to know that on 06.01.2013 a dead body was found in a suitcase. At the Police Station he identified the suitcase which was sold by him. The witness further deposed that at the PS he saw accused Rakesh in the custody of police and the accused admitted that he purchased the suitcase from his shop. During the course of his cross examination the Judgment Page no. 19 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
witness maintained that he was sure that the suitcase Ex. PX1 was sold by him to accused Rakesh although he did not issue any bill of the sale transaction. The witness denied the suggestion that under pressure from the police he falsely deposed that he sold the suitcase to accused Rakesh.
60. The testimony of PW5 has been attacked by the defence on the ground that the suitcase similar to Ex. PX1 are readily available in the market and since there was no identification mark on suitcase Ex. PX1, therefore in the absence of any specific identification mark, the deposition of PW5 to establish the identity of Ex. PX1 is not reliable but after going through the testimony of PW5, I find that he has no reason to falsely name the accused Rakesh as purchaser of suitcase Ex. PX1 nor any reason has been assigned to him as to why he would falsely identify the suitcase to be one in which the dead body was found. The testimony of PW5 is reliable & trustworthy and it establishes the fact that the suitcase in which the dead body was found was actually sold by him to the accused Rakesh.
61. Accused Geeta seen by her neighbors burning mattress: As per the prosecution, the other circumstance appearing against the accused persons is the testimony of witnesses who saw the accused Geeta burning the mattress on which the deceased was murdered. In order to establish this fact the prosecution has examined PW19 Sushila and PW20 Chanderprakash.
Judgment Page no. 20 of 28
S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
62. Both PWs 19 & 20 deposed that on 06.01.2013 at about 7-8 pm they saw that accused Geeta was burning fire in a vacant plot and when the accused Geeta was asked by PW19 that as to what she was burning, the accused Geeta informed her that she was burning the mattress as the mattress was infected by germs. Both these witnesses were cross examined by defence, however, no material contradiction came in their testimony.
63. The testimony of PW19 & 20 also find corroboration from the fact that the vacant plot in which the accused Geeta burnt fire was photographed by PW12 and photographs showing the ashes of fire are on record as Ex. PW14/A2, A9-11. From these photographs it is clearly visible that a fire was burnt at the vacant plot as stated by PW19 & 20. Although, in her statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C accused Geeta denied that she did not burn anything on the vacant plot and PWs 19 & 20 deposed falsely against her because she had quarrel with her about three days before her arrest and she was not having cordial relations with them but the defence did not give any suggestion to PW19 to establish the discord between her and PW 19 & 20. The testimony of PWs 19 & 20 is natural and is well worthy of credit.
64. The said vacant plot was also got examined by the Sunita Gupta, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL and from the said plot a blood stained torn sleeve of Judgment Page no. 21 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
shirt and ashes were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW25/B. The crime scene report has been proved on record as Ex. F1. The crime scene report establishes the recovery of ashes and the blood stained torn sleeve from vacant plot. Thus, the testimonies of PWs 19 & 20, photographs of the vacant plot showing remains of a fire and crime scene report Ex F-1 conclusively proves that accused Geeta burnt a fire in the vacant plot on 06.01.2013.
65. Presence of blood stains in the premises of accused Geeta where the deceased is said to have been murdered: PW22 Laxmi is the owner of the premises bearing number E-111, Phase V, Om Vihar and she testified to the effect that the accused Geeta was her tenant in aforesaid premises at relevant time. The witness deposed that the deceased used to visit the accused Geeta in the said premises and the accused Geeta informed her that the deceased was her cousin. During her cross examination PW22 deposed that the accused Geeta was already residing in the locality for last 10-12 years.
66. The testimony of PW22 Laxmi establishes that the ground floor of the property no. E-111, Phase V, Om Vihar, was in possession of the accused Geeta. As per the case of prosecution the deceased Inderjeet was called by the accused at her residence and she along with her brother Rakesh and his Judgment Page no. 22 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
associate Bhagwan Singh murdered the deceased in the said premises. As per report Ex. F1, the room under tenancy of accused Geeta was thoroughly examined for presence of blood and other biological clue material and the blood was detected on the spot and the stains were prepared on gauze cloth piece.
67. As per seizure memo Ex. PW25/A stains were prepared from a chess board, side of bed, from wall, from wooden box, from a card board and cooler, cuttings from pillow, bag, polythene, blood stained grass, blood stained pillow and blood stained bottles were lifted from the spot. The FSL report in respect of the aforesaid articles has been produced on record as Ex. F-3 and as per this report the human origin blood was found on all the exhibits detailed in Ex. PW25/A and were taken from the room in occupation of accused Geeta. Although, it is not on record that the blood found was of the deceased but it is noteworthy that the accused has not explained the presence of blood in her house in her statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Though, the fact remains that the blood of human origin was found on the exhibits seized from the house of accused Geeta.
68. Recovery of mobile & Shoes of deceased and weapon of offence from accused Rakesh: In order to prove its case, the prosecution has relied upon the recovery of knife Ex. P2 & shoes Ex. P3 of deceased at the instance of accused Rakesh vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/F. The prosecution has Judgment Page no. 23 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
alleged that as per the subsequent opinion Ex. PW1/C in respect of the knife seized from the accused Rakesh indicates that the cut throat injury sustained on the body of deceased could have been inflicted through the knife Ex. P2.
69. The prosecution has also relied upon the recovery of Coolpad mobile phone of deceased, three SIM cards and one memory card which were seized vide memo Ex. PW3/G. The receipt of Coolpad mobile phone is produced on record as Ex. PW21/A and the seller of the said phone PW30 Dheeraj confirmed that bill Ex.PW21/A was issued from his shop.
70. The recovery of mobile phone and shoes of the deceased and the knife has been challenged by the defence on the ground that none of the public witnesses were made to join the investigation at the time of the recovery nor it stands conclusively proved that the shoes recovered were of deceased Inderjeet. It has also been submitted that the receipt Ex. PW21/A shows that the Coolpad mobile phone was sold to one Inderjeet resident of Mangolpuri and not to the deceased. In respect of recovery of knife it has been submitted that the sketch of the seized knife Ex. P2 shows that the blade of the knife is 13 cm and its handle is 10 cm but the knife on which the subsequent opinion is given was having a blade of 14 cm and handle of 9 cm, therefore, the recovered knife cannot be termed as a weapon of offence.
Judgment Page no. 24 of 28
S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
71. After going through the record, I find that the receipt Ex. PW21/A does not conclusively establishes that the Coolpad mobile phone Ex. P4 was in fact purchased by the deceased rather the IMEI number mentioned on the bill Ex PW21/A does not match with the Call detail records Ex. PW4/D and Ex. PW8/A of the mobile numbers 9953211720 & 9211914070 of the deceased. Even the measurement of knife Ex. P2 does not match with the knife on the basis of which the subsequent opinion Ex. PW1/C was obtained. The shoes Ex. P3 could not be proved conclusively to be of the deceased. Thus, the recoveries effected from the accused Rakesh are more or less inconsequential in finding the ultimate guilt of the accused persons.
72. Motive: It has also been argued on behalf of the accused persons that the prosecution has been unable to prove that there existed relationship between the accused Geeta and the deceased nor any witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the motive of the murder. The motive as alleged by the prosecution that deceased was having an evil eye over daughter of the accused Geeta is not proved. It is submitted that in a case based upon circumstantial evidence motive assumes utmost importance and in absence of any proof of motive to the murder the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
Judgment Page no. 25 of 28
S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
73. In my considered opinion, there is no doubt that in case based on circumstantial evidence, evidence of 'motive' assumes importance, but one must has to keep in mind that motive is something which remains in concealed in mind of a man. It sometimes becomes difficult to decipher the exact motive for committing crime. In case titled as Subedar Tewari vs. State of U.P. AIR 1989 SC 733 Hon'ble Apex Court observed:
"20. ... The evidence regarding existence of motive which operates in the mind of an assassin is very often than (sic) not within the reach of others. The motive may not even be known to the victim of the crime. The motive may be known to the assassin and no one else may know what gave birth to the evil thought in the mind of the assassin."
74. In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420 , Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"In a case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nevertheless becomes untrustworthy and unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to adopt a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime. Therefore, if the evidence on record suggest sufficient/necessary motive to commit a crime it may be conceived that the accused had committed it."
75. In the present case, the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused Geeta was in relationship with the deceased. The deceased was contacted by accused Geeta on 06.01.2013 and she was also found burning Judgment Page no. 26 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
a fire in the same evening. It also proved on record that accused Geeta purchased a quilt and her brother/co-accused Rakesh purchased a suitcase in which the dead body of deceased Inderjeet was found. Blood stains were also spotted at the house of accused Geeta. The circumstances proved in the case are leading to the only hypothesis that the accused persons have committed the murder of Inderjeet, therefore, the Court cannot acquit the accused merely because the motive for committing the offence has not been established.
76. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish the following circumstances appearing against the accused persons:
i) Accused Geeta was in relationship with the deceased.
ii) Accused Geeta made a call to the deceased on the date of incident.
iii) Accused Geeta purchased a quilt Ex P-7 in which the dead body was found concealed in a suitcase.
iv) Suitcase, Ex. PX-1 in which the dead body was found was purchased by accused Rakesh.
v) Accused Geeta was seen burning a fire in a vacant plot in front of her house to destroy the evidence.
vi) Blood stains were found in the house of accused Geeta and no explanation given by accused as to presence of human blood.
Judgment Page no. 27 of 28
S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
77. Thus, the circumstances proved in the case are wholly consistent with the guilt of the accused and are leading to the only hypothesis that the accused persons have committed the murder of Inderjeet and none else.
Accordingly, both the accused persons are convicted for the offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC and also for knowingly destroying the evidence in fire with intention to screen themselves from legal punishment for the offence punishable U/s 201/34 IPC. Since, there is no evidence on record that accused persons conspired with each other or co-accused Bhagwan Singh to commit the murder of deceased Inderjeet, they stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 302/120 B IPC.
78. Matter be listed for hearing the convicts on quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open court on 20th December, 2014.
(Gautam Manan)
ASJ-04/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
Judgment Page no. 28 of 28
S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 ; SOUTH WEST
DWARKA ; NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 28/14
FIR No. 10/13/14
Police Station Bindapur
Under Section 302/201/34 IPC
State
versus
Geeta
Rakesh ...... Convicts
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Vide judgment dated 20.12.2014, accused Geeta and Rakesh are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/201/34 IPC.
2. I have heard arguments on the point of sentence.
3. It is submitted that convict Geeta and is mother of three children. It is further submitted there is no record of previous conviction against her. On Judgment Page no. 29 of 28 S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
behalf of convict Rakesh it is submitted that he has clean antecedents with no previous conviction against him and has a old aged mother to look after. A lenient view is prayed on behalf of convicts.
4. I have considered the submissions made before me.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the relevant statutory provisions, the convicts are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC in addition to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/ each, in default whereof the above convicts shall undergo SI for a period of three months.
The convicts Geeta & Rakesh are further sentenced to undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC in addition to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/ each, in default whereof the above convicts shall undergo SI for a period of one month.
6. Punishments awarded to the convicts to run concurrently.
Judgment Page no. 30 of 28
S C No. 28/14 State Vs Geeta & Anr.
7. Copy of the judgment and of order on sentence be supplied to the convicts free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court 23rd Day of December, 2014 (GAUTAM MANAN) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 04 DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS Judgment Page no. 31 of 28