Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

On 04.11.2014, accused Sanjay got recorded his disclosure .

statement, Ext. PW-1/G, and disclosed that he could get identify the place near Markanda river, where he burnt wallet, SIM card and licence etc. Thereafter, accused Sanjay led police to the said place, however no evidence of burning could be collected due to flow of water. Identification memo, Ext. PW-1/H, bears his signatures. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he knows the father and brother of the deceased for the last about six years. He further deposed that he has seen accused Ankush, when he came to his shop 15 days prior to the murder of the deceased. He deposed that accused Sanjay had purchased a house at Moginand in the name of his wife. He further deposed that he was called by the police at Police Station Kala Amb on 02.11.2014 and when accused Ankush got recorded his statement, only he, accused Ankush and police officials were there. Self stated that Guman Singh reached later on. When accused Ankush gave demarcation in pursuance of his statement, at that time also, Guman Singh was present there. He deposed that accused Sanjay got recorded his statement on 04.11.2014 in Police Station Kala Amb and on that day also Guman Singh was present there. He further deposed that his shop is situated on the roadside at Moginand and whenever people cross by the side of his shop, he usually notice them. He denied that Suresh Kumar is his friend. He denied that disclosure statements were not made in his presence, .

called PW-3, Surender Kumar to her house to discuss some important matter and she disclosed him qua the quarrel between Rinku and accused Sanjay. She also disclosed to PW-3 that during the said quarrel, Sanjay and Shanky had assaulted Rinku and thrown him down from the lintel. PW-3, during his cross-

examination though admitted these aspects, however, during cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he contradicted himself by saying that he visited the house of accused Reena on 22.10.2014 and not on 25.10.2014. PW-3 further deposed that thereafter in the early morning of 23.10.2014 they left in a truck to Paonta Sahib. If statement of PW-3 is believed and conduct of accused Reena is taken into consideration, it shows that after the murder of the deceased, she initially tried to leave her house, however, thereafter she thought it proper to come back, so no one can believe that she was not having any knowledge with respect to the murder. So, she concocted a false story that while cleaning her house, she felt foul smell.

Thus, there is no conclusive evidence that the accused committed the offence of murder. It is an unfortunate case where cold-blooded murder has been committed and it is difficult to believe that no inmate of the house had any hand in the offence of murder. But that will be only a suspicion which can-

From this circumstance, the Court will not be justified in drawing any conclusion that the deceased was not leading a happy marital life.

As observed by the appellate Court, the explanation offered by accused 1 to 3 that they remained .

in the house of PW 1 throughout the night is too big a pill to be swallowed. But at the same time, in our view, this unacceptable explanation would not lead to any irresistible inference that the accused alone should have committed this murder and have come forward with this false explanation. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it is a case of murder but not a suicide as we have pointed out supra. The placing of the tin container with the inscription 'Democran, by the side of the dead body is nothing but a planted one so as to give a misleading impression that the deceased had consumed poison and committed suicide. But there is no evidence as to who had placed the tin container by the side of the dead body. Even if we hold that the perpetrators of the crime whoever might have been had placed the tin, that in the absence of any satisfactory evidence against the accused would not lead to any inference that these accused or any of them should have done it. It is the admitted case that the first accused handed over three letters Ex. P. 6 to P. 8 alleged to have been written by the deceased to the Investigating Officer. The sum and substance of these letters are to the effect that the deceased had some grouse against her parents and that the accused were not responsible for her death. The explanation given by accused No. 1 in this written statement is that by about the time of the arrival of the police, one Sathi Prasad Reddy handed over these letters to him saying that he (Reddy) found them near the place where the dead body was laid and that he (A-1) in turn handed over them to the police. PWs 8 and 9 have deposed that these letters are not under the hand writing of the deceased.