Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Trial proceeded and in the course of trial, the prosecution in order to substantiate its case against the accused persons, examined forty three witnesses in all.

9. PW1 Sanjeev Kumar identified the dead body of the deceased. PW2 Dev Raj was the owner of scooter no.DDN­4468. He testified that the said scooter was sold by him to one Ram Avtar ten years prior to the incident. However, he could not produce documentary proof in this regard. PW3 W.HC Santosh proved the copy of the FIR as Ext.PW3/A and DD No.2A as Ext.PW3/B. PW4 Veermati is the sister­in­law (Jethani) of accused Sushila. She is a witness to extra judicial confession made by accused Suhila to her. PW5 Rakesh testified that on 17.05.2005 he handed over a mobile phone to Suresh (deceased) which was returned to him on next day by Jai Singh. He proved the seizure memo as Ext.PW5/B in this regard. PW6 Mahavir Singh is the brother of the deceased Suresh. He is a witness of last seen. The blood stained clothes were recovered in his presence at the instance of accused persons. PW7 Ram Avtar is Sessions Case No.60/2009. Pages 5/27 the subsequent buyer of scooter no.DDN.4468. PW8 Dharamvir informed the police after he discovered the dead body at a nala near his field. PW9 Constable Jaipal Singh joined the investigation with I.O Inspector H S Meena. PW10 is Poonam Dahiya. The deceased Suresh was her maternal uncle. She testified that she had seen accused Jai Singh and Sushila in a compromising position.

14.I have heard Ld APP for the State, Sh.L.K.Verma, Ld counsel for accused Jai Singh, Narender and Rajneesh and Sh S.P.Kaushal, Ld counsel for accused Sushila. With their help I have scanned the entire evidence, oral and documentary, on record. Ld APP contended that accused Jai Singh, Narender and Rajneesh were seen by PW6 Mahavir in the company of deceased on 17.05.2004 at about 9 p.m and in the morning of 18.05.2004 the body of deceased Suresh was found lying in a drain near Dichaon Village, New Delhi. Thus, PW6 Mahavir was a witness of last seen. PW4 Veermati has proved the extra judicial confession made by accused Sushila to her. PW10 Ms Poonam has testified to the effect that deceased Suresh was aware of Sushila's illicit relations with many people and she (PW10) had seen Sushila with accused Jai Singh in a compromising position once. Accused Jai Singh, Narender and Rajneesh got recovered blood stained clothes worn by them at Sessions Case No.60/2009. Pages 9/27 the time of incident and accused Sushila got recovered one motorcycle and one mobile phone which were used in the crime. From the letter recovered from the possession of the deceased, it is clear that deceased Suresh was apprehending threat to his life from accused Sushila. The handwriting of Suresh on the said letter has been proved by PW40 Ms Deepa Verma. The danda used for committing the offence was recovered at the instance of accused Jai Singh. There was no previous enmity between the accused persons and PW4 and her husband PW6. According to Ld APP the chain is complete and all the accused persons are liable to be convicted.

21. PW10 is Ms Poonam Dahiya. The deceased Suresh was her maternal uncle. She testified that on 15.05.2004 deceased Suresh came to the house of Mahavir and he told her that he was upset because accused Suhila was having illicit relations with many people. She further testified that she had seen Sessions Case No.60/2009. Pages 14/27 accused Sushila in a compromising position with accused Jai Singh prior to the incident and at that time Sushila felt sorry for her act and promised not to repeat it again. In her cross­ examination she admitted that she did not tell about the alleged incident of accused Sushila in a compromising position with accused Jai Singh to any person during the period of two/three years prior to the death of Suresh.

31. Thus, from the testimony of PW6 it appears that accused Sushila confessed before him and not before I.O or anybody else which is contrary to the case set up by the prosecution. In such circumstances the extra judicial confession allegedly made to PW4 or PW6 loose its truthfulness, genuineness as well as legal sanctity.

32. Motive for the commission of offence as testified by PW10 The deceased Suresh was the maternal uncle of PW10. It is highly improbable that in Indian society especially in rural areas a person would tell his sister's daughter that his wife is having illicit relation with many persons. PW10 did not tell the specific date, time and place as to where she had seen accused Sushila in a compromising position with accused Jai Singh. She examined silent and did not tell this fact to anybody prior to the murder of deceased Suresh. PW10 in her cross­examination could not tell the date, month and the year of her visit to the house of deceased Suresh. She also could not tell the address of the house of deceased Suresh. It shows that she was not on visiting Sessions Case No.60/2009. Pages 22/27 terms with deceased Suresh. In such circumstances, motive has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.