Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6) daughter of the appellants, was the most important res gestae witness as she deposed to have seen Yogendra Solanki (PW-7) dragging deceased and leaving him in front of the bathroom at first floor. However, the same was not considered by the trial court in the impugned judgment. Further the photographs of the ground floor Ex.PW-7/DC to PW-7/DE show presence of blood at the ground floor. Furthermore as per the testimony of Nirmala (PW-4), the slope of the floor where the blood was lying was towards the nali situated outside the room, however, it is contended that if the slope was towards the nali then the blood could not have flown towards the staircase. It was contended that the blood was found on the staircase because of dragging the body from ground floor to the first floor. Dragging marks are visible in the photographs exhibited as Ex. PW-12/20, PW-12/21 and PW- 12/28. Reliance was placed on the decisions cited as AIR 1963 SC 1113 Prabhoo vs. State of U.P. and 2012 (1) JCC 540 Deepak Chaddha vs. State.

vii. As per the testimony of Manisha Upadhayay (PW-10) no blood was found on the ground floor. Further the crime scene report Ex.PW- 10/A also does not mention that any blood was found on the ground floor. Further the perusal of the photograph relied upon by the appellant establishes that the blood was flowing from the first floor where the dead body was found, onto the stairs and the same cannot be termed as drag marks. From the photographs it is not evident that the crime was committed on the ground floor and thereafter the body was dragged to the first floor.

21. Appellant Suman in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that she lived with her husband and daughter on the first floor while Yogendra and his family were residing on the ground floor. She stated that when police came Yogendra had already run away from the house. She stated that one knife was found lying on the bed of Yogendra and the same was stained with blood. It was lifted by the police but she was unaware whether the same was seized or not. She further stated that she did not make Neutral Citation No. 2023/DHC/000149 any disclosure statement. She stated that she was innocent and was falsely implicated in the present case since her daughter had seen Yogendra seen dragging the deceased to the gate of first floor so Yogendra falsely implicated her and her husband with the connivance of the police.

24. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the res-gestae evidence of baby Khushi (DW-6) who stated that she saw Yogender Solanki (PW-7) dragging deceased Shaurya and leaving him in front of the bathroom at the first floor. Baby Khushi deposed that the date she did not know and it was winter season when she got up to attend nature‟s call, she woke up her mother who told her to go to the bathroom. She saw her uncle Yogender, father of Shaurya, dragging Shaurya and leaving him in front of the gate of bathroom. Due to fear she went inside the room and told her mother about the manner in which her uncle dragged Shaurya. However, as noted above, no blood was found on the ground floor and blood had collected on the first floor and was dripping down to 2 - 3 steps below the first floor. Further, number of witnesses have found that Yogender was sleeping in drunken condition even when the house was full of Police officers and the neighbourers. This version of baby Khushi cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that dragging marks were visible in photographs Ex.PW-12/21, PW-12/20 and PW-12/28 at pages 431, 447 and 445 of the TCR, however this Court has perused the same and is not in conformity with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant.