INTHECOURTOFMS.

MADHUJAIN,
ADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE01,NORTH,DELHI.
FIRNo.:240/2010
PS::CivilLines
U/s:376/302IPC
S.C.No.:40/2011
CaseIDNo.02401R0159372011
Inthematterof:
State
Vs.
AcheyLal
S/oBermadin
R/oVillageDharjai,P.S.Kuradhar,
Distt.Sultanpur,U.P.
PresentAddress:
Galino.12,GopalPur,
Timarpur,Delhi
DateofreceivinginSessionsCourt

:26.4.2011

ArgumentsHeard

:27.9.2011

DateofJudgment

:27.9.2011
JUDGEMENT

CaseOfProsecution:
1.

On31.12.2010onreceiptofDDno.18,InspectorRakeshKumar

alongwithConstableSudeshKumarreachedatthespotatL11,MajnuKa
Tila, Delhi and met SI Bhoopender Kumar, ASI Yashwant and Constable
S.C.No.:40/20111/25

SudhirKumarwhohadapprehendedtheaccusedatthespot.Ontheground
floorofhouseno.L11,MajnuKaTila,deadbodyofafemaleagedabout60
yearswaslyingonthefloorwhichwascovereduptobreastwithablanket.
Thedeadbodywasnakedfrombreasttoitsfeetandoneemptybottleof
BonneyWhiskywaslyingnearthedeadbody.Theotherarticlesandutensils
ofthehousewerealsolyinginscatteredcondition andonemobilephone
makeNokiawasalsolyingatthesideofheadofdeadbodynearthepillow.
OneMs.ManishamettheIOatspotandgaveherstatementthatdeceased
ShardaDeviwhousedtoworkasMaidservantinthenearbyhousesresidesat
saidhousealongwithherhusband.DeceasedShardaDevihadtakenRs.20/
fromhermotheryesterdayandhadaskedhermothertocallherforhousehold
worksasandwhenrequired.Thereforeon31.12.2010atabout12.30p.m.she
had come to the house of deceased to call the deceased Sharda Devi for
householdworksbutwhenshereachedatthehouseofdeceased,shesawthat
thedoorwaspartiallyopened.Sheknockedthedoorbutnooneresponded.
Sheopenedthedoorandcalledthedeceased byAuntAunt butthe
deceased who was lying on the floor did not respond. The Kameez of
deceasedwaslifteduptoitsneck.Shepulleddownthesameandcalledthe
neighbours.Atthattime,accusedwhowasundertheinfluenceofliquorwas
standingoutsidethegateofroomandwasnotallowingthepublicpersonsto
enterintotheroombysayingthatdeceasedislikehermotherandsheisnot
dead but is sleeping after consuming liquor. Thereafter public persons
apprehended the accused and called the police at 100 number. After
recording the statement of witnesses, IO got the case u/s 376/302 of IPC
registeredatP.S.CivilLines,sentthedeadbodytoSubziMandiMortuaryfor
S.C.No.:40/20112/25

postmortem examination and arrested the accused. During the further

investigationofthecase,sceneofcrimewasgotinspectedthroughCrime
Team,siteplanwasprepared,exhibitsweresenttoFSLforexpertopinion,
detailsregardingtheownershipetc.ofNokiamobilephonerecoveredfrom
the spot were collected and after completion of investigation, challan U/s
376/302IPCwasfiledagainsttheaccusedinthecourt.
2.

SincetheoffencesU/s376/302ofIPCareexclusivelytriableby

the court of sessions, therefore, after supply of the documents, Ld. MM

committedthecasetothecourtofSessions.
ChargeAgainstTheAccused:
3.

PrimafaciecaseU/s376/302ofIPC wasmadeoutagainstthe

theaccused.Chargewasframedagainsthimtowhichhepleadednotguilty
andclaimedtrial.
WitnessesExamined:
4.

Insupportofitscase,prosecutionhasexamined28witnessesin

all.
5.

Thebriefsummaryofdepositionofprosecutionwitnessesisas

under:
FormalWitnesses:
6.

PW2isSIMahesh,DraftsmanfromCrimeTeamwhotookrough

notesandmeasurementsofthespotandonthebasisofthesame,prepared
scaledsiteplanEx.PW2/A.
7.

PW3 isConstableMahiLalSinghwhodeliveredthecopiesof

FIRattheresidenceofseniorofficerson31.12.2010.
S.C.No.:40/20113/25

8.

PW4 is Lady Constable Beena who recorded DD no. 18 and

provedthesameasEx.PW4/A.
9.

PW6 isHeadConstableSushilKumarwhoregisteredtheFIR

andprovedthesameasEx.PW6/A.HehadalsorecordedDDno.22Aand
23AandprovedthesameasEx.PW6/CandEx.PW6/Drespectively.
10.

PW8 isConstableSunilKumarwhotookthe exhibitstoFSL,

Rohinianddepositedthesamethere.
11.

PW 9 is Head Constable Ram Kumar, the MHC(M) who has

provedtheentriesregardingdepositionofcasepropertyinmalkhana.
12.

PW10isSh.RajaRam,thelandlordofdeceasedwhoidentified

thedeadbodyofdeceasedvidestatementEx.PW10/A.
13.

PW11isSh.VishalGaurav,NodalOfficerfromBhartiAirtelLtd.

whohasprovedthecalldetailsalongwithotherdocumentsandIDlocationof
mobilephoneno.8826718724inthenameofwifeofaccusedasEx.PW11/A
toEx.PW11/F.
14.

PW12 is SI Devender Purang, Incharge, Crime Team who

inspectedthesceneofcrimeandprovedthereportasEx.PW12/A.
15.

PW13 is Constable Inderpal , Photographer from Crime Team

whotookphotographsofthesceneofcrimeaswellasofdeadbodyfrom
differentanglesandprovedthesameasEx.PW13/A1toEx.PW13/A8.He
furtherprovedthenegativesasEx.PW13/B1toEx.PW13/B8.
16.

PW14isASIManishKumarBhardwajfromMobileCrimeTeam

who developed chance prints from bonnie quarter bottle and glass on the
directionsofIOandpreparedthefingerprintexpertreportEx.PW14/A.
S.C.No.:40/20114/25

17.

PW15isHeadConstableSamenderSinghwhoprovedthecopy

of FIR no. 108/2004, P.S. Civil Lines U/s 376 IPC registered against the
accusedasEx.PW15/A.
18.

PW18 isWomenConstable BhartiDevi fromPoliceControl

Roomwhofilledupformno.1ofPCRandprovedthesameasEx.PW18/A.
19.

PW19isConstableSudeshKumarwhoreachedatspotalongwith

InspectorRakeshKumarandthereaftertooktherukkatopolicestationfor
registrationofFIR.
20.

PW 21 is Head Constable Naresh Kumar who collected the

documents relating to mobile phone number 8826718724 from office of

BhartiAirtelLtd.andhandedoverthesametoIOofthecase.
21.

PW24isMs.KavitaGoyal,SeniorScientificOfficerfromFSL,

DelhiwhoexaminedtheexhibitsofthiscaseandprovedthereportasEx.
PW24/A.
22.

PW26 isMs.SeemaNain,SeniorScientificOfficer(Biology)

fromFSL,Delhialsoexaminedtheexhibitsofthiscaseandprovedthereport
asEx.PW26/AandEx.PW26/B.
23.

PW28 is Constable Amit kumar who took the exhibits with

samplesealstoFSL,Rohinianddepositedthesamethere.
MaterialWitnesses:
24.

PW5 isMs.Manishawhofirstsawthedeadbodyof deceased

andinformedthepoliceon100number.Shehasdulysupportedthecaseof
prosecutionandhasalsoidentifiedtheaccusedpresentinthecourtasthe
samepersonwhowasstandingatthegateofroomofdeceasedandwasnot
S.C.No.:40/20115/25

allowinganyonetogoinsidetheroom.
25.

PW17isSh.KishanLal,husbandofdeceasedwhostatedthaton

31.12.2010, accused came to his house and he alongwith accused had

consumedliquor.OneBholaandAshokKumarwerealsowiththemathis
houseandafterconsumingliquor,healongwithBholaandAshokKumarleft
the housewhereasaccusedAcheyLalremainedathishousealongwithhis
wifei.e.deceasedSmt.Sharda.Atabout3p.m.hecametoknowthathiswife
hasexpiredandheidentifiedthedeadbodyofhiswifevidestatementEx.
PW17/A.
26.

PW20isASIYashwantSingh,PW22isConstableSudhirSingh

andPW23isSIBhoopendraKumarwhoonreceiptofinformationregarding
theincidentreachedatthespotalongwithotherpoliceofficialsandthereafter
joinedtheinvestigationofthiscasealongwiththeIO.
27.

PW27isInspectorRakeshKumar,IOofthecasewhoconducted

theinvestigationofthiscaseandhasprovedthememosetc.
MedicalWitnesses:
28.

PW 1 is Dr. S. Lal, Specialist Forensic Medicine from Subzi

MandiMortuarywhoconductedpostmortemonthedeadbodyofdeceased
andprovedthereportasEx.PW1/A.
29.

PW7isDr.AseemTaneja,CMOfromArunaAsafAliHospital

whoexaminedthedeceasedincasualtyanddeclaredherbroughtdead.She
furtherprovedtheMLCasEx.PW7/A.
30.

PW16 isDr.AkashJhanjee,SpecialistForensicMedicinefrom

SubziMandiMortuarywhoexaminedtheaccusedforpotencyandprovedthe
S.C.No.:40/20116/25

opinionasEx.PW16/A.
31.

PW25 is Dr. Preeti Prabhakar, CMO from Aruna Asaf Ali

HospitalwhoexaminedtheaccusedandprovedtheMLCasEx.PW25/A.
32.

StatementofaccusedU/s313Cr.P.C.wasrecordedwhereinhe

deniedthecaseofprosecutionandstatedthatheisinnocentandhasbeen
falselyimplicatedinthiscase.Hefurtherchosenottoleadanyevidencein
defence.
33.

IhaveheardLd.CounselforaccusedaswellasLd.APPforthe

stateandhavecarefullyperusedtherecord.
34.

Ld.APPforthestatearguedthattheprosecutionhasestablished

the chainofcircumstancesbeyondreasonable doubt; the contradictionsas

pointedoutareminorinnaturewhichareliabletobeignored;thereisno
majordiscrepancyintheprosecutionstoryandthematerialwitnesseshave
fully supported the prosecution case and there is nothing in their lengthy
crossexamination so as to assail their deposition. Ld. APP for the state
vehementally argued that the prosecution has established its case by
completingthechainofcircumstantialevidenceandtheevidenceonrecord
hasnowherebeenassailedinanymannertherefore,accusedbeconvictedfor
theoffenceofmurder.
35.

On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that chain of

circumstantialevidenceisnotcomplete.Thereisnolastseenevidenceand
motiveofcrimeisnotestablishedbytheprosecution.Therefore,theaccused
isentitledforacquittal.

S.C.No.:40/20117/25

Conclusion:
36.

Admittedlythereisnoeyewitnessofthepresentcaseandentire

caserestsuponthecircumstantialevidence.Thelawrelatingtoadmissibility
of circumstantialevidenceisveryclearandnowithasbeenlaiddownby
variousdecisionsofHon'bleHighCourtandHon'bleSupremeCourtagain
andagainthatthecircumstantialevidenceagainsttheaccusedshouldnotonly
formauniformchainbutitmustonlypointouttowardstheguiltofaccused
andnothing.
37.

It has been held in Ramesh Bhai & Anr. Vs. State of

Rajasthan2009VIIIAD(S.C.)313thatIt hasbeen consistently laid

downbythiscourtthatwhereacaserestssquarelyoncircumstantial
evidence, the reference ofguilt canbejustified onlywhenallthe
incriminatingfactsandcircumstances are found tobeincompatiblewith
theinnocenceofaccusedortheguiltofanyotherperson.(SeeHukam
SinghVs.StateofRajasthan,AIR1977SC1063,Eraden&Ors.Vs.State
ofHyderabadAIR1956SC316,ErabhadrappaVs.StateofKarnataka
AIR1983SC446,StateofU.P.Vs.Sukhban&Ors.AIR1985SC
1224,BalvinderSinghVs.StateofPunjabAIR1987SC350Ashok
Kumar Chatterjee Vs.Stateof M.P. AIR 1989SC1890. The
circumstancesfromwhichaninferenceastotheguiltoftheaccusedisdrawn
have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be
closelyconnectedwiththeprincipalfactsought tobeinferredfromthose
circumstances.
38.

The present case of prosecution is also based entirely on the

circumstantial evidence as there is no eyewitness to the incident. I have

consideredtherivalsubmissionsmadeatbarandhavecarefullygonethrough
theevidenceonrecord.Thecaseofprosecutionisbasedoncircumstantial
evidence and the prosecution has claimed to have established its case by
proving the following circumstances in evidence which form the chain of
S.C.No.:40/20118/25

circumstantialevidence:
(i)

Lastseenevidence.

(ii)

Recoveryofthedeadbodyofafemale.

(iii)
Recoveryofmobilephoneinthenameofwifeofaccused from
thespot,presenceofaccusedatthespotandhisconduct.
(iv)

Conditionofdeadbody,CauseofdeathandPostmortem Report.

39.

In order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt,itisboundendutyoftheprosecutiontoestablishthatthecircumstances
concernedmusthavebeenestablishedandthecircumstancesshouldbeofa
conclusivenatureexcludingeveryhypothesisexcepttheonethatprovesthe
guilt of the accused. It is further required to prove that the chain of
circumstantialevidenceiscompleteasnottoleaveanyreasonablegroundfor
theconclusionwhichisconsistentwiththeinnocenceoftheaccusedandit
musthavebeenshownthatinallhumanprobability,theoffencemusthave
beencommittedbytheaccused.
40.

Ihavecloselyscrutinizedtheevidenceandthematerialonrecord

to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in fulfilling the above
requirementandhasestablisheditscasebeyondreasonabledoubt.
(i)

Lastseenevidence:

41.

The only witness of last seen evidence in the present case is

PW17Sh.KishanLalwhoisthehusbandofdeceased.Heistheonlywitness
whosawthedeceasedlastinthecompanyofaccused.Hehasstatedthatthe
accusedwasworkingwithatenthouseascontractorwhereheusedtoclean
utensils.On31.12.2010,accusedcametohishouseatabout8a.m..Accused
S.C.No.:40/20119/25

was carrying one quarter bottle of liquor and he alongwith accused had
consumedthesaidbottleofliquor.HehasfurtherstatedthatoneBholaand
AshokKumarwerealsowiththemathishouseandafterconsumingliquor,he
alongwithBholaandAshokKumarleftthe housewhereasaccusedAchey
Lalremainedathishousealongwithhiswifei.e.deceasedShardaDevi.At
about3p.m.hecametoknowthathiswifehasexpiredandheidentifiedthe
deadbodyofhiswifevidestatementEx.PW17/A.Thewitnessinhiscross
hasadmittedthat he hadworkedwithaccusedAcheyLal.He hasfurther
statedthathehadnottoldthepolicethathealongwithBhola,Ashokkumar,
Accusedandhiswifehadtakenliquortogether.Thewitnessinhiscrosshas
statedthataccusedusedtocomeathishouseundertheinfluenceofliquorand
alsousedtoservehimtheliquor.Hehasfurtherstatedthataccusedusedto
come at his house after every 78 days. Ld.Defence counsel argued that
PW17isevennotabletorememberthenameofhislandlordandtherefore
histestimonycannotbebelieved.Itmaybementionedthatthewitnesswhen
crossexaminedinthecourtwasagedabout73yearsandkeepinginviewhis
age, it is possible that the witness might have forgotten the name of his
landlord. Moreover in material particulars this witness has supported the
caseofprosecutionthataccusedcametotheirhousealongwithquarterbottle
ofliquorandtheytooktheliquortogetherandafterconsumingliquor,he
alongwithBholaandAshokleftthehousewhereasaccusedremainedathis
housealongwithhiswifei.e.deceasedShardaDevi.Thus,fromthetestimony
ofPW17i.e.husband ofdeceasedit standsproved that the deceasedwas
lastlyseeninthecompanyofaccusedbyherhusband.Nosuggestionhasbeen

S.C.No.:40/201110/25

giventothiswitnessthataccusednevercametohishouseonthatdayand
theydidnottakeliquortogetherorthatafterPW17leftthehousealongwith
Bhola and Ashok, accused did not stay back at the room of deceased
alongwiththedeceased.
(ii)

Recoveryofthedeadbodyofafemale.

42.

InthecaseinhandPW5isMs.Manishawhofirstdiscoveredthe

deadbodyofdeceasedSmt.ShardaDevi.ShehasstatedthatdeceasedSharda
Deviusedtoworkindifferenthousesintheirlocalityasamaidservant.She
wasnotpermanentlyworkingasamaidservantinanyhouseandsheusedto
take money from the persons in her neighbourhood and used to say that
wheneverthereisnecessityshecanbecalledtoworkasmaidinthathouse.
On30.12.2010deceasedShardaDevihadalsotakenRs.20/fromhermother
andhadtoldhermotherthatwheneverrequiredshewouldworkasmaidat
theirhouse. On31.12.2010shewasatherhouseasshehadfeverandher
motherhadgonetohospitalasherbrotherwasadmittedinAIIMShospital.
HermotherhadtoldhertocallShardaDeviifrequiredandatabout12.30
p.m.shewenttothehouseofShardaDevitocallherforworkatherhouse.
Whenshereachedthere,shesawthedoorofherhousewasajarandtherewas
darknessinsidethehouse.SheknockedthedoortocallShardaDevibutdid
not get any response. She waited outside and again knocked and called
ShardaDevi asauntyfromoutsidebutagainshedidnotgetanyresponse.
Shepushedthedoorandenteredintotheroom.Shewenttotheplacewhere
Sharda Devi was lying on the floor. She thought that Sharda Devi was
sleeping and she shook her but Sharda Devi did not respond. When she
removedtheblanketofShardaDevislightly,shefoundhershirttillneck.
S.C.No.:40/201111/25

Thereaftershecameoutoftheroomandcalledtheneighbours.Onhercalling
someneighbours camethereandshealongwithneighbourswerestanding
outsidethehouseofShardaDevi.Thewitnessfurtherstatedthatatthattime
onepersonwasstandingatthegateoftheroomofShardaDeviandwasnot
allowingthemtogoinside. ThatpersontoldthemthatShardaDeviisall
rightandissleepingandsheislikehismotherorsister.Thereafterfeeling
somethingsuspicious,shecalledthepoliceon100number.Inthemeanwhile
theydidnotallowthatpersontogoanywhereandwhenpolicecame,she
handed over that person to the police. Witness pointed out towards the
accused present in the court and stated that he is the same person who
stoppedthemfromenteringintothehouseofShardaDevi.Shefurtherstated
thatthepolicehadrecordedherstatement.Shehasstatedthattheaccusedwas
undertheinfluenceofliquorandshealongwithotherneighboursstoppedhim
becausehewastryingtoslipawayfromthere.Thiswitnesshasbeencross
examinedatlengthbyLd,defencecounselbutnothingmaterialhascomeout
ofthecrossexaminationofthiswitness. Thewitnessdoesnotseemtobea
tutoredorintroducedorstockwitness.Hertestimonyisnaturalandinspires
confidence.Shehasstatedthatthehouseofvictimissituatedatabout1520
stepsawayfromherhouseandshedoesnothaveanyknowledgeastowho
usedtocometotheroom/houseofdeceasedShardaDevi.Thereafterinher
crossalsoshehasdescribedthewholesequenceandhasfurtherstatedthat
WhenIreachedtotheresidence/roomofvictimShardaandopenedthemain
doorforentering,IsawthatShardaalonewaslyingontheflooroftheroom.
(vol.beforeenteringthesame,Iknockedthedoorandcallauntiaunti).
She has further denied this suggestion that accused came from the public
S.C.No.:40/201112/25

personsandwasnotinsidethehouseofdeceased.Letusforargument'ssake
weassumethattheaccusedwasalsoinpublicpersonsandwasnotinsidethe
room.Butstilltheconductofaccusedspeaksotherwise.Herestrainednot
onlyPW5butalsotheotherneighbourswhocollectedatthespotfromgoing
insidetheroomandstatedthatShardaDeviisallrightandissleepingand
sheislikehismotherorsister.Iftheaccusedwasnotpresentinsidetheroom
andwasoneofthepersonfromthepublic,thenhowhecametoknowthat
victimShardaDeviissleepingandnothinghashappenedwithher,whyhe
alsodidnottrytogoinsidetheroomalongwithotherpublicpersonsandsee
whathashappenedtotheladyintheroom,arenotansweredbytheaccused.
ItmaybementionedthatinhisstatementU/s313Cr.P.C.accusedhasalso
admittedthisfactthatheknewShardaDeviwhousedtoworkasmaidservant
indifferenthousesbutshewasnotpermanentlyworkingasmaidservantin
anyhouseandhenotonlyknewShardaDevibutalsoherhusbandKrishan
lal.PW5hasdeniedthesuggestionthatshedidnotremovetheblanketfrom
thedeadbodyanddidnotcallanyneighbours.EvenPW5hasveryinnocently
stated that she does not know about the relations between accused and
deceasedandshedidnotseetheaccusedvisitingthehouseofvictimatany
pointoftimeassheisaresearchscholarandrarelystaysathomeintheday
time.PW5hasstatedthatshedoesnothaveanyknowledgeaboutthepersons
visitingthehouseofdeceased.Itisnaturalforanypersonandespeciallyfor
a student to have no knowledge as to who visits the house of his/her
neighboursorthemaidservant.TestimonyofPW5inspiresconfidenceand
shedoesnotseemtobeatutoredwitness.Rathersheseemstobetruthful

S.C.No.:40/201113/25

witness whohasdeposedwhatever she hadseenat the place of incident.

Thus, from the testimony of PW5 it stands proved that the dead body of
deceasedwasfirstdiscoveredbyPW5andwhenshesawthedeadbody,she
foundtheshirtofdeceasedtillneckandthedeadbodywascoveredwitha
blanket.
43.

PW10isSh.RajaRam,landlordofthehouseno.L11,MajnuKa

Tila,CivilLines,DelhiwheredeceasedShardaDeviwasresidingastenant
alongwithherhusband.Hehasstatedthatheletoutoneroomatgroundfloor
toSmt.ShardawhousedtoworkinthenearbyhousesasmaidandSharda
Deviandherhusbandusedtodrinkalcoholsometime.Hehasfurtherstated
thaton31.12.2010inthemorningatabout10a.m.ShardaDevicametohim
fortakingkeroseneoilandhegaveherthekeroseneoil.Hehasfurtherstated
thathisstatementsEx.PW10/AandEx.PW10/Bwerealsorecordedbythe
IOwhicharecorrect.Nothingmaterialhascomeoutofthecrossexamination
ofthiswitness.
44.

PW17,husbandofdeceasedhasalsostatedthaton31.12.2010

accusedcametohishouseatabout8a.m.andhewascarryingonequarter
bottleofliquorandthereaftertheybothconsumedtheliquortogether.PW5
alsohasstatedthataccusedwasundertheinfluenceofliquorandwasnot
allowinganyonetoenterintotheroomofdeceased.Fromthetestimonyof
PW17,itisclearthataccusedandPW17tooktheliquortogetherandfromthe
testimonyofPW5itisclearthataccusedwasundertheinfluenceofliquor
whenhewasstandingoutsidethegateofroom.ThoughPW17hasstatedthat
hiswifedidnottakeliquor withthembutPW10whoisthelandlordof

S.C.No.:40/201114/25

deceasedhasalsostatedthatdeceasedalongwithherhusbandusedtotake
liquor.AccusedinhisstatementU/s313Cr.P.C.hasalsostatedthatinanswer
tothequestionno.10thatheusedtocometothehouseofPW17forthe
purposeofcallinghimfortheworkandbothKrishanlalanddeceasedSharda
Deviusedtodrinkandhealsousedtodrinkbutnotwiththem.FromtheFSL
report proved on record as Ex. PW24/A, the blood sample of deceased
containedethylalcohol732.4mg/100ofbloodandevenstomachandpieceof
small intestine, lever, spleen and kidney of deceased were also found to
containethylalcohol.Thisfactalsostandsprovedthatdeceasedusedtotake
liquorandwhenshediedbeforethatalsoshehadtakenliquor.Thoughher
husbandPW17hasdeniedthisfactthatdeceasedtookliquorwiththembut
theFSLreportEx.PW24/Aspeaksotherwise.
(iii)

Recoveryofmobilephoneinthenameofwifeofaccused from
thespot,
Presenceofaccusedatthespotandhis

conduct.

45.

PW5 Manisha has stated that at the time the dead body was

discovered,accusedwasstandingatthegateofroomofdeceasedandwasnot
allowinganyonetogoinsidetheroom.Shehasstatedthataccusedalsotried
toslipawayfrom there but shealongwithotherneighboursrestrainedthe
accused and thereafter handed over him to the police. For the sake of
repetitionitmaybementionedthatfromthetestimonyofPW17italready
standsprovedthataccusedcametothehouseofdeceasedon31.12.2010at
about8a.m.whowascarryingabottleofliquorandtheytooktheliquor
togetherandthereafterPW17alongwithBholaandAshoklefttheroombut
thedeceasedandaccusedstayedbackattheroomofdeceased.Thus,notonly
PW5 has stated that accused was standing outside the gate of room of
S.C.No.:40/201115/25

deceasedandwasnotallowingthemtogoinsidetheroombutPW17i.e.
husbandofdeceasedhasalsostatedthatafterconsumingliquor,healongiwth
BholaandAshoklefttheroombutaccusedremainedathishousealongwith
hisdeceasedwife.Thepresenceofaccusedatthespothasalsobeenproved
bythefactthatthemobilephonebelongingtoaccused'swifewasfoundnear
thedeadbodyofdeceased.Asperthecaseofprosecution,amobilephone
makeNokiawasfoundnearthedeadbodyofdeceased.Thenumberofsaid
mobilephoneis8826718724andduringinvestigationittranspiredthatthe
mobilephoneisinthenameofwifeofaccused.Thewitnessexaminedbythe
prosecutioninthisregardisPW11 Sh.VishalGaurav,NodalOfficerfrom
BhartiAirtelLtd.whobroughtthesummonedrecordpertainingtomobileno.
8826718724andstatedthatthisnumberisinthenameofManeshwariW/o
AcheylalR/o3,AturRehmanLane,UnderHillRoad,CivilLines,Delhi.He
hasfurther proved the certifiedcopyof customer application form as Ex.
PW11/A,the photocopyofelectionidentitycardasEx.PW11/B,the call
detailsofsaidmobileno.asEx.PW11/DandcellIDlocationofmobileno.
8826718724asEx.PW11/E.HehasalsoprovedthecertificateU/s65Bof
EvidenceActasEx.PW11/F.Thiswitnessinhiscrosshasadmittedthatthe
calldetailsofthismobilenumberrelatingto31.12.2010areonlyincoming
callsonthisphonenumber.Sofarastheincomingcallsareconcerned,then
whetherthecallswereincomingoroutgoingthefactremainsthatitshows
thesiteofmobiletoweratMajnuKaTila,B.D.Estate,.Boththecellphone
towersareneartheplaceofincidenti.e.ArunaNagar,MajnuKaTila.Thus,
thedetailsregardingmobilephonerecoveredfromthespothavebeenduly
provedbytheprosecutionaspertheprovisionsofsection65BofEvidence
S.C.No.:40/201116/25

Actandeventhe certificateinthisregardhasalsobeendulyproved.No
suggestion has been given to this witness that the mobile phone does not
belongtowifeofaccusedorthatthelocationofthemobilenumberduringthe
timeofincidentisincorrect.AllthepoliceofficialswhojoinedtheIOduring
theinvestigationhavestatedabouttherecoveryofthismobilephonefrom
nearthedeadbodyofdeceased.Evennosuggestionhasbeengiventothem
thatnosuchmobilephonewasfoundnearthedeadbodyorthatsamehas
beenplantedlateronupontheaccused.
46.

Ld. Defence counsel argued that though many public persons

werepresentatthetimewhenthearticlesnearthedeadbodywereseizedbut
notasinglepublicwitnesshasbeenjoinedaswitnessinthepresentcaseby
thepoliceofficials.Sofarasthenonjoiningofindependentpublicwitnesses
areconcerned,thenitisofcommonknowledgethatnowadaysincitylike
Delhithoughacrowdcollectsatthespotwheneveranincidenttakesplace
buthardlyanyoneiswillingtojointheinvestigationespeciallyinamurder
case for the fear of police or court rounds and present case is also no
exceptiontothisrule.ThereforeiftheIOdidnotgetanyotherindependent
publicwitnessinthiscasethennoadverseinferenceforthesamecanbe
drawnwhenPW5Manishahasdulystatedabouttheconditionofdeadbody
andpresenceofaccusedatthespotinhertestimony.Asuggestionhasbeen
giventotheIOthatManishahasbeenimplantedaswitnessandshehasno
knowledgeoftheincident.ButnosuchsuggestionhasbeengiventoPW5.
47.

MoreoveronemoresuggestionhasbeengiventotheIOduring

hiscrossthataccusedwaspresentwiththeIOsince11a.m.tillnight.But

S.C.No.:40/201117/25

accusedinhisstatementhastakenacontradictorypleawhereinhehasstated
that he was not present at the spot and Krishan Lal i.e. husband of the
deceasedcametohishouseandtoldhimthathiswifeisnotwell.KrishanLal
askedmoneyfromhimbuthedidnotgivethemoneyandtoldKrishanLal
thathewouldgotohishousewithhim.Accusedhasfurtherstatedthatthere
wassomeotherpersonalongwithKrishanlalandbothofthembroughtthe
accusedtopolicestationandinthepolicestationatabout8.30p.m.hewas
madetodrinkliquorandthereafterhewastakenformedicalexamination.
Thisanswergivenbytheaccusedhimselfiscontradictory.Hehasfirststated
thatKrishanLalcametohishouseatabout10.15p.m.andthereafterhe
statedthatinthepolice stationat about 8.30p.m.he wasmade todrink
liquor.IftheaccusedwastakenbyKrishanLalandsomeunknownpersonto
thepolicestationafter10.15p.m.thenhowthepolicecanadministerliquor
tohimat8.30p.m.isnotexplainedbytheaccused.
48.

Accusedinawayhastriedtodeniedhispresenceatthespotbut

no such suggestion has been given by the accused during the cross
examinationofPW5orPW17orduringthe crossexaminationofIOand
otherpoliceofficialswhoreachedatthespotonreceiptofinformationand
werewiththeIOduringtheinvestigationofthiscase.Evennosuggestionhas
beengiventoPW17KrishanLalthat hewenttothehouseofaccusedand
thereafterbroughttheaccusedtopolicestation.
49.

Accused in his statement has admitted that this mobile phone

numberisinthenameofhiswifebuthehasstatedthathismobilephonewas
takenawaybythepolicewhenhewasbroughttothepolicestationandlater

S.C.No.:40/201118/25

onsamewasimplanteduponhiminthiscase.Itisverystrangethataccused's
mobile phone was also taken away by the police and he was falsely
implicatedinamurdercasebutstilltilldateneithertheaccusednorhisother
family members have made any complaint regarding false implication of
accusedinthiscasetoanyofthehigherauthorities.
50.

MoreoverPW5inhercrosshasstatedthatthestreetinwhich

houseofdeceasedissituatedisquitenarrowandhardlyonepersoncanpass
throughitandinthisstreet,onlythehouseofdeceasedShardaDevihasits
exitandnootherhousehasitsexitonthisstreet.Thus,itisclearthatnoother
househasitsexitinthatstreetandthereforenopersonfromotherhousecan
come into the street and only person who has to enter into the room of
deceasedortocomeoutoftheroomofdeceasedwillhavetoaccessthat
streetonly.
(v)

ConditionofDeadBody,CauseofdeathandPostmortem
Report.

51.

PW5isthewitnesswhofirstsawthedeadbodyofdeceased.

Shehasstatedthatshepushedthedoorandenteredintotheroomwherethe
deceasedwaslyingonthefloor.Shethoughtthatdeceasedwassleepingand
thereaftersheshookherbutwhenthedeceaseddidnotrespond,sheremoved
herblanketslightly.Shefoundtheshirtofdeceasedtillneckandshepulled
downtheshirtslightly.FromthetestimonyofPW5itisclearthatPW5when
firstsawthedeadbody,shesawhershirttillneckandfeelingsomething
foul,shecameoutoftheroomandcalledtheneighbours.Inthemeanwhile
accusedwhowasstandingonthegateoftheroomofShardaDevididnot
allowPW5orotherneighbourstogoinside.
S.C.No.:40/201119/25

52.

PW19 is Constable Sudesh Kumar who alongwith the IO

InspectorRakeshKumarwenttohouseno.L11,MajnuKaTila,Delhiand
met SI Bhupender, ASI Yashwant , Constable Sudhir and Lady constable
Rekha.PW19hasstatedthattheynoticeddeadbodyofawomanwhichwas
lyingonthe floor andthe deadbodywascoveredwithone blanket from
abovethestomachandonesalwarandinnerwerelyingatthespotnearthe
dead body. PW20 ASI Yashwant Singh has also deposed on the lines of
PW19inhisexaminationinchief.PW22isConstablesudhirwhohasalso
statedthatdeadbodyofafemalewaslyingonthebeddingonthefloorandit
wascovereduptochestandshewasnakedbelowthestomach.Herclothesi.e
salwarandinnerwerealsolyingnearherfoot.PW23SIBhoopendraKumar
hasalsogiventhesamedescriptionofthedeadbodywhichwaslyingnaked
belowherneckandtherewasnovisibleinjuryonthebodyandonesalwar
andwooleninnerwerealsolyingonthesideofherlegs.Similarly PW27
InspectorRakeshKumarwhoistheIOofthecasehasstatedthatthefemale
wasnakedfrombreasttoherfeet.NeitherduringthecrossofPW19anysuch
suggestion regarding the condition of dead body has been put nor any
suggestionhasbeengiventoPW19thatthedeadbodywasnotnakedbelow
theneckorthatnosalwarorinnerwaslyingnearthedeadbody.Similarly
duringthecrossofPW20nosuchsuggestionhasbeengivenbytheaccused.
PW20hasstatedthatamufflerwasalsolyingontheprivatepartsofdeceased
butnotonlyPW20butalsoneitherPW22,PW23northeIOhavebeencross
examined by accused regarding the condition of dead body when it was
found.ThoughPW5hasnotstateddirectlythatthedeadbodywasnaked
belowbutallthepoliceofficialswhoafterreceiptofthecallreachedatthe
S.C.No.:40/201120/25

placeofincidentandfoundthedeadbodyhavestatedthatshewasnaked
belowherstomachandnoneofthepoliceofficialsinthisregardhavebeen
crossexaminedbytheaccusedandtheirtestimonyinthisregardhavegone
unrebuttedandunchallenged. Fromthetestimonyofallthesewitnesses,it
stands proved that the dead body was naked below her stomach and her
clothesi.e.salwarandinnerwerealsolyingnearherfoot.
53.

ThepostmortemreportwhichhasbeenprovedonrecordasEx.

PW1/Atalksofantermorteminjurieslikereddishabrasion1.0x0.5cmover
anterioraspectofvaginajustaboveclitoriusandmultiplereddishbruisein
andaroundthevaginalorifices,oninnermucosawithmildbleedingandthe
causeofdeathasgivenbythedoctorisasphyxiaduetoaspirationofgastric
contentsconsequentuponforcefulsexualintercourseandsufficienttocause
death in ordinary course of nature which shows that the deceased was
subjectedtoforcefulsexualintercourse.
54.

Asperthepostmortemreport,alltheinjurieswereantermotemin

natureandrecentindurationandinjuriespresentinandaroundthevagina
indicatesexualassault/intercoursebeforedeath.Ld.APPforthestateargued
thatthedeceasedwasforcedforsexualintercourse andsincethedeceased
wasaround65/70yearsofage,whentheaccusedcommittedforcefulsexual
intercourseuponhertheninordertosaveherself,thoughshewasunderthe
influenceofliquor,shemusthavetriedtoshoutanditseemsthatinorderto
preventherfromshoutingorcryingforhelp,accusedputhispalmuponthe
mouthofdeceasedsoforcefullythatitresultedinherdeath. Thecauseof
death is asphyxia due to aspiration of gastric contents consequent upon

S.C.No.:40/201121/25

forcefulsexualintercourseandsufficienttocausedeathinordinarycourseof
nature . Keeping in view the cause of death as proved on record by the
prosecution,thesubmissionofLd.APPforthestatebearsforceandcannot
beignored.Duringthecross,PW1hasadmittedthatthelungswerecongested
becauseoffoodi.e.gastriccontents andithappenedduetoforcefulsexual
intercourse. PW1 has further stated that it is not possible for normal
individualtoaspiratethegastriccontents.Hehasfurtherstatedthatitisnot
possibleforanormalhealthypersonthatbyovereatingonlygastriccontents
willenterintohis/herlungsandtheotherbodypartsandevenduringtheold
age it is not possible. Even PW1 has denied that this condition can be
provokedbyselfexerciseinnormalcircumstances.Inthepostmortemreport
Ex.PW1/A,itisclearlymentionedthatinjuriespresentinandaroundthe
vagina indicate sexual intercourse/assault before death. Thus, from the
postmortemreportofdeceasedprovedonrecordbytheprosecutionbeyond
reasonabledoubtandfromtheconditionofdeadbodyaswasfoundbyPW5
and other police officials, it is clear that the deceased was subjected to
forcefulsexualintercourseasaresultofwhichshediedduetoasphyxiadue
toaspirationofgastriccontents.
55.

Ld. Defence counsel argued that PW7 who examined the

deceasedhasopinedthatnoexternalinjurieswereseen.Itmaybementioned
thatPW7isonlyCasualtyMedicalOfficerwhohadexaminedthepatientin
OPDonlyandthereforetherewasnooccasionforhimtoexaminetheprivate
partsofdeceasedwhowasafemale.
56.

PW16isDr.AkashJhanjee,SpecialistForensicMedicinefrom

S.C.No.:40/201122/25

SubziMandiMortuarywhohasprovedthepotencyreportofaccusedvide
MLCEx.PW16/Aandhasopinedthatthereisnothingtosuggestthatthe
person examined is not capable of performing sexual intercourse. The
testimonyofPW16hasgoneunrebuttedandunchallenged.
57.

PW26isDr.SeemaNain,SeniorScientificOfficerfromFSL,

DelhiwhohasdulyprovedtheFSLreportsasEx.PW26/AandEx.PW26/B.
AspertheFSLreport,humansemenwasdetectedonEx.1a,1band6.Ex.1a
and1baresalwarandwollenpayjamaofdeceasedwhichwererecovered
from the spot andEx.6isdirtyunderwearofaccused.Thoughregarding
bloodgroup,reportEx.PW26/BissilentasEx.1a,1band6gavenoreaction
butpresenceofhumansemenontheclothesofdeceasedaswellasofaccused
alsoshowsthatthedeceasedwassubjectedtosexualintercourse.Inthecross
ofPW26shehasstatedthatsemenmayormaynotbedetectedontheclothes
if they are washed after the incident. But in the present case there is no
evidenceonrecordthattheclothesofaccusedorofdeceasedwerewashed
aftertheincident.
58.

Accusedwascaughtatthespotonlyandtheclothesofdeceased

wererecoverednearherdeadbody.Thoughthedeceasedwasamarriedlady
agedaround65/70yearsandmustbehabitualtosexualintercoursebutthe
presenceofhumansemenonherclothesimmediatelybeforeherdeathand
alsoontheclothesofaccusedcoupledwiththeinjuriesfoundontheprivate
parts of deceased as well as the condition of dead body shows that the
deceasedwassubjectedtoforciblesexualintercourse.
59.

The other witness examined by the prosecution are the link

witnesseswhojoinedtheinvestigationofthecaseatdifferentstagesandhave
S.C.No.:40/201123/25

completedthechainofevidenceandnothingmaterialhascomeoutoftheir
crossexamination.
60.

Asregardingdefence,accusedhasnotleadanyevidenceinhis

defence.InhisstatementU/s313Cr.P.C.accusedhasstatedthathewasnot
presentatthespotandthemobilephoneofhiswifewasalsosnatchedbythe
policefromhimandlateronsamehasbeenimplantedatthespot.Butaccused
hasnotledanyevidencetosubstantiatehisclaim.Nodoubtinacriminal
case,itisfortheprosecutiontoproveitscaseagainsttheaccusedbeyond
reasonabledoubtbutatthesametimeifaccusedismakingsomeaverments
thenitisforhimtoprovethesamewhichhehasfailedtoprove.
61.

IthasbeenheldinBhagatRamVs.StateofPunjabAIR1954

SC 621 that Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from
circumstances the cumulative effect of circumstances must be such as to
negativetheinnocenceoftheaccusedandbringtheoffencehomebeyondany
reasonabledoubt.
62.

IthasbeenfurtherheldinC.ChenyaReddy&Ors.Vs.Stateof

A.P.1996(10)SCC193thatInacasebasedoncircumstantialevidence,
thesettledlawisthatthecircumstancesfromwhichtheconclusionofguiltis
drawnshouldbefullyprovedandsuchcircumstancesmustbeconclusivein
nature.Moreover,allthecircumstancesshouldbecompleteandthereshould
benogapleftinthechainofevidence.Furthertheprovedcircumstances
mustbeconsistentonlywiththehypothesisoftheguiltoftheaccusedand
totallyinconsistentwithhisinnocence......
63.

Inthecaseinhandalso,thechainofallcircumstantialevidenceis

S.C.No.:40/201124/25

complete,thereisnogapleftinthechainofcircumstantialevidenceandthe
cumulativeeffectofcircumstancesprovedonrecordbytheprosecutionpoints
outtowardstheguiltofaccusedonly.
64.

Inviewoftheabovesaiddiscussion, prosecutionhasbeenfully

abletoproveitscaseagainsttheaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt.Assuch,
accusedisheldguiltyandconvictedfortheoffenceU/s376/302ofIPC.

(MADHUJAIN)
AdditionalSessionsJudge01(North)
TisHazariCourts,Delhi
Announcedintheopencourttodayi.e.on27.09.2011

S.C.No.:40/201125/25