INTHECOURTOFSHRIGURVINDERPALSINGH ADDL[CASE NUMBER]SESSIONSJUDGE05,SOUTHWESTDISTRICT DWARKACOURTS,NEWDELHI SessionsCase [CASE NUMBER]DLSW010004452013 Registrationno[CASE NUMBER]441011/2016 [ENTITY] Vs[CASE NUMBER] : [ENTITY], S/oSh[CASE NUMBER]WilfredNoel, R/oHouseNo[CASE NUMBER]1,ABlock, QutubVihar,GoylaDairy, Najafgarh,NewDelhi[CASE NUMBER] FIRNo[CASE NUMBER] : 151/2013 PoliceStation : Chhawla UnderSection : 302[ACT] DateofInstitution : 23[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2013 Datewhenargumentswereheard : 28[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2018&31[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2018 DateofJudgment : 25[CASE NUMBER]09[CASE NUMBER]2018 JUDGMENT
1[CASE NUMBER] Adumbrated in brief the case of prosecution is as follows: At 3[CASE NUMBER]30 P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER] on 26[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013, accused [ENTITY] reportedvideDDno[CASE NUMBER]29AatP[CASE NUMBER]S[CASE NUMBER]Chhawlathatyesterdayhehadleft hismotherVenusNoelathomeandnowthehomeislockedand then he was accompanied by his wife [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] PW15 SI [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] PW15withPW11Ct[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY] House No[CASE NUMBER]1,ABlock,QutubVihar,GoylaDairy, Najafgarh, New Delhi[CASE NUMBER] PW15inquiredintheneighbourhoodaboutVenusNoelbutcould not find anythingand onreaching homeof accused [ENTITY], accused[ENTITY]brokeopenthelockofhisroom[CASE NUMBER]Onentering theroomVenusNoelwasfounddeadonthefloor[CASE NUMBER]Accused[ENTITY]gavestatementtoPW15thathewasresidinginthesaidhome withhismotherVenusNoelandhewasdoingserviceinNoidaCall Centre[CASE NUMBER]On29[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]2013afterquarrellingwithhismother,hisfather WilfredNoelleftthehomeandpresentlyisresidingonrentatplace ofPanditBuildingMaterial[CASE NUMBER]Alsowasaverredbyaccusedinthesaid complaint that his mother was giving tuitions to children and on 25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013atabout 1[CASE NUMBER]30P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]hewenttoplaceofhisinlawsat JagatPuritomeethiswife[ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]Todayat9[CASE NUMBER]009[CASE NUMBER]30A[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]when accusedwokeup,hesawtwomissedcallsofhisfatheronhismobile phoneandwhenhecalledhimthenhisfathersaidthatmotherwas notinhisroomandtherewaslockthere[CASE NUMBER] Accusedtoldhiselder brother [ENTITY] on his mobile phone number 9650381790 and at 11[CASE NUMBER]30A[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]hecamewithhiswife[ENTITY]onScootytohisroom, foundroomlocked,madeinquiriesfromneighborhood,searchedfor hismotherbutwhenhecouldnotfindherthenhewithwifewentto PoliceStation,informedthemandthenPW15withPW11camewith accused in the locality and when on inquiries nothing could be found,thenonreachingtherentedroomthenhehadbrokenthelock andonopeninghesawhismotherlyingonthefloorandbadsmell comingfromtheroomandgoodslyingscatteredandsomeunknown personhadkilledhismotherandputthedeadbodyonthefloorand whereashewasnotknowingwhatarticlesweremissingfromthe homeandhewillinquirefromhisfamilymembersandthentell[CASE NUMBER]On said statement of accused, case FIR no[CASE NUMBER] 151/2013 was registered afterPW15recordedtehrir,sentittoPoliceStationthroughPW11 Ct[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] After registration of FIR, investigation was handedovertoIOInspector[ENTITY]Kumar(nowdeceased)[CASE NUMBER]Crime Teamwascalledatthespot[CASE NUMBER] Placeofincidentwasphotographed, reportwasobtained[CASE NUMBER]MobilephoneNokiaofdeceasedlyingonbed was photographed and sealed in parcel[CASE NUMBER] Blood sample and earth controlwerekeptinplasticboxesandsealed[CASE NUMBER]Brokenlockwasalso keptinparcelandsealed[CASE NUMBER] Casepropertywasseizedviderecovery memos[CASE NUMBER]Bodyofdeceasedwassenttopostmortem[CASE NUMBER]Attheinstance of first informant, site plan was prepared[CASE NUMBER] Case property was depositedinmalkhana[CASE NUMBER] Postmortemonthebodyofdeceasedwas got conducted[CASE NUMBER] Body of deceased was handed over to its heirs[CASE NUMBER] Duringthecourseofinvestigation,CallDetailsRecordsofmobile phoneno[CASE NUMBER]8860369130of accusedwereobtainedbytheIO[CASE NUMBER] On 28[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013,confessionstatementofaccusedwasrecordedwhereby accusedhad statedthathehadcommittedmurderofhismotherto takemoneyandtillnowtosavehimselfhewasmisleadingpolice andhisfamilymembersandhewashavingthetakenmoneyand keysoflockinhisbagwhichisattheplaceofhisinlawswhichhe cangetrecovered[CASE NUMBER]Alsowasstatedthereinthatunderthegreedof moneyhehadkilledhismother[CASE NUMBER] AutopsySurgeonhadopinedthe death of deceased to be due to Asphyxia following ante mortem ligaturestrangulation[CASE NUMBER]ExhibitsweresenttoFSLbytheIO[CASE NUMBER]Electric wire,weaponofoffencewasseizedfromthespotandwassentfor opinion of autopsy surgeon whereby subsequent opinion was receivedthatligaturemarkmentionedinthepostmortemreportof thedeceasedcouldbepossiblebysaidelectricwireorliketheone produced by IO for examination[CASE NUMBER] Photographs and finger prints expertreportwereobtainedfromCrimeTeam[CASE NUMBER] Fourchanceprints wereobtainedfromtheJuicerMixeron26[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013atthespotand one of those chance prints matched with specimen left thumb impressionofaccusedintheopinionofexpert[CASE NUMBER]Lockandkeyswere alsosentforforensicopinion[CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER] On completion of investigation, charge sheet for offencesunderSections302/394[ACT]wasfiled[CASE NUMBER]
3[CASE NUMBER] After completion of requirements of [SECTION] [ACT][CASE NUMBER]
CHARGE
4[CASE NUMBER] Charge for the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] was framedbymypredecessoragainstaccused[ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] Accused hadpleadednotguiltyandclaimedtrial[CASE NUMBER]
WITNESSES
5[CASE NUMBER] To connect the accused with the offences charged, prosecutionhasexamined28witnesses[CASE NUMBER]
6[CASE NUMBER] Thereafter, accused was examined under [SECTION] [ACT] Allincriminatingmaterialinevidenceandonrecordwas put to the accused[CASE NUMBER] Accused pleaded innocence and of false implicationbutdeniedtoleaddefenceevidence[CASE NUMBER]
7[CASE NUMBER] IhaveheardtheargumentsofSh[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY],Ld[CASE NUMBER] Addl[CASE NUMBER]P[CASE NUMBER]P[CASE NUMBER]forthe[ENTITY]andSh[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY],Ld[CASE NUMBER]defencecounsel; haveperusedtherecordincludingthedocumentsandevidenceand havegivenmythoughtfulconsiderationtotherivalcontentionsput forth[CASE NUMBER]
8[CASE NUMBER] Ld[CASE NUMBER] Addl[CASE NUMBER] P[CASE NUMBER]P[CASE NUMBER] for the [ENTITY] argued that from the evidenceled,theprosecutionhasbeensuccessfulinbringinghome theguiltoftheaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubtandhasprayedfor convictionoftheaccusedforthechargeframedagainsthim[CASE NUMBER]
9[CASE NUMBER] The Ld[CASE NUMBER] Defence counsel prayed for acquittal of the accusedsubmittingfalseimplicationofaccused[CASE NUMBER]Ld[CASE NUMBER]Counselforthe accusedreliedupon (1) Jose@PappachanVsSubInspectorof Police,Koyilandy&AnotherAIR2016SupremeCourt4581; (2) NathiyaVs[ENTITY]AIR2016SC5110;(3)VijayThakurVs[ENTITY]of HimachalPradesh2014Cri[CASE NUMBER]L[CASE NUMBER]J4906;(4)KishoreChandVs[ENTITY] of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 2140 and (5) Ravinder Parkash&AnotherVs[ENTITY]ofHaryanaAIR2002SC3494[CASE NUMBER]
10[CASE NUMBER] The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence[CASE NUMBER] Therecoveryofthedeadbodyofthedeceasedinthe afternoonof26[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013hadputthecriminallawintomotion[CASE NUMBER]At the scene of crime, there was no eye witness of the crime[CASE NUMBER] The investigatingagencyhaddifficulttaskaheadtotracetheculprit[CASE NUMBER]In suchcaseofmurder,itisdifficult toget theclinchingevidence, therefore,thecircumstantialevidenceisusedtonabtheculprit[CASE NUMBER]The crimecommittedcanbeprovedbydirectevidenceaswellasby indirectorcircumstantialevidence[CASE NUMBER]However,thecourtneedstobe cautiouswhileappreciating thecircumstantialevidence[CASE NUMBER] Whena casesquarelyrestsuponthecircumstantialevidence,theinference ofguiltcanbejustified whenalltheincriminating circumstances arefoundtobeincompatiblewiththeinnocenceofaccused[CASE NUMBER]There arecatenaof judgmentsoftheApexCourtgiving theguidelines howthecircumstantialevidenceisappreciatedandwhatshouldbe thestandard ofcircumstantialevidencewhenitisusedagainstan accused[CASE NUMBER]
11[CASE NUMBER] InAIR1952S[CASE NUMBER]C[CASE NUMBER]343,"HanumanGovindNargundkar vs[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY]ofM[CASE NUMBER]P[CASE NUMBER],"itwasheldthat In dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules speciallyapplicabletosuchevidencemustbebornein mind[CASE NUMBER] In such cases there is always the danger that conjectureorsuspicionmaytaketheplaceoflegalproof andtherefore,itisrighttorecallthewarningaddressed byBaronAldersontothejuryinReg[CASE NUMBER]V[CASE NUMBER]Hodge,(1838)2 Lewin227)wherehesaid:
"The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even instraining them alittle, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole;andthemoreingeniousthemindofthe individual,themorelikelywasit,considering suchmatters,tooverreachandmislead,itselfto supplysomelittlelinkthatiswanting,totake for granted some fact consistent with its previoustheoriesandnecessarytorenderthem complete[CASE NUMBER]"
Itiswelltorememberthatincaseswheretheevidenceis ofacircumstantialnature,thecircumstancesfromwhich theconclusionofguiltistobedrawnshouldinthefirst instance be fully established, and all the facts so establishedshouldbeconsistentonlywiththehypothesis of the guilt of the accused[CASE NUMBER] Again, the circumstances shouldbeofaconclusivenatureandtendencyandthey shouldbesuchastoexcludeeveryhypothesisbuttheone proposedtobeproved[CASE NUMBER]Inotherwords,theremustbea chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocenceoftheaccusedanditmustbesuchastoshow thatwithinallhumanprobabilitytheactmusthavebeen donebytheaccused[CASE NUMBER]
12[CASE NUMBER] InSharadBirdhichandSardav[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY]ofMaharashtra, AIR1984SC1622[(1984)4SCC116],itwasheldthat theonuswasontheprosecutiontoprovethatthechainis completeandfalsityoruntenabilityofthedefencesetup bytheaccusedcannotbemadebasisforignoringserious infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case[CASE NUMBER] The Court thenproceededtoindicatetheconditionswhichmustbe fully established before conviction can be based on circumstantialevidence[CASE NUMBER]Theseare:
(1)thecircumstancesfromwhichtheconclusionofguiltis to be drawn should be fully established[CASE NUMBER] The circumstancesconcernedmustorshouldandnotmaybe established;
(2)thefactssoestablishedshouldbeconsistentonlywith thehypothesisoftheguiltoftheaccused,thatistosay, theyshouldnotbeexplainableonanyother hypothesis exceptthattheaccusedisguilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature andtendency;
(4)theyshouldexcludeeverypossiblehypothesisexcept theonetobeproved;and (5)theremustbeachainofevidencesocompleteasnotto leaveanyreasonablegroundfortheconclusionconsistent withtheinnocenceoftheaccusedandmustshowthatin allhumanprobabilitytheactmusthavebeendonebythe accused[CASE NUMBER]"
13[CASE NUMBER] Inthelightofthelegalposition,theevidenceonrecord istobeappreciated[CASE NUMBER]Inthepresentcase,theprosecutionhasrelied uponthecircumstantialevidence[CASE NUMBER]
LASTSEENEVIDENCE:
14[CASE NUMBER] Firstofall,prosecutionrelieduponlastseenevidenceof PW4RajenderSingh[CASE NUMBER]Beforeproceedingtoappreciatethestatement ofPW4,itwouldbeappropriatetoknowwhattheSupremeCourt hastosayabout"lastseenevidence"[CASE NUMBER]
14(i) Inthecaseof"[ENTITY]ofU[CASE NUMBER]P[CASE NUMBER]vs[CASE NUMBER]Satish,"AIR2005SC 1000,ithasbeenobservedasunder:
"Thelastseentheorycomesintoplaywherethetimegap betweenthepointoftimewhenaccusedandthedeceased wereseenlastaliveandwhenthedeceasedisfounddead issosmallthatpossibilityofanypersonotherthanthe accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible[CASE NUMBER] It would be difficult in some cases to positivelyestablishthatthedeceasedwaslastseenwith theaccusedwhenthereisalonggapandpossibilityof otherpersonscominginbetweenexists[CASE NUMBER]Intheabsenceof anyotherpositiveevidencetoconcludethattheaccused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases[CASE NUMBER]"
14(ii) Incaseof [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY]ofA[CASE NUMBER]P[CASE NUMBER]2006(10)SCC172,ithasbeenobservedasunder:
"The last seen theory, furthermore, comes into play wherethetimegapbetweenthepointoftimewhenthe accusedandthedeceasedwerelastseenaliveandthe deceasedisfounddeadissosmallthatpossibilityofany personotherthantheaccusedbeingtheauthorofthe crimebecomesimpossible[CASE NUMBER]Eveninsuchcases,thecourt shouldlookforsomecorroboration[CASE NUMBER]"
14(iii) Thelawisverywellsettledthatthelastseenevidence is vital evidence when the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantialevidence[CASE NUMBER]Thecourthastobecircumspectandlook forsomecorroboration[CASE NUMBER]
15[CASE NUMBER] Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, PW4 RajenderSinghtestifiedthathewasstayingatgroundfloorofHouse no[CASE NUMBER]1,ABlock,QutubVihar,GoylaDairy,Najafgarh,Delhisince November2012tillNovember2013astenantwhereaccused[ENTITY]wasalsostayingonthefirstfloorofthesamehouseandthe staircasegoingtothefirstfloorwasvisiblefromtheironchannel gateofthesaidhouse[CASE NUMBER]On25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013,atabout9[CASE NUMBER]00A[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER],PW4had seenaccused[ENTITY]havingapacketofbreadinhishandandat around 11[CASE NUMBER]00A[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER] also he (PW4) hadseen accused [ENTITY] goingtothetoiletsituatedatthegroundfloorandfinallygetting downfromthestairswiththeblackbagat1[CASE NUMBER]30P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]thatday[CASE NUMBER]
16[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY],JuniorSpecialist,Departmentof Forensic Medicine, RTRM Hospital, Jafarpur, New Delhi had conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased [ENTITY], female of age 61 years and in his report Ex[CASE NUMBER] PW9/A mentioned followinginjuriesonbodyofdeceased:
1[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Total neck circumferenceis33cm[CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER]NeckstructuresOndissectionlayerbylayersubcutaneoustissue shows effusion of blood under the ligature mark[CASE NUMBER] Tracheal and oesophageal mucosa congested[CASE NUMBER] Tracheal lumen contains frothy bloodydischarge[CASE NUMBER] Thyroidfracture(thyroidcartilagebody)inthe middlepart[CASE NUMBER]
17[CASE NUMBER] AsperPW9,thecauseofdeathofdeceasedwasdueto asphyxiafollowingantemortemligaturestrangulationandthetime since death was approximately more than 36 hours prior to preservationinthemortuaryandviscerawaspreservedtoruleout anyassociatedpoisoning/drugintoxication[CASE NUMBER]
18[CASE NUMBER] As per report Ex[CASE NUMBER] PW9/A, body of deceased was broughton26[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013atabout8[CASE NUMBER]42P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]byInspector[ENTITY]and Ct[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY]toRTRMHospital[CASE NUMBER]PW9testifiedthatgenerallybodyof deceased is shifted within one hour to mortuary for preservation[CASE NUMBER] Accordingly, as per the deposition of PW9 and his report Ex[CASE NUMBER] PW9/A,timeofdeathofdeceasedwasbeforenoonof25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013[CASE NUMBER]
19[CASE NUMBER] Ld[CASE NUMBER]DefencecounselarguedthatthoughPW4claimsto bewitnessofhavinglastseentheaccusedwiththedeceasedbuthis statementwasnotrecordedpromptlybythepolicebutwasrecorded twodayslaterandtherewaspossibilityofanypersonotherthan accusedtohavebeeninthecompanyofdeceased[CASE NUMBER]
20[CASE NUMBER] The postmortem report Ex[CASE NUMBER]PW9/A revealed that deceased had expired before noon time on 25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013 and on 26[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013atabout1[CASE NUMBER]30P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]theaccusedhadcometohomeof PW4andinformedabouthismothermissingfrom25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013and then PW4 had told accused that he had not seen his mother on 25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013or26[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013uponwhichtheaccusedsoughtadviseas towhatfurtherstepsarerequiredtobetakenanditwastheadviceof PW4,tocallthepoliceandPW4wentofftosleep[CASE NUMBER]Ataround3[CASE NUMBER]00 P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]on26[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013,childrenofPW4wokehimupandtoldthat motherofdeceasedhadbeenmurderedandpolicewaspresentwhen PW4wenttofirstfloorbuthewasnotallowedbythepolicetoenter theroomwherethebodywaslyingandbadsmellwascomingout from the room and after sometime decomposed dead body of deceasedwastakenoutbypoliceandtakenintheambulanceand PW4wasaskedbythepolicetoremainpresentinhishouse[CASE NUMBER]
21[CASE NUMBER] ItisalsotheversionofPW4thatpriortoshiftingofthe accusedinthetenantedhouse,thedeceasedladywasstayingwith her husbandandafteraccusedshiftedinsaidhousethefather of accusedi[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER]husbandofdeceasedhadleftthesaidhomeafterabout 10days[CASE NUMBER]PW4alsostatedthatdeceasedusedtotaketuitionclassesin between3[CASE NUMBER]30P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]till6[CASE NUMBER]00P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]andon25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013childrenhad cometotuitionclassesbutaftergoingtofirstfloorattheresidence ofdeceased,theyhadcomedownimmediatelyandhadgonetotheir respectivehome[CASE NUMBER]
22[CASE NUMBER] Itwasonlyon28[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013,uponinquiriesbyofficersof InvestigatingAgency,itwasrevealedtothemaboutdeceasedhaving beenlastseeninthecompanyofaccusedfromversionofPW4given topoliceon28[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013andbeforethatperhapsnoneimaginedof accusedtobeallegedlybehindthecrimeinquestionashehimself hadgonetopoliceandreportedofmissingofhismotherandlater broke open the lock of his home where decomposed body of deceasedwasfoundbyPW15andPW11accompanyingtheaccused[CASE NUMBER] Inthisfactofthematter,narrationofsequenceofeventsoffactsby PW4on28[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013cannotbepresumedtobebelatedorwithextra ordinarydelaytolaysuspiciononreliabilityandcreditworthinessof PW4[CASE NUMBER] PW4 was not inimical to accused nor was nurturing any previous enmity nor any grudge against accused so as to falsely implicatehimbutthetoneandtenorofdepositionofPW1cullsout the factum of testimony of PW4 to be natural, cogent, straightforward and trustworthy, devoid of any material contradictions or discrepancies whatsoever to doubt his creditworthinesstodisbelievehiminpartortoto[CASE NUMBER]
23[CASE NUMBER] PW1WilfredNoel,fatherofaccusedandhusbandof deceased also testified that after accused shifted to the home of deceasedatGoylaDairyfromhisresidencefromTransYamuna,but onemonthpriortoincident,PW1shiftedtoanotherrentedroomin GoyalaDairybutwasinregulartouchwithfamilymembers[CASE NUMBER]PW1 testified that 12 days prior to incident the deceased had made a telephonecalltohimonhismobilephoneaskinghimtoarrange some amount to pay the rent to the landlord for which PW1 expressedhisinabilitytopaythesameashehadnomoneyatthat time[CASE NUMBER]InhisdepositionPW1elicitedthatconstanttensioncreatedby deceasedandaccusedandonsomeoccasionsdeceasedhavingasked him to leave the house and stay elsewhere, were the reasons for leavingrentedaccommodationofplaceofincidenttootherplaceof rentedaccommodation[CASE NUMBER]AlsoPW1elicitedthatwhenhemadecallto mobilephoneofdeceasedon25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013andhadgotnoresponse thenhehadmadeinquiryfromSubhashBhasinwhetherhischildren hadgonetotuitionclasstodeceasedornotsincedeceasedwasnot respondingonthe phonecallsand then SubhashBhasinhadtold PW1thatpremiseswerelockedandhisdeceasedwifewasnotat homesohischildrenhadreturnedhome[CASE NUMBER] Itisalsotheversionof PW1thataccusednevergavehimanypartofhisearningbutduring theperiodofstayofPW1withaccused,accusedusedtoleaveinthe morning and came back in the evening and accused never contributed any sum towards rent[CASE NUMBER] As per PW1, the number of mobileusedbydeceasedwas9953746435andheusedmobilephone number9654482453[CASE NUMBER]PW1elicitedinhiscrossexaminationbythe defencecounselthathecouldnotrecallofreceiptofanycallfrom hisdeceasedwifeat8[CASE NUMBER]30P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]on25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013norhecouldrecollect thetimeon25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013whenhetriedtocalldeceasedseveraltimes onhermobilephonebuthecategoricallyelicitedthathemadecallto SubhashBhasinafter3[CASE NUMBER]30P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]on25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013whereasdistanceof houseofSubhashBhasinwas50metersfromhouseofdeceased[CASE NUMBER]
24[CASE NUMBER] PW2[ENTITY]Noel,brotherofaccused,inthecourseof hisdepositioninteraliastatedthatheidentifiedthebodyofdeceased vidememoEx[CASE NUMBER]PW2/Aandincrossexaminationbydefencecounsel admittedthesuggestionthaton25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013ataround8[CASE NUMBER]30P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]his deceasedmotherhadcalledhimuponmobilephonewhereasthecall waspertainingtononpaymentofrentbyhisfathertoherandthe deceasedhadalsotoldhimthataccusedhadleftaround1[CASE NUMBER]30P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]on 25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013fortreatmentofhisstomachpaintoJagatPuri,Delhiand phonewasdisconnectedafterthedeceasedtoldPW2thatshewill talktohisfather[CASE NUMBER]
25[CASE NUMBER] PW7RoseleenRomel,sisterofaccused,whointeralia elicitedinthecourseofcrossexaminationthatshewasnotintalking terms with her deceased mother due to some personal issues for around2yearspriortoincidentbutalsostatedthatataround7[CASE NUMBER]00 P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER] on 25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013, she received phone call from her mother (deceased)fromalandlinenumberwhenshewasintheLaxmiNagar Market[CASE NUMBER] EarlieralsodeceasedtriedtocontactPW7onphonebut sincePW7hadfedmobilenumberofdeceasedwithhername,PW7 hadnotpickedupthephone[CASE NUMBER]On25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013,PW7receivedacallin theeveningfromalandlinenumberandsincethatnumberwasnotin herphonememory,sheansweredthesameandwhenshecameto know that it was her mother, she immediately disconnected the phone[CASE NUMBER]PW7alsoelicitedthatmobilephonewhichwasusedbyher deceasedmotherwasobtainedusingheridentityproof[CASE NUMBER]
26[CASE NUMBER] PW28Sh[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY],AlternateNodalOfficer, Vodafone Mobile Services Limited testified that mobile number 9953746435wasissuedinthenameofShaliniNoeld/oWilfredi[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER] PW7 [ENTITY], perhaps the other name of PW7 before marriageandcopyof CustomerApplicationForm (CAF)isEx[CASE NUMBER] PW28/1anditscomputergeneratedCallDetailedRecords(CDR) for the period from 01[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013 to 31[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013 are Ex[CASE NUMBER] PW28/2; whoserequisitecertificateundersection65BofIndianEvidenceAct isEx[CASE NUMBER]PW28/7[CASE NUMBER]
27[CASE NUMBER] Bare perusal of CDR Ex[CASE NUMBER] PW28/2 of mobile phone number9953746435usedbydeceasedrevealsthatlastmobilecall madefromsaidphonewasfordurationof46secondsat12[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]50 hourson25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013tomobilephonenumber09650381790asan outgoing call after which there are 3 SMS incoming to the said phonebutnocallhasbeeneitherreceivednormadefromthemobile phoneusedbydeceased[CASE NUMBER]TheaforeelicitedevidenceinEx[CASE NUMBER]PW28/2 beliestheversionofPW2ofhavingreceivedacallataround8[CASE NUMBER]30 P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER] on 25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013 from the phone of her mother[CASE NUMBER] Also the depositionofPW9readalongwithhisreportEx[CASE NUMBER]PW9/Aelicited abovecullingoutthetimeofdeathofdeceasedtobearoundbefore noonon25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013beliestheversionofPW7ofhavingreceived callofdeceasedfromalandlineataround7[CASE NUMBER]00P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]on25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013 asnodeadpersoncanmakeacall[CASE NUMBER]Whatisborneoutindeposition ofPW2andPW7elicitedaboveisanattempttosavetheirbrother accusedfromtherigorsoflaw[CASE NUMBER]
28[CASE NUMBER] PW3HariOmtestifiedofhavingletoutoneroomof first floor of B25,WestNathuColony, Shahdara, DelhitoPW2 [ENTITY]Noel,brotherofaccusedonmonthlyrentofRs[CASE NUMBER]2,500/in December2012anddeniedofhavingletoutthesaidpremisesto accused[CASE NUMBER]
29[CASE NUMBER] PW5 Retired Captain [ENTITY] is the owner of houseno[CASE NUMBER]1,QutubViharPhaseI,GoyalaDairy,Najafgarh,New Delhiandtestifiedthatthereweretwofloorsinhissaidhouse and there were 8 shops and three rooms for residential purposes on groundfloorwhereastherewasonlyoneroomonthefirstfloorin thesaidhouse[CASE NUMBER] PW5statedthatdeceasedladywithherhusband WilfredNoelwereresidingastenantinroomatfirstfloorintheyear 2013andtwomonthspriortoincident,husbandofdeceasedstarted residingseparatelyinsomeotherhouse[CASE NUMBER]AsperPW5,accusedwas residing with his mother in said tenanted premises[CASE NUMBER] PW5 also deposed that PW4 [ENTITY] was residing as tenant on the groundfloorintheyear2013[CASE NUMBER] ItisalsotheversionofPW5that sincehewasknowinghusbandofdeceasedpriortotakinghouseon rent,hedidnottookhisidentificationproofwhilelettingoutthe house[CASE NUMBER]PW5alsostatedthathedidnotusetogetthetenantsverified frompolicenorgotanyrentagreementexecutedwiththem[CASE NUMBER]
30[CASE NUMBER] PW6 [ENTITY] testified that he was working as welderintherentedshopbelongingtoPW5inGoyalaDairysituated on ground floor and one person namely [ENTITY] (PW1) had obtained mobile phone numbers 9654482453 and 8860369127usinghisidentityproof[CASE NUMBER]
31[CASE NUMBER] PW15 SI [ENTITY] testified that on 26[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013, accused [ENTITY] came to Police Station made complaint regardingmissingofhismotherwhichwasrecordedvideDDno[CASE NUMBER] 29Aat3[CASE NUMBER]30P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]whichwasmarkedtoPW15whoalongwithPW11 Ct[ENTITY]reachedatA1,1stfloor,GoylaDairy,Najafgarh, New Delhi; made inquiries but did not get any clue about the deceased[CASE NUMBER]ThereafterPW15,PW11withaccusedwenttofirstfloor, foundthehouselockedandthenaccusedbrokeopenthelockofthe doorandfounddeadbodyofdeceasedlyingonthefloor;articlesin scatteredcondition;onseeingthedeadbodyaccusedtoldPW15that deadbodywasofhismother;foulsmellwasemanatingfromthat room[CASE NUMBER]PW15recordedstatementEx[CASE NUMBER]PW15/Aofaccused,whichhas beenelicitedindetailaboveattheoutsetinthisjudgmentandisnot being repeated herein again for the sake of brevity[CASE NUMBER] PW15 then preparedrukkaEx[CASE NUMBER]PW15/BandgotFIRregisteredthroughPW11 Ct[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY]AsperPW15,furtherinvestigationwasmarked toInspector[ENTITY]Kumar(nowdeceased),whoreachedatthespot withthestaff[CASE NUMBER] CrimeTeamwascalled[CASE NUMBER] AsperPW15SI[ENTITY]andPW11Ct[ENTITY],afterthelockoftheroomwas brokeninthepresenceofaccusedandtheyfoundthedeadbodyof deceased lying on the floor, they informed S[CASE NUMBER]H[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER] P[CASE NUMBER]S[CASE NUMBER] Chhawla abouttheincidentandSeniorPoliceOfficialsreachedthere[CASE NUMBER]PW17 [ENTITY],InchargeCrimeTeamwithfingerprintproficient Ct[CASE NUMBER]ManishPW23andPW24HCSuresh,photographerintheCrime Team,inspectedthesceneofcrime[CASE NUMBER]PW23liftedfourchanceprints from Juicer Mixer Ex[CASE NUMBER]P7 kept there and prepared report Ex[CASE NUMBER] PW23/A[CASE NUMBER]PW24tookphotographsEx[CASE NUMBER]PW24/A1toEx[CASE NUMBER]PW24/A18 from scene of crime from different angles and produced their negativesEx[CASE NUMBER]PW24/B1collectively[CASE NUMBER]Ironboxkeptinsidetheroom havinglockbrokenwasseizedvidememoEx[CASE NUMBER]PW14/D;sleepersEx[CASE NUMBER] P4(Colly)of thedeceasedwereseizedvidememoEx[CASE NUMBER]PW14/B; brokenlockEx[CASE NUMBER]P8oftheroomwasseizedvidememoEx[CASE NUMBER]PW14/A[CASE NUMBER] PW8 Doctor [ENTITY], Casualty Medical Officer, RTRM Hospital deposed that at 8[CASE NUMBER]42 P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER] on 26[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013, he examined deceased brought by PW11 Ct[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] and declared her brought deadvideMLCEx[CASE NUMBER]PW8/A[CASE NUMBER]
32[CASE NUMBER] PW15furtherdeposedthaton27[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013,heprepared brieffactsEx[CASE NUMBER]PW15/Eandfilledform25:35(B)Ex[CASE NUMBER]PW15/Finthe hospital before postmortem on the directions of Inspector [ENTITY],whohadexpiredandsincePW15hadworkedwithInspector [ENTITY]KumarandseenhimwritingandsigningsoPW15identified thesignaturesofInspector[ENTITY]KumaronEx[CASE NUMBER]PW15/EandEx[CASE NUMBER] PW15/F[CASE NUMBER]
33[CASE NUMBER] PW15 also deposed that on 27[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013 he went to RTRMhospitalandafteridentificationbyaccused,PW2brotherof accused,PW1husbandofdeceasedandafterpostmortem,bodyof deceasedwashandedovertoherrelativesandexhibitswerehanded overtoInspector[ENTITY]KumarbyDoctorwhichwereseizedvide memoEx[CASE NUMBER]PW15/D[CASE NUMBER]
34[CASE NUMBER] PW12, PW14 and PW15 deposed that on 28[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013 [ENTITY][ACT] byInspector[ENTITY]andduringinterrogationaccusedadmittedhis involvementinthemurderofhismotherdeceased[CASE NUMBER] Accusedgave disclosure statement Ex[CASE NUMBER] PW12/C stating interalia that since his deceasedmotherwasnotgivingmoneydespitehisdemands,hehad committedmurderofdeceasedandfromtheironboxhehadtaken outthemoneykepttherein[CASE NUMBER] AccusedwasarrestedvidememoEx[CASE NUMBER] PW12/A on 28[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013; his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex[CASE NUMBER] PW12/B[CASE NUMBER] Allegedly accused led PW12, PW14 and Inspector [ENTITY] to his house at Goyala Dairy; place of incident; fromwhereonebrokenlockEx[CASE NUMBER]P8;onescrewdriver,oneplas(wire cutter/stripper)collectivelyEx[CASE NUMBER]P3;onepieceofwireEx[CASE NUMBER]P6;mixer grinderEx[CASE NUMBER]P7weregotrecoveredbyaccused[CASE NUMBER] Ex[CASE NUMBER]P2wereseized videseizurememoEx[CASE NUMBER]PW12/E;pieceofwireEx[CASE NUMBER]P6was seized vide memo Ex[CASE NUMBER] PW12/D[CASE NUMBER] PW12 and PW14 deposed that on 28[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013, accused also ledthem andInspector [ENTITY] tohis in lawshousebearingno[CASE NUMBER]26,AnarkaliGarden,JagatPuri,NewDelhi and got recovered one carry bag containing few clothes; file containingeducationalcertificatesofaccusedandRs[CASE NUMBER]12,690/which arecollectivelyEx[CASE NUMBER]P1;fromtherewhichwereseizedvidememoEx[CASE NUMBER] PW12/F[CASE NUMBER] Allegedly the said money was the amount which after commissionofmurderofthedeceasedtheaccusedhadtakenaway fromironbox[CASE NUMBER]PW14haddeposedthatthebrokenlock,onepairof slipper,onemixy,oneironboxwithbrokenlatchesandonemobile phonelyingattheplaceofincidentwereseizedvidememosEx[CASE NUMBER] PW14/A,Ex[CASE NUMBER]PW14/B,Ex[CASE NUMBER]PW14/C,Ex[CASE NUMBER]PW14/DandEx[CASE NUMBER]PW14/E respectively[CASE NUMBER]PW14alsostatedthatfromtheinlawshouseaccused gotrecoveredthebagfromroomonthefirstfloorwhichbagwas containingRs[CASE NUMBER]12690/,onekeyringhavingtwokeysEx[CASE NUMBER]P9colly; onefilecoverofbluecolourcontainingeducationaldocuments,one black colour trouser and Rs[CASE NUMBER]28/ wrapped in a graph paper; all collectively Ex[CASE NUMBER] P1 (Colly) which were seized vide memo Ex[CASE NUMBER] PW12/F[CASE NUMBER]AlsoasperPW14,onekeyringwithkey,oneringandone Vodafone SIM were found in outer pocket of carry bag {part of previouslyEx[CASE NUMBER]P1(colly)}whichareEx[CASE NUMBER]P3(colly)besideswhich Rs[CASE NUMBER]28/werefoundinsmallpocketinsidemainpocketofsaidcarry bagwhichwereseized[CASE NUMBER]AsperPW14,slippersEx[CASE NUMBER]P4(colly),one mobilephonemakeNokiaEx[CASE NUMBER]P5ofblack,skyblueandsteelgrey colourwerefoundnearbodyofdeceasedattheplaceofincident[CASE NUMBER]
35[CASE NUMBER] PW18Ct[CASE NUMBER]SukhbirSinghhastakenfoursealedparcels [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]
36[CASE NUMBER] PW19Ct[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY] 19[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2013toFSLfrommalkhanamoharar[CASE NUMBER]
37[CASE NUMBER] PW21Ct[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY] RTRMHospitalandon16[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2016hadtakentwosealedparcelsto FSLwhichcouldnotdepositedthereduetoobjection[CASE NUMBER]
38[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY],DutyOfficerhasprovedthe FIREx[CASE NUMBER]PW22/AandendorsementEx[CASE NUMBER]PW22/[ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]
39[CASE NUMBER] PW20 [ENTITY], [ENTITY] testified havingreceivedthesealedparcelsandlaterongivingsomeofthem toPW18fordepositinFSL[CASE NUMBER]
40[CASE NUMBER] PW13SI SandeepMalikreceivedsubsequentopinion on 28[CASE NUMBER]06[CASE NUMBER]2013 Ex[CASE NUMBER] PW9/B of Autopsy Surgeon PW9[CASE NUMBER] Autopsy surgeonPW9hadopinedinEx[CASE NUMBER]PW9/Bthatafterexaminingelectric wireEx[CASE NUMBER]P6,i[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER]weaponofoffenceandreviewingpostmortemreport findingsinEx[CASE NUMBER]PW9/A,ligaturemarkmentionedinthepostmortem reportEx[CASE NUMBER]PW9/AcouldbepossiblebythesaidelectricwireEx[CASE NUMBER]P6 (likeoneproducedbyIOforexamination)orsomeothermaterialof similarshapeanddimensions[CASE NUMBER]
41[CASE NUMBER] PW10Ct[CASE NUMBER]HardeepSinghhaspreparedscaledsiteplan Ex[CASE NUMBER]PW10/Aaftertakingmeasurementsandroughnotesatthesiteat theinstanceofIOInspector[ENTITY]Kumar[CASE NUMBER]
42[CASE NUMBER] PW16 SI [ENTITY] has prepared search slip Ex[CASE NUMBER] PW16/AofaccusedondirectionofIOInspector[ENTITY]Kumar[CASE NUMBER]
43[CASE NUMBER] PW26RavinderKuimarKain,FingerPrintExperthad receivedfileofpresentcasewithletterofIO,carboncopyofscene ofcrimereportEx[CASE NUMBER]PW23/A,liftofchanceprintMarkQ1toQ4 alongwithnegativesandspecimenslipoffingerprintofaccused[CASE NUMBER] PW26examinedchanceprintwiththespecimenfingerprintslipand gave report Ex[CASE NUMBER]PW26/1,opiningchance printQ2tobeidentical withspecimenleftthumbimpressionmarkS4onspecimenslipof accused[CASE NUMBER]PW26testifiedthatduetotypographicalmistakeMarkS4 waswrittenasS1inreportEx[CASE NUMBER]PW26/1whichwasencircledand givenMarkX[CASE NUMBER]Accordingly,asperPW26,thechanceprintQ2lifted fromJuicerMixer/GrinderEx[CASE NUMBER]P7wasidenticalwiththespecimen leftthumbimpressionofMarkS4ofaccused[CASE NUMBER]
44[CASE NUMBER] FromthetestimonyofPW4ithasbeenproved,beyond reasonabledoubt,thatataround1[CASE NUMBER]30P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]on25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013,PW4had lastseentheaccusedfinallygettingdownthestairswithblackbag[CASE NUMBER] FromthetestimonyofPW9AutopsySurgeonandhispostmortem reportEx[CASE NUMBER]PW9/A,ithasbeenprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthat thedeceasedladywasstrangulatedbeforenoontimeon25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013[CASE NUMBER] Duringthecourseofhisstatementundersection313[ACT]instead ofmakingatleastanattempttoexplainorclarifytheincriminating circumstancesinculpatinghimandconnectinghimwiththecrimeby his adamant attitude of total denial of everything when those circumstances were brought to his notice by this Court, lost the opportunitytoexplainthemregardingoflastseeninthecompanyof deceasedon25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013at1[CASE NUMBER]30P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]Onceprosecutiondischarged itsburdenthatthedeceasedwaslastseeninthecompanyofthe accusedon25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013ataround1[CASE NUMBER]30P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]intermsoftestimonyof PW4,itwasobligatoryontheaccusedtoexplainthecircumstances inwhichthedeceasedandaccusedpartedcompany[CASE NUMBER]
45[CASE NUMBER] In Sahadevanv[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY],AIR2003SC215, itwasheld that: "if the prosecution, based on reliable evidence, establishesthatthemissingpersonwaslastseeninthe companyoftheaccusedandwasneverseenthereafter, it is obligatory on the accused to explain the circumstances in which the missing person and the accusedpartedcompany[CASE NUMBER]SeeJosephv[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY]ofKerala (2000(5)SCC197)[CASE NUMBER]"
Also was held that "the absence of motive would not hamper a conviction when the circumstances relied uponbytheprosecutionwereprovedbeyondreasonable doubt[CASE NUMBER]"
46[CASE NUMBER] InJosephv[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY]ofKerala,AIR2000SC1608,itwas heldthat: "During the time of questioning under [SECTION], [ACT], the appellant instead of making at least an attempt to explain or clarify the incriminating circumstances inculpating him, and connecting him withthecrimebyhisadamantattitudeoftotaldenialof everythingwhenthosecircumstanceswerebroughtto hisnoticebytheCourtnotonlylosttheopportunitybut stoodselfcondemned[CASE NUMBER]Suchincriminatinglinksoffacts could, if at all, have been only explained by the appellant,andbynobodyelsetheybeingpersonallyand exclusivelywithinhisknowledge[CASE NUMBER]Oflate,Courtshave, fromthefalsityofthedefencepleaandfalseanswers given to Court, when questioned, found the missing linkstobesuppliedbysuchanswersforcompletingthe chain of incriminating circumstances necessary to connectthepersonconcernedwiththecrimecommitted (see [ENTITY] of Maharashtra v[CASE NUMBER] Suresh, 2000 (1) SCC
471)[CASE NUMBER] That missing link to connect the appellant accused,wefindinthiscaseprovidedbythebluntand outrightdenialofeveryoneandalltheincriminating circumstances pointed out which, in our view, with sufficientandreasonablecertaintyonthefactsproved, connecttheaccusedwiththedeathandthecausefor thedeathofGracy[CASE NUMBER]"
47[CASE NUMBER] In KusumaAnkamaRaov[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY]ofA[CASE NUMBER]P[CASE NUMBER],2008CRI[CASE NUMBER]
L[CASE NUMBER]J[CASE NUMBER]3502,itwasheldthat "Timegapbetweenpointoftimewhenaccusedand deceasedwereseentogetheranddeceasedisfound dead,shouldnotbelarge[CASE NUMBER]"
48[CASE NUMBER] In ShashiShekharv[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY],2007CRI[CASE NUMBER]L[CASE NUMBER]J[CASE NUMBER]4193,it washeldthat:
"Justbecausethesewitnessesarepoliceofficialsitcannot be said that their evidence is not of an independent character[CASE NUMBER]TheyareallGovernmentservantsandthereisa presumption under [SECTION], [SECTION] of the EvidenceActregardingthefactthatallofficialacts by Government servants were regularly performed[CASE NUMBER] If an accusedwantstorebutthispresumptionprovidedunder Section114,illustration(e)oftheEvidenceActhecando so by bringing on record relevant material either by producing his own evidence or during the cross examinationofthewitnessesfromwhichadoubtmayenter the judicial mind regarding the genuineness of the acts which the police witnesses claimed to have performed while discharging their official duties during the investigationofacrime[CASE NUMBER]"
49[CASE NUMBER] Herein PW12, PW14 & PW15 are the witnesses of recoveryofthebagfromroomonthefirstfloorofhouseofinlaws of accused, which bag was containing Rs[CASE NUMBER]12690/, one key ring havingtwokeysEx[CASE NUMBER]P9,onefilecoverofbluecolourcontaining educational documents, one black colour trouser and Rs[CASE NUMBER]28/ wrappedinagraphpaper;allcollectivelyEx[CASE NUMBER]P1(Colly)whichwere seizedvidememoEx[CASE NUMBER]PW12/F[CASE NUMBER] AlsoasperPW14,onekeyring with key, one ring and one Vodafone SIM were found in outer pocketofcarrybag{partofpreviouslyEx[CASE NUMBER]P1(colly)}whichareEx[CASE NUMBER] P3(Colly)besideswhichRs[CASE NUMBER]28/werefoundinsmallpocketinside mainpocketofsaidcarrybagwhichwereseized[CASE NUMBER] Merelybecause thesewitnessesPW12,PW14andPW15arepoliceofficialsandno independent witness(es) from amongst neighbours of house of in lawsofaccusedwerejoined,itwouldnotbesufficientinitselfto throwawaytheirtestimonyoverboard[CASE NUMBER]Nomaterialcontradictions orsevereinfirmitiescouldbecarvedoutfromtheirswornstatements to doubt the credibility and trustworthiness of these government servants[CASE NUMBER]PWs12,14and15hadnoanimusagainsttheaccusedto falselyimplicatehim[CASE NUMBER] Thereisnoevidenceonrecordbywhicha doubtmayenterthejudicialmindregardingthegenuinenessofthe actsofrecoveryoftheaforesaidcurrencynotesandseizureofbag aforesaid with keys which the police witnesses claimed to have performed while discharging their official duties during the investigation of a crime[CASE NUMBER] Accordingly, in terms of presumption under [SECTION], [SECTION] of the [ACT], the presumption existed that the official acts, aforesaid, were so regularlyperformedbygovernmentservants PWs12,14and15[CASE NUMBER] Theaforesaidpresumptionhasnotbeenrebuttedinanymannerby theaccusedfromevidenceandmaterialonrecord[CASE NUMBER]
50[CASE NUMBER] Establishingproofofmotiveforthecrimeofmurderis notasinequanonforprovingofcaseofmurderbytheprosecution[CASE NUMBER] Yet,inthiscase,theprosecutionhasbeenabletoprovethecomplete livelinkofchainofcircumstancessuggestingandconnectingthe accusedwiththecrimeinquestion[CASE NUMBER]PW4hadlastseentheaccused gettingdownfromthestairsoftheplaceofabodeofdeceasedwith blackcolourbagataround1[CASE NUMBER]30P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]on25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013[CASE NUMBER]Justbeforethat thedeathofdeceasedtakesplace[CASE NUMBER]PhotographsEx[CASE NUMBER]PW24/A1toEx[CASE NUMBER] PW24/A18depictthesceneofcrimeandthesituationofthedead bodyofdeceasedandtheconditioninwhichthebodyofdeceased existed there; so non preparation of [ENTITY] by the police officialsatthesceneofcrimecannotbesaidtobeofanyassistance for defence to throw statements and the evidences aforesaid overboard[CASE NUMBER] AutopsysurgeonPW9opinedandconfirmedthedeath ofdeceasedtobeduetoasphyxiafollowingantemortemligature strangulationregardingwhichinhissubsequentopinionEx[CASE NUMBER]PW9/B thatsuchligaturemarkcanbepossiblebytheelectricwireEx[CASE NUMBER]P6 recoveredandseizedfromtheplaceofincident[CASE NUMBER]Evenfromtheplace ofincidentaforesaidleftthumbimpressionofaccusedwasfoundto bethereonMixerJuiceEx[CASE NUMBER]P7,asperreportEx[CASE NUMBER]PW26/1ofPW26[CASE NUMBER] Accused did not attempt to explain or clarify the incriminating circumstances inculpating him, not only lost the opportunity but stoodselfcondemned[CASE NUMBER]Suchincriminatinglinksoffactscould,ifat all,havebeenonlyexplainedbytheaccusedandbynobodyelse, theybeingpersonallyandexclusivelywithinhisknowledge[CASE NUMBER]Blunt and outright denial of every one and all the incriminating circumstancesbyaccusedprovidedadditionallinkstoconnecthim withthedeathandthecausefordeathofvictim[CASE NUMBER]Accusedfailedto explaininwhatcircumstanceshepartedthecompanyofdeceased[CASE NUMBER] Aforesaidcurrencynotes,partofEx[CASE NUMBER]P1recoveredfromaccusedand belongingtothedeceasedclearlyprovedeventhemotiveforthe crime[CASE NUMBER]Itactsadditionalsupportstothefactofguiltofaccused[CASE NUMBER]
51[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER][ENTITY]ofU[CASE NUMBER]P[CASE NUMBER],AIR1955SC807,itwasheld that "wherethereisclearproofofmotiveforthecrime,that lendsadditionalsupporttothefindingofthecourtthatthe accusedwasguiltybuttheabsenceofclearproofofmotive doesnotnecessarilyleadtothecontraryconclusion[CASE NUMBER]"
52[CASE NUMBER] ThegroundsofdefenceforacquittalarguedbytheLd[CASE NUMBER] DefenceCounseldonotholdwaternoraresufficienttodisbelieve the substratum of the prosecution version emanating out of the testimoniesofprosecutionwitnessesappreciatedhereinbeforeand thereon to acquit the accused[CASE NUMBER] Precedents relied upon by Ld[CASE NUMBER] Defencecounselembodyfactsandcircumstanceswhichareentirely differentanddistinguishablefromthefactsandcircumstancesfrom thecaseinhandandareofnohelptodefence[CASE NUMBER]
FINALANALYSISANDCONCLUSION:
53 InthecaseofSettuv[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY]ofTamilNadu,AIR2006 SC2986,itwasheldthat thetestlaiddowninVirsaSinghv[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY]ofPunjab,AIR 1958SC465 fortheapplicabilityofclause"Thirdly"is nowingrainedinourlegalsystemandhasbecomepartof theruleoflaw[CASE NUMBER]UnderclausethirdlyofSection300,[ACT], culpable homicide is murder, if both the following conditionsaresatisfied:i[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER](a)thattheactwhichcauses deathisdonewiththeintentionofcausingdeathorisdone withtheintentionofcausingabodilyinjury;and(b)that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death[CASE NUMBER] It must be provedthattherewasanintentiontoinflictthatparticular bodilyinjury,whichintheordinarycourseofnature,was sufficienttocausedeath,viz[CASE NUMBER],thattheinjuryfoundtobe presenttheinjurythatwasintendedtobeinflicted[CASE NUMBER]
Thus, according to the rule laid down in [ENTITY],eveniftheintentionofaccusedwaslimitedto theinflictionofabodilyinjurysufficienttocausedeathin theordinarycourseofnature,anddidnotextendtothe intentionofcausingdeath,theoffencewouldbemurder[CASE NUMBER] Illustration(c)appendedtoSection300clearlybringsout thispoint[CASE NUMBER]
[SECTION][CASE NUMBER]Itisnotnecessaryforthepurposeofthis case to dilate much on the distinction between these corresponding clauses[CASE NUMBER] It will be sufficient to say that clause(4)ofSection300wouldbeapplicablewherethe knowledgeoftheoffenderastotheprobabilityofdeathof apersonor persons in general as distinguished from a particular person or persons being caused from his imminently dangerous act approximates to a practical certainty[CASE NUMBER]Suchknowledgeonthepartoftheoffendermust beofthehighestdegreeofprobability,theacthavingbeen committedbytheoffenderwithoutanyexcuseforincurring theriskofcausingdeathorsuchinjuryasaforesaid"[CASE NUMBER]
54[CASE NUMBER] The conclusion emerging from the aforesaid circumstances,provedonrecord,isthattheactssoestablishedare consistentonlywiththehypothesisoftheguiltoftheaccused,thatis tosay,theyarenotexplainableonanyotherhypothesisexceptthat theaccusedisguilty;thecircumstancesareofaconclusivenature and tendency when the entire circumstances are seen and read togetherandtheyexcludeeverypossiblehypothesisexcepttheone putforthbytheprosecutionquaguiltoftheaccusedandbesidesthat thechainoftheevidenceissocompletewhichdoesnothaveany reasonablegroundfortheconclusionconsistentwiththeinnocence oftheaccusedandshowsthatinallhumanprobabilitytheactmust have been done by the accused[CASE NUMBER] The circumstances collectively provethattheaccusedassaultedthedeceasedbyelectricwireEx[CASE NUMBER]P6 intheplaceofabodeofdeceased,whichactofaccusedwaswiththe motiveofremovingmoney,fromthepossessionofdeceased,partof casepropertyEx[CASE NUMBER]P1frompossessionofdeceasedwhichwaslateron recoveredatinstanceofaccused,keptinthehomeofhisinlaws[CASE NUMBER]
55[CASE NUMBER] Takingnoteoftheweapon,electricwireExP6,usedby theaccusedandtheplaceswhereinjurieswereinflictedontheneck of deceased viz ligature strangulation mark (pressure abrasion) present over thyroid, cartilage level completely encircling neck, transverselyplaced,groovedandprominentoverfrontandnapeof neck,6cmbelowchinand11cmabovesternalangle,7cmfromleft earlobuleand6cmfromrightearlobulewithwidthof1[CASE NUMBER]5cmover frontneckand1cmoverotherpartsoftheneck; thyroidfracture (thyroid cartilage body) in the middle part as well as the corresponding subsequent opinion Ex[CASE NUMBER] PW9/B that such ligature mark can be possible by the electric wire Ex[CASE NUMBER] P6 recovered and seizedfromtheplaceofincidentandmostimportantlythefactthat suchinjurieswerefoundsufficientinordinarycourseofnatureto causedeathofdeceasedbyasphyxiafollowingantemortemligature strangulation; before noon on 25[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2013; which facts and circumstancesofthecaseprovethattheaccused[ENTITY]was havingtheintentiontoinflictaforeelicitedinjuriesontheneckofhis mother,deceased,whichinordinarycourseofnatureweresufficient tocausedeathbystrangulation;thesaidinjurieswerefoundtobe presentwhichwereintendedtobeinflicted[CASE NUMBER] Accordingly,accused [ENTITY] committed culpable homicide which amounted to murder[CASE NUMBER]Prosecutionhasbeensuccessfulinprovingitscasebeyond reasonable doubt against accused [ENTITY] for offence under [SECTION] [ACT] for which he is held guilty and convicted accordingly[CASE NUMBER] by [ENTITY] Date:
2018[CASE NUMBER]09[CASE NUMBER]25 15:05:06 +0530 Announcedintheopencourt (GURVINDERPALSINGH) th on25 September,2018ASJ05/SW/DWARKACOURTS NEWDELHI(pb)