CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 1 of 8"Police machinery was set into motion by DD No. 22A lodged at PS Vivek Vihar at 1816 hours dated 2.7.10 regarding presence of a dead body near Railway Line, Ambedkar Camp, Vivek Vihar, This DD was assigned to ASI Desh Raj who reached at the spot.Thereafter IO PW18 Inspector Sanjay Drall reached at the spot i.e. behind ITI, Vivek Vihar, near Railway Line.The dead body was of a female and her neck was found cut.Crime team and photographer were called by IO, who photographed the scene of crime.IO prepared rukka Ex. PW18/A and gave it to HC Sarfuddin for taking it to PS for registration of the FIR.IO prepared site plan and picked samples of blood and earth control from the spot.The dead body was sent to mortuary.The mobile phone make virgin of chocolate colour was recovered from the possession of dead body.The deceased was identified as Mukarrabi by the family of the deceased in the mortuary.IO conducted the inquest proceedings.After post-mortem dead body was handed over to her relatives.The brothers of the deceased showed their suspicion on accused Hasnain, who is husband of the deceased Call details of deceased and accused Hasnain were analyzed and it disclosed that on the day of incident they had talked with each other number of times.Accused Shah Nawaj, who is nephew of accused Hasnain had also talked with accused Hasnain eleven times on the day of incident.Location of both accused and deceased as per their mobile phones were found to be at Vivek Vihar, Jhilmil Industrial Area and Dilshad Garden.The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the registration of the case against the accused person, as per prosecution, are that: CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 1 of 8On 27.7.10 accused Hasnain was arrested on the basis of secret information.During interrogation he made disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime.On 6.8.10 accused Shah Nawaj was also arrested.After investigation police filed chargesheet against both the accused under Section 302/120B IPC."CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 2 of 8Addressing arguments in support of the present criminal leave to appeal, Mr.K.S Singh, Counsel for the State submits that the learned Trial Court erred in ignoring the vital pieces of evidence, which emerged during the course of trial but were not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court.Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, who are the daughter and the son of the deceased respectively and who had specifically stated in their testimonies that respondent No.1, their father used to beat the deceased and used to torture the deceased and they started living with their mother in the house of PW-15, their uncle.Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No.1 had called 11 times to respondent No.2 on his mobile number 9716758181, which belong to PW-9 Raj Kumar and after the incident both the mobile phones were CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 3 of 8 switched off.Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court had also failed to appreciate the fact that from the testimonies of PW-2, PW- 3, PW-4 and PW-5, the motive of respondent No. 1 to commit murder was very clear as he was suspicious about the character of the deceased.Based on these submissions counsel for the petitioner prayed for the grant of criminal leave to appeal to challenge the said judgment on acquittal.CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 3 of 8We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by him.We have also gone through the impugned judgment and other material placed on record.

Relevant sections: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code