State vs Satyander Pal Singh Ors on 6 June, 2025

Delhi District Court

State vs Satyander Pal Singh Ors on 6 June, 2025

           IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
     ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02), SOUTH-EAST
            SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI




CNR No.DLSE010002222013
Session Case No.1499/2016
FIR no.204/2013
Police Station: Jaitpur.


State



Versus



1. Satender Pal Singh
Son of Late Inderpal
Resident of House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar,
Jaitpur, New Delhi.



2. Amit
Son of Late Inderpal
Resident of House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar,
Jaitpur, New Delhi.



FIR no.204/2013   PS Jaitpur   State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr.   Page 1 of 87
 3. Seema
Wife of Amit
Resident of House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar,
Jaitpur, New Delhi.



4. Ms. Omwati
Wife of Late Inderpal
Resident of House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar,
Jaitpur, New Delhi.                (Proceedings against her
                                   abated on 04.06.2025 as she
                                   died on 24.04.2021)



5. Inderpal
Son of Late Ajab Singh
Resident of House No.O-458A, Saurabh Vihar,
Jaitpur, New Delhi.               (Proceedings against him
                                  abated on 30.05.2017 as he
                                  died on 24.01.2017)


                                                                   ..........Accused persons



Date of Institution               :          04.09.2013
Judgment reserved on              :          23.05.2025
Date of Decision                  :          05.06.2025



JUDGMENT

1. A police report was put up by the State through officer-
in-charge of the police station Jaitpur before the concerned

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 2 of 87
Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take cognizance of offence
under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC‘)
against the accused, namely, Satender Pal @ Mintu, for having
committed the said offence.

2. As per the police report, on 07.06.2013, this case FIR
was registered in police station Jaitpur for the offence punishable
under section 302 IPC.

3. As per the police report, on 07.06.2013 at 02.30 p.m.,
vide DD No.7A police station Jaitpur, an information was given by
WT operator C/Room regarding ‘son of caller has killed his wife’
and this information was given to SI Subhash on telephone and its
copy was sent through Constable Niranjan Singh on the spot of
incident; Additional S.H.O. D.P. Kalra, who was on night patrolling
in Sub-Division, was also informed on telephone.

4. It is further reported in the police report that SI Subhash
along with Constable Niranjan reached at the spot of incident i.e.
House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, New Delhi where near
the door of toilet in the left side corner of overhanging eave towards
the door on the second floor of that house, one lady whose name, on
inquiry, was revealed as Vimlesh wife of Satender Pal resident of
above-said address, aged about 34/35 years was found dead whose
back was touched with the railings of the overhanging eave and her
neck was towards the floor and her legs were towards the East
direction and back was towards the West direction and she was

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 3 of 87
having a green colour salwar and there was a green colour chunni
wrapped around her neck and she was wearing biscuit colour jumper
and there were injury marks on her face and on the front side of the
neck, there were deep scratch mark and broken pieces of bangles
were available nearby; on the side of her legs, a plastic stool of sky
blue colour was lying near the door of kitchen which was blood-
stained and some broken hair strains were lying near the palm of the
right hand.

5. It is further reported in the police report that SI Subhash
had given information about the circumstances to the senior officers
and Inspector D.P. Kalra, A.T.O., police station Jaitpur reached at the
spot and the crime-team was called at the spot of incident and
inspection of the spot was got conducted and the dead-body was sent
to AIIMS hospital in a private vehicle in the custody of constable
Niranjan.

6. It is further reported in the police report that from the
the circumstances, contents of the DD and inspection of the spot of
incident, the offence under section 302 IPC has been made out,
therefore, a case under that section was got registered and further
investigation was taken up by Inspector D.P. Kalra and Dak was sent
to the senior officers through special messenger.

7. It is further reported in the police report that the crime-
team came at the spot and inspected the spot of incident and

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 4 of 87
photographs of the spot of incident were also taken by the
photographer.

8. It is further reported in the police report that during the
course of investigation, Inspector D.P. Kalra prepared the site-plan of
the spot of incident and from the spot, Exhibit 1 i.e. a round shaped
plastic stool of sky blue colour having blood-stains which had been
dried-up was picked-up and kept in a white cloth and a pullanda was
prepared; and Ex.2 some pieces of broken bangles lying on the floor
near the dead-body were picked-up and wrapped in a white colour
cloth and a pullanda was prepared; and Ex.3 some strains of hairs of
black colour entangled in the palm near the right hand of the dead-
body were also picked-up and wrapped in a white colour cloth and a
pullanda was prepared; Ex.4 one hair clip of black colour from the
side of legs of the dead-body near the doors was picked-up and
wrapped in the white cloth and a pullanda was prepared; all the
pullandas were got picked up from SI Subhash Chand and were
sealed with the seal of ‘SC’ and statement of the witnesses were
recorded and the case property was deposited in the malkhana.

9. It is further reported in the police report that on
07.06.2013 parents of the deceased Vimlesh came to the police
station and Kisan Singh got his statement recorded.

10. It is further reported in the police report that it is, inter-
alia, stated by the complainant that he had five sons and four
daughters; that he had got her younger daughter Vimlesh married

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 5 of 87
with Satender Pal S/o Inder Pal who earlier used to live in Jhuggi of
Nauroji Nagar; that they were Satsangi and away from eating meat or
fish; that Satender Pal and his family members used to eat meat and
fish and got it cooked by Vimlesh which Vimlesh used to refused to
cook due to which Satender Pal and his family members started
beating and harassing Vimlesh; that Inder Pal (father-in-law),
Omwati (mother-in-law) and Amit (brother-in-law) also with
Satender Pal had beaten Vimlesh and they all had taken Vimlesh
away to their native village, where they all had gone to a marriage in
Tauru and left Vimlesh at their house after beating her; that after the
marriage on the way for returning to Delhi also, they had beaten
Vimlesh and one boy (Sunil S/o Birju) native of village of the
complainant had come to Baraut and informed them that he had seen
Vimlesh being beaten in the market, therefore, he had sent his elder
son Virender, son-in-law Suresh, son Balinder and few relatives to
know about well-being of Vimlesh and they returned on the 3 rd day
and informed him that Vimlesh had been given beatings, for which
they had made complaint in the police station and on seeing them,
Satender had made a call to the police wherein they had alleged that
Vimlesh was beaten by Satender Pal, father-in-law, namely, Inderpal,
mother-in-law, namely, Omwati, sister-in-law, namely, Seema and
brother-in-law, namely, Amit and the matter was got settled in the
police station and Vimlesh was taken alone to the native village.

11. It is further stated by the complainant that after four-five
days a complaint was also made in the Mahila Thana and on

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 6 of 87
24.02.2013 the persons from the social circle got the matter settled
and Vimlesh was again taken to Delhi. It is further stated by the
complainant that on 07.06.2013, it is informed by the police station
Jaitpur that Vimlesh had been killed by her husband and on reaching
Delhi, they came to know that on the last night at about 11.00 p.m.,
Vimlesh had been killed by mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-
law, sister-in-law and husband of the deceased as when Vimlesh was
being beaten by them, she had run towards outside of the house to
save her life but all those persons and dragged her upwards. It is
further stated by the complainant that all those persons had killed
Vimlesh, therefore, appropriate action as per law should be taken
against them. It is further reported in the police report that besides
the above statement, statement of the complainant under section 161
Cr.P.C., and statement of brother and brother in law of the deceased
were also recorded.

12. It is further reported in the police report that on
08.06.2013 inquest papers of the deceased Vimlesh were prepared
and after conducting the postmortem dead-body of the deceased was
handed over to the family members against handing over receipt.

13. It is further reported in the police report that after the
postmortem, Constable Niranjan had produced the exhibits, 1. one
sealed pullanda containing clothes of the deceased, 2. one sealed
pullanda containing LEGOHINE material, 3. one transparent Jar
containing nail clipping right of the deceased, 4. one transparent Jar
containing nail clipping right of the deceased 5. one sealed envelope
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 7 of 87
containing blood in gauze of the deceased, 6. one sample seal of
Department of Forensic Medicine AIIMS New Delhi, the seal by
which all the exhibits were sealed, the above all exhibits were seized
vide seizure memo and taken into police possession and deposited in
the malkhana of the police station.

14. It is further reported in the police report that during the
course of investigation and search, the accused Satender Pal @
Mintu was arrested vide arrest memo and his personal search memo
was prepared and the wearing clothes of the accused which were
having blood-stained were got put off and 1. one t-shirt of sky blue
colour which were having stripes of dark and light lines and the word
ONEILL was written on the chest and there was a mark of oneill on
the back and left arm, which was having bloodstains at many places
and the two arms were having marks of pull out and scratches, 2. one
lower pyjama of grey colour, both legs of which were having stripes
of blue colour and there were blood-stains on the front side of the
lower; both the clothes were wrapped in separate white clothes and
pullandas were prepared, sealed with the seal of ‘DPK’ and seized
vide seizure memo and taken into police possession.

15. It is further reported in the police report that during
interrogation, the accused Satender Pal admitted his guilt as well as
guilt of the other accused persons and that in order to save other
accused persons from imprisonment, his father and called police at
100 number so that all others except the accused Satender Pal were
saved. The disclosure statement of the accused Satender Pal was
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 8 of 87
recorded separately and the accused Satender Pal @ Mintu was got
medically examined and his blood sample was collected, sealed and
seized vide seizure memo, the accused was produced in the Court
and his one day PC remand was obtained; that the co-accused
persons were searched for but no clue was found and on 08.06.2013
the accused was produced in the Court and sent to judicial custody.

16. It is further reported in the police report that the scaled
site-plan was got prepared and copies of the complaint made by the
deceased in Mahila Thana Baghpat, U.P. and compromise were
collected.

17. It is further reported in the police report that the
postmortem report was also collected wherein cause of death “In this
case is asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. Strangulation in this
case could be possible from the chunni (alleged ligature material)
present in the neck of deceased. Uterus contained gestational sac
with a non viable fetus (sex indistinguishable) of gestational age
about 2 to 3 months” was opined.

18. It is further reported in the police report that on
10.07.2013 the exhibits collected in the present case were deposited
with FSL, Rohini for obtaining result vide RC No.131/21/13 and the
result was still awaited.

19. It is further reported in the police report that on transfer
of Inspector D.P. Kalra from the police station, the investigation of

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 9 of 87
this case was assigned to Inspector Vipin Kumar, A.T.O. police
station Jaitpur and the investigating officer made search for the co-
accused persons who were evading their arrest.

20. It is further reported in the police report that from the
investigation conducted so far and the disclosure statement as well as
statement of the witnesses, sufficient evidence has been collected
against the accused Satender Pal @ Mintu.

21. After completion of the investigation, the investigating
officer had prepared police report against the accused Satender Pal
@ Mintu under section 302 IPC and filed before the concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate and it was prayed that on receiving of FSL
result and after arrest of the co-accused persons, supplementary
police report shall be put up.

22. On the date of filing of police report i.e. on 04.09.2013,
the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence
and on that day, the accused Satender Pal was also produced in the
Court from judicial custody. Copies of police report and other
documents were supplied to the accused Satender Pal.

23. On 24.09.2013, the Metropolitan Magistrate found the
offence under section 302 IPC to be exclusively triable by the Court
of Session and therefore, committed the case to the Court of Session.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 10 of 87

24. On 30.11.2013, supplementary police report was put up
by the State before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

25. As per the supplementary police report, apart from
whatever has already been stated in the main police report, during the
course of investigation, the investigating officer on 04.09.2013 the
accused Inderpal was arrested on the pointing out of the complainant
Kishan Singh and during his custody, the accused has made
disclosure statement whereby he admitted his guilt and commission
of offence and stated that on the date of incident, he and his wife
Vimlesh had caught hold both the legs of the deceased and Amit had
caught hold of left hand of the deceased while Seema, wife of Amit
had caught hold the right hand and hairs and then Satender had
strangulated the deceased with her wearing chunni till she died and
after her death, they made her to sit with the railing and all of them
made a plan that it would be better if Satender alone would go to jail
rather than all of them and due to such plan, the accused Inderpal
made a call at 100 number informing that his son had killed his wife
and thereafter, they all had gone to their respective rooms and had
come out of their rooms only after arrival of the police so that the
police would believe that they were not aware of the incident; that
his younger daughter Ruby and son-in-law and daughter-in-law were
sleeping in a room with door shut on the lower floor and due to not
hearing of the noise, they were not awake.

26. It is further reported in the supplementary police report
that thereafter, Amit, son of Inderpal had made disclosure statement
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 11 of 87
about his involvement in the offence on the lines of disclosure made
by the accused Inderpal, his separate disclosure statement was
recorded.

27. It is further reported in the supplementary police report
that statement of the witnesses were recorded and the case property
was deposited in the police malkhana and the accused persons were
kept in police custody and on 05.09.2013, both the accused persons
pointed out the place of incident and the pointing out memo was
prepared and the accused persons were produced in the Court and
sent to the judicial custody. It is further reported in the
supplementary police report that after transfer of Inspector Vipin, the
investigation of the case was assigned to Inspector Ravinder Kumar.

28. It is further reported in the supplementary police report
that as the accused persons Omwati and Seema could not be arrested
therefore, the investigating officer had got issued proclamation under
section 82 Cr.P.C. against them from the concerned Court and on
11.11.2013, both those accused persons had surrendered in the
concerned Court and they were arrested and interrogated with the
permission of the Court and during their interrogation, the accused
Smt. Omwati and Smt. Seema have voluntarily admitted their guilt
and about their involvement in the commission of the offence and
their separate statements were recorded and those two accused
persons were produced in the Court and sent to judicial custody.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 12 of 87

29. It is further reported in the supplementary police report
that from the investigation conducted so far, the statement of the
witnesses, arrest of the accused persons and their disclosure
statements, sufficient evidence has been collected against the
accused persons, namely Satender, Inderpal, Amit, Omwati and
Seema to establish the offence of killing the deceased pursuance to
their conspiracy and therefore, section 120B IPC was added in the
present case. It is further reported in the supplementary police report
that the report of FSL was awaited which would be produced after
receiving it. After completion of investigation against the other
accused persons, supplementary police report was put up in the
Court.

30. On the date of filing of supplementary police report on
30.11.2013, the accused persons Inderpal, Amit and Omwati were
produced from judicial custody, however, the accused Seema was not
produced. On that day, the Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance
of the offence and supplied copy of police report and other
documents and e-challan to the accused persons and issued
production warrant to produce the accused Seema. On 11.12.2013,
the accused Seema was also produced before the Court and copies of
police report and documents and e-challan was supplied to her.

31. On 16.12.2013, the Metropolitan Magistrate found the
offence under section 302 IPC to be exclusively triable by the Court
of Session and committed the case to the Court of Session.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 13 of 87

32. On 10.05.2014, upon considering the police report and
the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and after
hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the
accused, the charge was framed against the accused, namely,
Satender Pal @ Mintu, Inderpal, Amit, Omwati and Seema for their
having committed offence punishable under sections 302/34, the
Indian Penal Code.

33. The charge was read over and explained to the accused
persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the offence
charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did not plead
guilty and claimed trial.

34. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined
PW1 Anuj Negi, PW2 Dinesh Kashyap, PW3 Kisan Singh, PW4
Virender Singh, PW5 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Jogender Singh,
PW6 Constable (Ct.) Ashwani, PW7 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI)
Sajjan Kumar, PW8 Padam Singh, PW9 Balinder Singh, PW10
Suresh Kumar, PW11 Constable (Ct.) Niranjan, PW12 Sub-Inspector
(SI) Subhash Chand, PW13 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, PW14
Constable (Ct.) Makhan Lal, PW15 W/Head Constable (HC) Geeta,
PW16 Head Constable (HC) Vikas Tyagi, PW17 Sub-Inspector SI
(SI) Manohar Lal, PW18 Ms. Anju Dixit, PW19 Dr. Abhineeth K.P.
PW20 Sub-Inspector (SI) Hemant, PW21 Retired Inspector
Dharampal Kalra, PW22 Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma, PW23
Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Lalit Mohan, PW24 Assistant Sub-
Inspector (ASI) Om Prakash, PW25 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, PW26
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 14 of 87
W/Head Constable (WHC) Seema and PW27 Inspector Ravinder
Kumar Tomar. During the examination of the prosecution witnesses,
the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B,
Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW6/A1 to
Ex.PW6/A7, Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW11/A,
Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/D1,
Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW12/F, Ex.PW12/G, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW14/A,
Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW19/A,
Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/C,
Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW21/E, Ex.PW21/F, Ex.PW21/G, Ex.PW21/H,
Ex.PW21/I, Ex.PW21/J, Ex.PW21/K, Ex.PW21/L, Ex.PW21/M,
Ex.PW21/N, Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW22/B, Ex.PW22/C, Ex.PW22/D,
Ex.PW22/E, Ex.PW22/F, Ex.PW22/G, Ex.PW22/H, Ex.PW23/A,
Ex.PW23/B, Ex.PW23/C, Ex.PW23/D, Ex.PW23/E, Ex.PW23/F,
Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B, Ex.PW26/C, Ex.PW26/D,
Ex.PW26/E, Ex.PW26/F, Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW27/B and
Pullanda’ Ex.P12/P1, Ex.P12/P2, Ex.P12/P3, Ex.P12/P4, Ex.PX1,
Ex.PX2 and Ex.MO-X3 were also tendered in evidence.

35. On 04.12.2024, prosecution evidence was closed and
matter was posted for examination of the accused persons under
section 313 Cr.P.C. and for their statements.

36. On 24.01.2025, this Court examined the accused
persons, namely, Satender Pal @ Mintu, Amit and Seema under
section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statements were recorded.
During their examinations under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 15 of 87
Satender Pal denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances
appearing in the evidence against him. During his examination under
section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused took the defence that he has been
falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, the deceased was
suffering from mental illness and she was undergoing treatment for
the said problem in her parental home and parental family members
of the deceased were pressurizing him and his family members to
take the deceased to his house but he was not inclined because the
deceased was having suicidal tendency due to her mental illness. It is
further stated that the deceased was suffering from mental illness to
such an extent that she had pressed her small baby under her lap and
killed her. It is further stated that on the day of incident, he was
sleeping in his home and at around 02:30 midnight, when he woke
up for urination, he saw his wife (since deceased) was lying in
unconscious state as she attempted to commit suicide and she used to
attempt suicide and for this reason, he left her in her parental home
where she got treatment but the said illness could not be cured. It is
further stated that he had no role in causing death of the deceased. It
is further stated that it is a false case which has been converted into a
murder case, instead of suicide case, by the police at the instance of
family members of the deceased. It is further stated that he is
innocent and has no involvement in the present incident at all and the
witnesses have fabricated a false story in order to implicate him in
the present case at the instance of the police. It is also stated that no
incident with respect to vegetarian/non-vegetarian issue ever
happened with family of the deceased and same are false allegation

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 16 of 87
to make out a case against him and his family members. It is further
stated that she was never beaten, harassed or maltreated by him or
his family members at any point of time and the accused expressed
his desire not to lead evidence in his defence.

37. During the examination of the accused Amit under
section 313 of Cr.P.C., he took the defence that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case and he was residing with his wife on
the separate floor i.e. 1st floor from the floor of deceased and her
husband. It is further stated that his parents were residing separately
on the ground floor of their house and he has no knowledge of the
alleged incident. It is further stated that the family members of the
deceased have leveled false allegations against him, his wife and his
elder brother Satender Pal Singh in order to convert a suicide case
into a murder case. It is further stated that the deceased was suffering
from mental illness from a long time and she had attempted suicide
on earlier occasions also, for which she was sent to her parental
home in order to avoid any untoward incident. It is further stated that
his marriage was solemnized with co-accused Seema 2-3 months ago
from the date of incident and the deceased was never harassed,
tortured or beaten by him or any of the family members. It is further
stated that all the allegations leveled against him and co-accused
persons are false and fabricated. It is further stated that on the fateful
night, he and his wife were sleeping on his floor and came to know
about the incident in the morning after arrival of the police and the
accused expressed his desire not to lead evidence in his defence.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 17 of 87

38. During the examination of the accused Seema under
section 313 of Cr.P.C., she took the defence that she has been falsely
implicated in the present case and she was residing on the separate
floor i.e. 1st floor from the floor of the deceased and her husband. It
is further stated that his parents in-law was residing separately on the
ground floor of their house and she has no knowledge of the alleged
incident. It is further stated that the family members of the deceased
have leveled false allegations against her, her husband and her jeth
Satender Pal Singh in order to convert a suicide case into a murder
case and the deceased was suffering from mental illness from a long
time and she had attempted suicide on earlier occasions also, for
which she was sent to her parental home in order to avoid any
untoward incident. It is further stated that her marriage was
solemnized with Amit two/three months ago from the date of
incident and the deceased was never harassed, tortured or beaten by
him or any of the family members. It is further stated that all the
allegations leveled against her and co-accused persons are false and
fabricated and on the fateful night, she was sleeping in her floor and
came to know about the incident in the morning after arrival of the
police and the accused expressed her desire not to lead evidence in
her defence.

39. I have heard Mr. Jagdamba Pandey, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Jitender Tyagi, Advocate for the
accused persons and have gone through the record of the case
carefully.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 18 of 87

40. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1
Anuj Negi, PW2 Dinesh Kashyap, PW3 Kisan Singh, PW4 Virender
Singh, PW5 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Jogender Singh, PW6
Constable (Ct.) Ashwani, PW7 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Sajjan
Kumar, PW8 Padam Singh, PW9 Balinder Singh, PW10 Suresh
Kumar, PW11 Constable (Ct.) Niranjan, PW12 Sub-Inspector (SI)
Subhash Chand, PW13 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, PW14 Constable
(Ct.) Makhan Lal, PW15 W/Head Constable (HC) Geeta, PW16
Head Constable (HC) Vikas Tyagi, PW17 Sub-Inspector SI (SI)
Manohar Lal, PW18 Ms. Anju Dixit, PW19 Dr. Abhineeth K.P.
PW20 Sub-Inspector (SI) Hemant, PW21 Retired Inspector
Dharampal Kalra, PW22 Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma, PW23
Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Lalit Mohan, PW24 Assistant Sub-
Inspector (ASI) Om Prakash, PW25 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, PW26
W/Head Constable (WHC) Seema and PW27 Inspector Ravinder
Kumar Tomar, and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A,
Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C,
Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A7, Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7,
Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C,
Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/D1, Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW12/F, Ex.PW12/G,
Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW17/A,
Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW21/A,
Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW21/E, Ex.PW21/F,
Ex.PW21/G, Ex.PW21/H, Ex.PW21/I, Ex.PW21/J, Ex.PW21/K,
Ex.PW21/L, Ex.PW21/M, Ex.PW21/N, Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW22/B,
Ex.PW22/C, Ex.PW22/D, Ex.PW22/E, Ex.PW22/F, Ex.PW22/G,

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 19 of 87
Ex.PW22/H, Ex.PW23/A, Ex.PW23/B, Ex.PW23/C, Ex.PW23/D,
Ex.PW23/E, Ex.PW23/F, Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B,
Ex.PW26/C, Ex.PW26/D, Ex.PW26/E, Ex.PW26/F, Ex.PW27/A,
Ex.PW27/B and Pullanda Ex.P12/P1, Ex.P12/P2, Ex.P12/P3,
Ex.P12/P4, Ex.PX1, Ex.PX2 and Ex.MO-X3, the Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has submitted that in the light of evidence,
the prosecution has been successful in proving the charge framed
against the accused persons. It is further submitted that a PCR call,
which is proved by PW15 WHC Geeta by producing PCR Form
(Ex.PW15/A), was received from father of the accused Satender,
which was marked to SI Subhash Chand, who along with Ct.
Neeranjan went to the spot of incident and on the way, they met
Satender Pal, who disclosed about his commission of the offence. It
is further submitted that the PCR call was automatically recorded in
the computer and the copy of PCR call is contained in CD which has
been exhibited. It is further submitted that unfortunately, the
neighbours of the accused persons turned hostile. It is further
submitted that strangulation is proved by leading cogent evidence. It
is further submitted that opinion on ligature material has been
obtained. It is further submitted that although confession of the
accused made in the police custody is not admissible but his conduct
is very much admissible. It is further submitted that the accused
Satender Pal is husband of the deceased, the accused Amit is the
brother-in-law of the deceased and the accused Seema is her sister-
in-law. It is further submitted that as per the postmortem report,
three injuries were found on the person of the deceased and presence

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 20 of 87
of these injuries proved that the deceased was subjected to external
force. It is further submitted that the judgment referred to on behalf
of the accused persons is not applicable and is distinguishable from
the present case on many grounds.

41. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused persons has
drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Anuj Negi, PW2
Dinesh Kashyap, PW3 Kisan Singh, PW4 Virender Singh, PW5
Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Jogender Singh, PW6 Constable (Ct.)
Ashwani, PW7 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Sajjan Kumar, PW8
Padam Singh, PW9 Balinder Singh, PW10 Suresh Kumar, PW11
Constable (Ct.) Niranjan, PW12 Sub-Inspector (SI) Subhash Chand,
PW13 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, PW14 Constable (Ct.) Makhan Lal,
PW15 W/Head Constable (HC) Geeta, PW16 Head Constable (HC)
Vikas Tyagi, PW17 Sub-Inspector SI (SI) Manohar Lal, PW18 Ms.
Anju Dixit, PW19 Dr. Abhineeth K.P. PW20 Sub-Inspector (SI)
Hemant, PW21 Retired Inspector Dharampal Kalra, PW22 Inspector
Vipin Kumar Sharma, PW23 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Lalit
Mohan, PW24 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Om Prakash, PW25 Dr.
Sanjeev Lalwani, PW26 W/Head Constable (WHC) Seema and
PW27 Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar, and the documents
Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A,
Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A7,
Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW12/A,
Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/D1, Ex.PW12/E,
Ex.PW12/F, Ex.PW12/G, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW15/A,

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 21 of 87
Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW20/A,
Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D,
Ex.PW21/E, Ex.PW21/F, Ex.PW21/G, Ex.PW21/H, Ex.PW21/I,
Ex.PW21/J, Ex.PW21/K, Ex.PW21/L, Ex.PW21/M, Ex.PW21/N,
Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW22/B, Ex.PW22/C, Ex.PW22/D, Ex.PW22/E,
Ex.PW22/F, Ex.PW22/G, Ex.PW22/H, Ex.PW23/A, Ex.PW23/B,
Ex.PW23/C, Ex.PW23/D, Ex.PW23/E, Ex.PW23/F, Ex.PW25/A,
Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B, Ex.PW26/C, Ex.PW26/D, Ex.PW26/E,
Ex.PW26/F, Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW27/B and Pullanda Ex.P12/P1,
Ex.P12/P2, Ex.P12/P3, Ex.P12/P4, Ex.PX1, Ex.PX2 and Ex.MO-X3
and referred to the judgment in Jagdish Gond v. The State of
Chhattisgarh and Ors., 2025 INSC 460 and has submitted that no
independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution. It is
further submitted that voice sample of the accused Inderpal should
have been taken and examined by the prosecution to establish that
the call was made by the accused Inderpal only. It is further
submitted that the deceased was not mentally stable. It is further
submitted that the accused persons cannot be held guilty on the basis
of presumptions under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act rather
the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused persons by
leading cogent evidence.

42. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made on behalf of the parties.

43. The accused persons have been charged for the offence
punishable under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. Section 302
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 22 of 87
IPC provides for punishment of murder. Whereas, the offence of
murder has been defined under section 300 IPC. Sections 300 and 34
IPC read as follows: –

“300. Murder. – Except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention
of causing death, if-

Secondly.- If it is done with the intention of
causing such bodily injury as the offence knows to
be likely to cause the death of the person to whom
the harm is caused, or-

Thirdly.- If it is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or-

Fourthly.- If the person committing the act knows
that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in
all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death, and commits such act
without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing
death or such injury as aforesaid.”

34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention.–When a criminal act is done
by several persons in furtherance of the common
intention of all, each of such persons is liable for
that act in the same manner as if it were done by
him alone.

44. The facts of the case have already been noticed earlier,
here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has been
adduced by the prosecution.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 23 of 87

45. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
had examined twenty seven (27) witnesses.

46. PW1 Anuj Negi has deposed that he did not remember
the date but one day, in the morning at about 05.00 a.m., the wife of
Satender expired and the police had come to the house of the accused
persons. It is further deposed by PW1 Anuj Negi that the police had
asked him to drive the vehicle containing the dead-body to the
hospital, so, he had driven the said vehicle to the hospital. PW1 Anuj
Negi has further deposed that he did not know anything else about
the present case. PW1 Anuj Negi has correctly identified the accused
persons, namely, Satender Pal @ Mintu, Inder Pal, Omwati, Amit &
Seema in the Court saying that they were his neighbours.

47. During the cross-examination on behalf of Addl. P.P. for
the State, he admitted that on the morning of 07.06.2013, there were
number of persons gathered outside the house of the accused
Satender Pal and the police was also there. PW1 was not cross-
examined by the defence.

48. PW2 Dinesh Kashyap has deposed that in the night of
incident, he had come at about 11.30 p.m. and had gone for sleep as
he was tired and the next morning, he had come to know about the
death of the deceased Vimlesh. It is further deposed by PW2 Dinesh
Kashyap that one police person had come to his place and that police
had asked his name, parentage and the address. PW2 Dinesh
Kashyap has further deposed that he did not know anything else

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 24 of 87
about the present case. PW2 Dinesh Kashyap has correctly identified
the accused persons, namely, Satender Pal @ Mintu, Inder Pal,
Omwati, Amit & Seema in the Court as they were his neighbours.

49. PW3 Kisan Singh has deposed that he had nine children
i.e, five sons and four daughters including the deceased Vimlesh. It is
further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that his daughter Vimlesh was
married to the accused Satender about 8-9 years back and they were
vegetarians whereas the accused persons were non-vegetarian and
after the marriage of his daughter Vimlesh with the accused Satender,
the accused persons used to compel his daughter Vimlesh to cook
meat and fish for them and on refusal by his daughter, the accused
persons used to quarrel, harass and beat her. It is further deposed by
PW3 Kisan Singh that whenever the accused persons used to beat her
and misbehave with her she used to come back to his place and
initially, his daughter was sent back to her matrimonial home by
Panchayat/respectable members of the society in the village but the
beatings and harassment on the part of the accused persons continued
so, his daughter Vimlesh was again brought home. It is further
deposed by PW3 Sh. Kisan Singh that they had reported the matter to
Baghpat Police and the matter was again pacified in the presence of
the police and his daughter was again sent to her matrimonial home.
It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that the accused persons
treated well his daughter for about 15-20 days and thereafter, they
again harassing and beating his daughter Vimlesh and his daughter
used to tell that the accused Inderpal (father-in-law) used to abuse his

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 25 of 87
daughter and rest of the accused persons i.e, Satender and all other
accused persons used to beat his daughter. It is further deposed by
PW3 Kisan Singh that about one year back at about 04.00 a.m.
initially, the police had informed them that his daughter was
seriously ill but when they inquired from them, one of the constable
informed them on phone that his daughter Vimlesh has already died
and that his daughter Vimlesh has been shifted to the mortuary for
the postmortem. It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that they
had come to Delhi and had reached at the house of the accused
persons and the house of the accused persons was locked, however,
the neighbours present there told them that the previous night at
about 09.00/10.00 p.m. when there was no light, they heard the
quarrel from the house of the accused persons as the accused persons
were beating his daughter and by that time the deceased Vimlesh had
come out on the road from the house of the accused persons but the
accused persons dragged his daughter back inside their house. It is
further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that the neighbours also told
them that after the accused persons dragged his daughter inside the
house they again heard the screamings (hai-hulla) as the accused
persons were still beating his daughter and then there was complete
calm. It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that the neighbours
also told them that the accused persons had shown the
tamancha/pistol from the terrace and intimidated the neighbours not
to become witness of the incident otherwise the witness would also
be eliminated. It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan Singh that they
had also visited the police station as well as the hospital where

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 26 of 87
postmortem was conducted. It is further deposed by PW3 Kisan
Singh that the police recorded his statement to this effect and the
accused persons were correctly identified by him in the Court.

50. PW4 Virender Singh has deposed that they are five
brothers and four sisters and his younger sister, namely, Vimlesh was
married to the accused Satender about eight-nine years prior to the
incident. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that initially,
the accused persons were staying at Nauroji Nagar jhuggis,
thereafter, they shifted to Sourabh Vihar, Jaitpur and after marriage
of his sister, the things were alright for few days, however, thereafter
all the accused persons present in the court had started harassing his
sister. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that they are
satsangis and they do not consume liquor or eat fish or meat whereas
the accused persons consume meat and also drink liquor and the
accused persons used to compel his sister Vimlesh to cook meat and
fish for them and when his sister used to refuse to cook meat or to eat
meat, the accused persons used to beat his sister mercilessly. It is
further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that after about 2-3 years of
marriage of his sister, she was so mercilessly beaten by the accused
persons that she got mentally upset and had medical problems in her
brain and the accused persons left his sister at his home. It is further
deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that they got Vimlesh treated in
Meerut Mental Hospital for two years and during this period neither
the accused persons inquired about the whereabout/well-being of his
sister nor they paid any money towards her treatment, thereafter the

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 27 of 87
respective members of the village intervened and a compromise
arrived upon in the panchayat and his sister was sent to her
matrimonial house in Jaitpur. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender
Singh that for few days the accused persons treated his sister well but
thereafter, they again had started harassing and beating his sister and
in the month of January 2013, one of their neighbour namely Sunil
informed them that Sunil had seen the accused persons and his sister
in a vehicle in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh and had also seen that his
sister was mercilessly beaten in the said vehicle. It is further deposed
by PW4 Virender Singh that hearing this, they three/four brothers
and some of their relatives had come to Delhi to see their sister but
the accused Satender was not present at his home at that time and at
about 11.00-12.00 p.m., the accused Satender along with four/five
more persons had come to the house and all of them were under the
influence of liquor and they had misbehaved and quarreled with them
and they themselves had made a call at number 100. It is further
deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that the police had come and did
nothing and went from there, thereafter, the accused persons had
called all their relatives and the relatives had come to their place in
the night itself and in the following morning, they had gone to one of
the relatives of the accused persons who was staying at the instance
of about 100/150 yards away from the house of the accused persons
and had asked them to intervene and pacify the matter and had also
apprised them about the past night incident and after about 30-45
minutes, his sister was again mercilessly beaten by the accused
persons and she had come to the said relatives where they were

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 28 of 87
sitting. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that his sister
was bleeding from her mouth and other places and his sister
informed them that when the accused persons were beating her, his
younger brother, namely, Satender, who was also there, had come for
her rescue pursuant to which, the accused persons had also beaten his
younger brother and he had sustained severe head injuries (sar fad
diya). It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that they
immediately had come to the house of the accused persons in
Sourabh Vihar and had seen that the accused persons had mercilessly
beaten his brother. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that
in order to falsely implicate them, the accused persons themselves
had made a call at number 100 and the police had come there and
accused Seema had got recorded to the police that they snatched her
anklet, earrings and mangalsutra whereas the other accused persons
had told the police that they had snatched Rs.50,000/- and two gold
rings. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that one of the
lady in the neighbourhood of the accused persons had given them a
phone number which they dialed and they were asked to come to the
Jaitpur police station and they had gone to Jaitpur police station. It is
further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that his sister deceased
Vimlesh had got recorded her version to the police and the accused
persons were called up in the police station. It is further deposed by
PW4 Virender Singh that the allegations levelled by the accused
persons against them turned out to be false during inquiry by the
police and the matter was pacified by the intervention of the police
and they had gone to the house of the accused persons and during

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 29 of 87
their stay of three days at the house of the accused persons, accused
persons did not offer the meal or water to them. It is further deposed
by PW4 Virender Singh that they did not consume the meal or water
there and at about 1.30 a.m. in the night when they were sleeping at
the terrace of the house of the accused persons, his sister Vimlesh
had come to them and told that some persons had come in a vehicle
and the accused persons in connivance of those persons can cause
harm to them so she brought them to the room she was staying and
bolted the room from inside and in the following morning, he asked
the accused persons to let his sister accompany them to their place
for treatment purposes and also asked them to let her son accompany
her. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that after about
five/six months of the birth of Master Adi, he was separated from
his sister and the accused persons never used to allow him to meet
his sister but he had taken Master Adi into his lap in order to take
him, on this the mother-in-law of Vimlesh snatched Master Adi from
him. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that he made the
accused Satender Pal understood to let them take his sister and her
son Adi with them and he can bring back them after about four days
when the things become normal. It is further deposed by PW4
Virender Singh that as Master Adi remained separated from his sister
for quite sometime so Adi started weeping and did not accompany
them and they had taken their sister to their place and had asked the
accused Satender to come to their place along with Master Adi after
about four days. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that he

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 30 of 87
informed his family members about the complete incident at which
his family members reported the matter to Mahila Cell.

51. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that his
sister Vimlesh had preferred to stay with them as she was being ill-
treated and beaten by the accused persons. It is further deposed by
PW4 Virender Singh that somehow the accused Satender had come
to know about the report having been made to Mahila Cell and had
made a phone call to him and he had asked the accused Satender Pal
to come along with Master Adi and had also assured Satender Pal
that the matter can still be pacified and their matrimonial life can be
saved. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that the accused
Satender Pal along with his son Master Adi had come to their place
thereafter, the matter was pacified in Mahila Cell, Baghpat and in the
Mahila Cell, the family members and relatives of the accused
Satender were present. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh
that his elder sister Maya was also present there and one of the
relatives of the accused Satender had fallen in altercation with his
elder sister Maya who slapped him, at this, the mother-in-law of
Vimlesh, namely, Omwati had threatened that “abki baar Vimlesh ka
patta saaf kardenge” and after sometime, the accused Satender along
with Master Adi had gone to the house of one Madan and when they
wanted to call Adi back from Madan’s house, they had come to know
that the accused Satender along with Master Adi had come back to
Delhi. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that they
immediately reported the incident to Mahila Cell, Baghpat and after

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 31 of 87
few days, the accused Satender again had come and had taken his
sister Vimlesh with him though, his sister Vimlesh was reluctant in
going back to her matrimonial house and she had also opposed the
accused persons for keeping her in a separate house as she had
apprehension that in separate house, she would be killed by them.

52. It is further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that on
07.06.2013, the police of police station Jaitpur made a phone call to
them at about 4.00-4:30 a.m. and initially, the police said that
Vimlesh was mercilessly beaten and she was seriously ill and that
she has been hospitalized and after sometime, the police had again
made a phone call and during conversation, one constable informed
them that the accused persons have killed his sister, thereafter, they
had come to Delhi and had reached the house of the accused persons
but the house of the accused persons was locked and the neighbours
informed them that his sister was mercilessly beaten and was
dragged by the accused persons before she was killed by them. It is
further deposed by PW4 Virender Singh that they had gone to police
station and thereafter, they had gone to the hospital where he had
identified the dead-body of sister Vimlesh vide dead-body
identification memo (Ex.PW4/A) and after the postmortem the dead-
body of his sister was handed over to them vide dead-body handing
over memo (Ex.PW4/B) and the investigating officer had recorded
his statement to this effect. PW4 Virender Singh has correctly
identified the accused Satender Pal @ Minto, Inderpal, Amit,
Omwati and Seema in the Court.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 32 of 87

53. PW5 ASI Jogender Singh has deposed that on
07.06.2013 he was working as Duty Officer at police station Jaitpur
from 12.00 midnight to 8.00 a.m. and on the said date, an
information, to the effect that the caller’s son had killed his wife at
O-458A, Sourabh Vihar, Jaitpur, was received on wireless set and he
had reduced the said information into writing in the roznamcha in his
own handwriting as DD No.7A (Ex.PW5/A). It is further deposed by
PW5 ASI Jogender Singh that on the same day, SI Subhash Chand
had sent the rukka through HC Omprakash for registration of case
and he recorded formal FIR (Ex.PW5/B) and after registration of
case, he had handed over the rukka and copy of the FIR to HC
Omprakash with the instructions to take the same to Inspector
D.P.Kalra as Inspector D.P.Kalra was entrusted with the investigation
of the case and made endorsement (Ex.PW5/C) on rukka.

54. It is further deposed by PW5 ASI Jogender Singh that he
had also made an entry in the roznamcha at serial number as DD
No.10A while started recording the FIR and also made an entry as
DD No.11A when the said FIR was summed up vide DD entries
(Ex.PW5/D collectively) and he had also forwarded the photocopies
of the FIR to the concerned Elaka Magistrate and the police officer in
hierarchy through constable Nemichand as special messenger.

55. PW6 Ct. Ashwani has deposed that on 07.06.2013, he
was posted as Constable (photographer) in Crime-Team, South-East
District, C.R. Park and on the said day, upon receipt of information,
he along with ASI Sajjan Kumar, in-charge of the Crime Team and
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 33 of 87
the HC Kirti Kumar (proficient) had reached at the spot i.e. 0-458 A,
2nd Floor, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur where Inspector D.P. Kalra was
present. It is further deposed by PW6 Ct. Ashwani that one female
dead-body was lying in the balcony and as per the instructions of the
investigating officer, he clicked seven photographs of the spot from
different angles and the seven negatives (Ex.PW6/A1 to
Ex.PW6/A7) and the positives (Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7) of the
same were given to the investigating officer, thereafter, the
investigating officer had recorded his statement to this effect.

56. PW7 ASI Sajjan Kumar has deposed that on 07.06.2013,
he was posted as in-charge Crime-Team, South-East District, C.R.
Park and on the said day, he along with Ct. Ashwani (photographer)
and HC Kirti Kumar (proficient) had reached at the spot i.e. 0-458 A,
2nd Floor, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur where Inspector D.P. Kalra was
present. It is further deposed by PW7 ASI Sajjan Kumar that one
female dead-body was lying in the balcony and as per the
instructions of the investigating officer, he had inspected the scene of
crime and had prepared his detailed report (Ex.PW7/A) and Ct.
Ashwani (photographer) had clicked seven photographs of the spot
from different angles, however, no fingerprint could be lifted from
the spot and the investigating officer had recorded his statement to
that effect.

57. PW8 Padam Singh has deposed that they were nine
siblings i.e. five brothers and four sisters and the deceased Vimlesh
was his youngest sister. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 34 of 87
that about 8-9 years prior to the incident, his sister Vimlesh was
married to the accused Satender and at the time of marriage, the
family of the accused used to reside in the jhuggis of Nauroji Nagar.
It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they were Satsangis
by fate and they do not eat non-vegetarian food, however, the
accused persons are non-vegetarians and the accused persons used to
ask his sister Vimlesh to prepare non-veg food for them and on
refusal on her part, the accused persons used to beat and harass her. It
is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that after about 2-2.5 years
of the marriage of Vimlesh, the accused persons had mercilessly
beaten her for not making the non-vegetarian food for them due to
which she had sustained injuries on the back side of her head. It is
further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that his sister was treated in a
hospital at Meerut for the aforesaid injuries and his sister Vimlesh
was blessed with a female child and after about 1-1.5 months of her
birth, the accused persons along with his sister had come to the place
of their relatives in their village itself and they had also brought his
sister Vimlesh with them. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh
that the accused persons had spoken to their relatives in their village
that they wanted separation of Satender from his sister and asked the
said relatives to get the matter compromised in which they can
divorce his sister but their relatives told them that it cannot be done,
thereafter the accused persons along with his sister Vimlesh had
come to their house. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that
they had asked Vimlesh the reason as to why all her in-laws have
come and his sister told that during the course of journey from Delhi

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 35 of 87
to Badaut and thereafter to their village, the accused persons were
having conversation that anyhow they had to get rid-off him. It is
further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that when they had
conversation with the accused persons at their place and asked them
to get separated from his sister if they so wish, the accused persons
denied. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they had
come back along with his sister, thereafter, the accused persons had
again started harassing and beating his sister and the accused persons
had so mercilessly beaten Vimlesh that she had gone to the nearby
house of the bua of the accused Satender in order to rescue herself. It
is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that the bua of the accused
Satender had made a phone call to them and said that either they
themself should kill Vimlesh or should bring her back to their place
keeping in view the mal-treatment/harassment given to her by the
accused persons. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that
hearing this, his brother Virender, younger brother Satender Kumar,
his brother-in-law Suresh along with two-three more persons had
come to the house of the accused persons in Delhi and the accused
persons misbehaved with them also. It is further deposed by PW8
Padam Singh that his brother Virender, jija Suresh along with other
persons had gone to the house of the bua of the accused to know
about the intentions of the accused persons whereas his younger
brother Satender had stayed back with his sister Vimlesh at her
matrimonial house. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that
in the presence of his brother Satender, the accused Seema had
started beating his sister Vimlesh and out of anger, his brother

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 36 of 87
Satender had pushed Seema pursuant to which, all the accused
persons had started mercilessly beating his sister Vimlesh as well as
his brother Satender. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that
his brother Satender had sustained head injuries and received six
stitches in his head and the accused persons had also called up the
police on the pretext that they had stolen a cash of about Rs.1 lakh
and the jewellery etc. from their house. It is further deposed by PW8
Padam Singh that one lady staying in the neighbourhood provided
them the phone number of the Women Cell and had asked to make a
call in the Women Cell otherwise the accused persons would falsely
implicate them and the police had taken them to the police station. It
is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that the police did not hear
their version and his brother-in-law Suresh had made a phone call to
the Women Cell and the Women Cell officials had contacted the local
police and the local SHO compelled them to go for compromise and
his sister Vimlesh was also inclined for compromise accordingly, the
matter was compromised in the police station. It is further deposed
by PW8 Padam Singh that few days thereafter Vimlesh had come to
their house and Vimlesh had told that she was kept at upstairs and
that her husband accused Satender did not visit his sister and that
accused Satender used to eat the food downstairs and that the
accused persons did not provide the milk to feed the baby. It is
further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that Vimlesh had also told
them that every time they used to ask his sister to accompany the
accused Satender for her matrimonial house and this time, his sister
would not go as the accused persons had planned to kill her and his

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 37 of 87
sister had also asked them to first report the matter to the Women
Cell i.e. Mahila Police Station, Baghpat and his sister Vimlesh
accordingly had reported the matter to the Mahila Police Station,
Baghpat. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that after about
four-five dates, the officials of Mahila Police Station, Baghpat got
the matter pacified subject to the condition that eight-nine persons
would take guarantee that Vimlesh would not be ill-treated pursuant
to which, the matter was compromised. It is further deposed by PW8
Padam Singh that the accused persons had also brought the child
(son of Vimlesh) to Mahila police station, Baghpat and by the
intervention of the police, the child was given to Vimlesh otherwise,
the accused persons never wished to give the child to Vimlesh. It is
further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they brought Vimlesh and
her son to their place and from their place, the accused persons were
to take her with them and about four-five days thereafter, the accused
Satender had come to their place and had asked that he has come to
take Vimlesh and the child with her. It is further deposed by PW8
Padam Singh that they were away in their farming fields and mother
of the accused had asked the accused to take meal and thereafter, the
accused can take Vimlesh along with the son but the accused
Satender had taken the son with him leaving his sister Vimlesh and
when they had come back home they inquired about the son of
Vimlesh and had come to know that the accused Satender had come
and the child was with him. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam
Singh that they had gone to the house of the relatives of the accused
Satender but the accused Satender was not present there, thereafter,

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 38 of 87
they had made a phone call to the accused to which the accused said
that he wanted his son and that he had taken him back. It is further
deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they had again approached
Mahila Police Station, Baghpat who called up the accused Satender
along with the son and again the son was handed over to Vimlesh
and again after about four-five days, the accused Satender had come
to their home and had taken Vimlesh along with her son, thereafter,
whenever they used to make a phone call, the accused persons did
not get them connect to Vimlesh on one pretext or the other and
about 15-20 days thereafter, he had come to Delhi to sell the flowers
and at that time, he had gone to the house of the accused persons. It
is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that Vimlesh had started
weeping seeing him there and said that there was no gas in the
cylinder otherwise, she would have served him the tea while sitting
his foot touched with a pot meant for mixing the flour and he saw
that one half cooked bread (chappati) and some quantity of wet flour
and some dry flour was kept in the said pot. It is further deposed by
PW8 Padam Singh that at his instance, Vimlesh had told him that for
last two days, the accused persons did not get the gas filled-up in the
cylinder and that she was hungry for last two days, thereafter, he
called up Satender upstairs and Satender abused him out of anger and
asked him that if the accused Satender has meal downstairs then why
the accused did not provide the gas upstairs so that Vimlesh can
make food for herself and for the children, hearing this, all the
accused persons had come upstairs and the accused Omwati had
slapped Vimlesh twice/thrice and said that she was back-biting when

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 39 of 87
he had objected as to why she slapped Vimlesh, Omwati said that
they would kill Vimlesh and what would he do if the accused persons
kill Vimlesh. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that the
accused Inder had also repeated the warning and had asked that
whatever they will do they can if they kill Vimlesh, thereafter, the
accused Satender had got filled-up one kg gas in the cylinder,
thereafter, he had come back home and after about 2-2.5 months, the
birthday of the son of his sister Vimlesh was to be celebrated and
Vimlesh had asked the accused persons to invite them also as they
were inviting so many invities. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam
Singh that the accused person had refused to invite them and on this
issue, they had beaten Vimlesh and everytime the accused Seema
used to start the beating, later on, he was invited to the birthday on
phone whereafter, he had come to attend the birthday of his nephew
and he had not brought any gift but he had given cash to the accused
Satender for buying the toys and wearing apparel for his nephew. It
is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that after the function was
over and the family members of the accused including the chachas
(uncles) gathered, all of them made the accused Satender understood
not to harass Vimlesh and to keep her properly and the accused
Satender had exceeded to the said preaching. It is further deposed by
PW8 Padam Singh that he had also got cooked the food from
Vimlesh and consumed the same and prior to that, the accused was
eating food with the accused Seema for last about 3-4 months and on
the intervening night of 6-7/6/2013, the police from Delhi had made
a phone call to them at about 04.00 a.m. and had informed that the

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 40 of 87
accused persons had quarreled with Vimlesh and had beaten her and
had asked them to come to Delhi. It is further deposed by PW8
Padam Singh that they did not take the message seriously and after
sometime, the police had again made a phone call and during
conversation another police man had taken the phone from caller and
had informed that the accused persons had killed Vimlesh. It is
further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that hearing this, they had
come to Delhi and had reached at the house of the accused persons
and the house of the accused persons was locked so they had gone to
the house of the bua of the accused Satender who told that all the
accused persons had jointly killed Vimlesh and Bua had also told
them that once she had come to the road by escaping from the
clutches of the accused persons, all of them had again dragged her
into their house and had killed her. It is further deposed by PW8
Padam Singh that his deceased sister also told them that the police
had removed the dead-body in the morning at about 05.00 a.m. and
they had also inquired from the neighbours of the accused persons
who told that at about 11.00 p.m. in the night when there was no
light, the accused persons were beating her and when she rescued
herself and came out, the accused Satender, Inderpal, Omwati, Amit
and Seema had dragged her inside and were beating her. It is further
deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that they had also told that they heard
the shouting/screaming of Vimlesh in the night and thereafter, there
was complete calm, thereafter, they had gone to the police station,
where they had come to know that they have sent the dead-body for
postmortem and after the postmortem, the dead-body was handed

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 41 of 87
over to them. It is further deposed by PW8 Padam Singh that all the
accused persons namely Satender, Inderpal, Omwati, Amit and
Seema had killed his sister Vimlesh and the investigating officer had
recorded his statement to this effect.

58. PW9 Balinder Singh has deposed that they were five
brothers and four sisters and he was the youngest one in the family
and the marriage of his sister Vimlesh was solemnized with the
accused Satender Pal, who used to stay in Narauji Nagar about
eight/nine years back and after two years of marriage, the accused
Satender Pal used to beat his sister Vimlesh and the other accused
persons i.e. father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-
law used to harass her. It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh
that on many occasions whenever Vimlesh used to make a complaint
about the accused persons, accused persons used to say her that
things would be alright very soon and on 22.01.2013 the accused
Satender made a phone call to him and said that there was some issue
in the house and asked him to come there. It is further deposed by
PW9 Balinder Singh that on 23.01.2013 he along with Virender,
Suresh, Satinder and Padam had come to the house of the accused
Satender and made their sister Vimlesh as well as the accused
Satender understood in order to pacify the matter. It is further
deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that the accused Satender was under

the influence of liquor and since the accused Satender did not hear
them and was adamant so, except his brother namely Satinder, went
to the house of the Bua of the accused in the same locality and told

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 42 of 87
her about the conduct of the accused. It is further deposed by PW9
Balinder Singh that in their absence, the accused persons had
mercilessly beaten-up his brother Satinder and the accused Vimlesh.
It is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that his brother Satinder
sustained serious head injuries and his sister also had injuries. It is
further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that the accused person had
also called the police and they had gone to police station Jaitpur
where the accused persons levelled false allegation against them that
they committed a theft of 25 grams (2 and a half tola) gold and
Rs.50,000/- but in order to save the matrimonial life of his sister
Vimlesh, they somehow pacified the matter and they again had come
to the house of the accused person. It is further deposed by PW9
Balinder Singh that the accused persons did not even offer food to
them and they remained hungry. It is further deposed by PW9
Balinder Singh that they took their sister with them and they put the
matter in Mahila Police Station, Baghpat and in Baghpat also, the
matter was pacified by the police and the other respectable persons
pursuant to which, they sent their sister with the accused persons. It
is further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that after about 4-5
months, the police made a phone call to him on 07.06.2013 at about
3 am and the police initially did not inform the death of his sister and
some quarrel was going with her and asked to come to Delhi. It is
further deposed by PW9 Balinder Singh that when he along with his
brother Virender, Padam and Suresh were coming to Delhi, on the
way, the police made many phone calls to reach Delhi in one of the
call, the police informed that his sister Vimlesh has been killed and

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 43 of 87
they reached the house of the accused. It is further deposed by PW9
Balinder Singh that the house of the accused persons was locked and
on inquiry, the neighbour informed that in the previous night when
the accused persons were beating his sister Vimlesh, Vimlesh came
out their house but the accused persons dragged her into the house
and were mercilessly beating her. It is further deposed by PW9
Balinder Singh that on the next day i.e. 08.06.2013 after the
postmartom of his sister Vimlesh, the dead-body was handed over to
them vide dead-body (Memo 4/B). It is further deposed by PW9
Balinder Singh that the investigating officer had recorded his
statement to this effect. PW9 Balinder Singh has correctly identified
the accused Satender, Inderpal, Amit, Seema and Omwati in the
Court.

59. PW10 Suresh Kumar has deposed that he was a diesel
mechanic and the deceased Vimlesh was his sister-in-law (Saali) and
she was married with Satender Pal about eight-ten years ago from the
date of commission of offence. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh
Kumar that he had heard from the family members of accused that
deceased was living happily at her matrimonial house and he had not
visited the matrimonial house of deceased for about 1½ year after her
marriage and after about two years of the marriage of deceased, he
had gone to her matrimonial house along with his wife. It is further
deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that he had heard from the
deceased that the accused and his family are non-vegetarian and
frequent quarrels took place due to said reason between the deceased

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 44 of 87
and her in-laws. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that
sometimes Punchayats were organised at village Dhanora (the
parental house of deceased) and matter was got compromised with
the help of Punchayat.

60. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that in the
month of January, 2013, a quarrel took place with the accused and
the deceased and he had received message from his in-laws regarding
the same, thereafter, he accompanied his in-laws to the matrimonial
house of deceased for the first time. It is further deposed by PW10
Suresh Kumar that the deceased was living alone on the second floor
without any basic facilities whereas her husband used to reside along
with his family on the ground floor and they had stayed at the house
of maternal aunt of the accused in a separate house. It is further
deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that the accused along with family
members had given beatings to his in-laws i.e. his elder sister-in-law,
his brother-in-law (Satender) and deceased. It is further deposed by
PW10 Suresh Kumar that the police was also called by the accused
for the aforesaid incident and allegations regarding theft of
Rs.50,000/- and one gold neckless were made against his in-laws and
police report was lodged in this regard, thereafter, police had taken
his aforesaid in-laws at police station Jaitpur. It is further deposed by
PW10 Suresh Kumar that the police got compromised the matter
between both the parties, thereafter, the deceased had returned to her
matrimonial house and she got registered separate case at police
station Baghpat, Mahila Police Station where the said matter was

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 45 of 87
also got compromised. It is further deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar
that the deceased was saying that despite compromise she would be
murdered by her in-laws and she was not ready to go at her
matrimonial house but the family members of the deceased had
consoled her and she returned to her matrimonial house. It is further
deposed by PW10 Suresh Kumar that in the month of May/June, he
heard regarding death of deceased from his brother-in-law namely
Balender. PW10 Suresh Kumar has correctly identified accused
persons namely Satender, Inderpal (father-in-law), mother-in-law of
deceased, sister-in-law of deceased (devrani) and brother-in-law of
deceased saying that they were involved in the present case.

61. PW11 Ct. Niranjan has deposed that on 07.06.2013, he
was working as Constable at the police station Jaitpur and on that
day, at about 2:30 a.m., the investigating officer had received DD
No.7A, then he along with SI Subhash had reached at O-458A,
Saurabh Vihar, New Delhi, where they saw that a dead-body of a
lady was lying near railing of the house and after inquiry, name of
the lady was revealed as Vimlesh. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct.
Niranjan that the body of lady was lying with the side of railing and
her legs were towards the East direction, her neck was down towards
the side of ground floor and she was wearing green colour salwar and
green colour chunni. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Niranjan that
there was a mark on the neck of the body of the deceased and some
spot of blood were also found near kitchen. It is further deposed by
PW11 Ct. Niranjan that crime-team was also called at the spot and

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 46 of 87
Additional SHO also arrived there and crime-team had conducted
inspection of the spot and had taken the photographs of the spot,
then, SI Subhash had prepared a letter and had sent him to AIIMS
along with the dead-body where MLC of Vimlesh was prepared and
her body was got preserved for 48 hours. It is further deposed by
PW11 Ct. Niranjan that on 07.12.2013, SI Subhash had come to the
mortuary and dead-body was identified by her brother and father and
the postmortem was got conducted. It is further deposed by PW11
Ct. Niranjan that after the postmortem, dead-body was handed over
to the father and brother of the deceased and the jewellery of the
deceased was handed over to the brother of the deceased by the
doctor. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Niranjan that after the
postmortem, doctor had prepared some pullandas and had sealed the
same vide memo (Ex.PW11/A) and after sealing, the sample seal was
handed over to him and after sometime, he had handed over the
sample seal to the investigating officer.

62. PW12 SI Subhash Chand has deposed that in the
intervening night of 06/07.06.2013, he was on emergency duty and at
around 2.30 a.m., he had received DD No.7A regarding murder of a
woman by her husband at 0-458A, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur and after
receiving the same, he along with Ct. Niranjan had reached at the
spot and he had found that a dead-body of a woman was lying in the
balcony on the second floor of the abovesaid premises and the injury
marks on her face and neck were visible. It is further deposed by
PW12 SI Subhash Chand that a small plastic stool of sky blue colour

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 47 of 87
was also lying over there having bloodstains on it and pieces of
broken bangles were also scattered, one hair clip was lying on the
floor and the right fist of the deceased was having hairs. It is further
deposed by PW12 SI Subhash Chand that he had informed the senior
officers and Inspector D.P. Kalra along with staff had come at the
spot and the crime-team was also called at the spot and the crime-
team had inspected the spot and taken photographs. It is further
deposed by PW12 SI Subhash Chand that no eye-witness had met
him at the spot and he had put his endorsement (Ex.PW12/A) on DD
No.7A at point A, prepared the rukka and had given it to the HC Om
Prakash and had sent him to police station Jaitpur for registration of
FIR. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Subhash Chand that the dead-
body was sent to AIIMS Morturary by a private vehicle and he had
collected the exhibits from the spot as per seizure memo
(Ex.PW12/B) and pullanda of the exhibits were prepared and it was
duly sealed with the seal of ‘SC’. It is further deposed by PW12 SI
Subhash Chand that Inspector D.P. Kalra had prepared a site-plan
(Ex.PW12/C) of the spot and the dead-body of the deceased woman
was got preserved at AIIMS Mortuary vide his request letter
(Ex.PW12/D).

63. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Subhash Chand that on
08.06.2013, he had filled-up Form No.25, 35 (1) (B) (Ex.PW12/D1)
and he had made a request to get the postmortem conducted at
AIIMS Mortuary vide (Ex.PW12/E) and he also made a request
(Ex.PW12/F) to the CMO AIIMS Mortuary for removing the

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 48 of 87
ornaments of deceased. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Subhash
Chand that the ornaments of the deceased was handed over the
brother of the deceased vide (Ex.PW12/G) and the postmortem was
got conducted and the dead-body was handed over to the relatives of
the deceased. PW12 SI Subhash Chand has correctly identified small
plastic stool of sky blue colour having blood stains (Ex.PW12/P1)
saying that the same stool which had been recovered from the spot,
has also correctly identified pieces of broken bangles (Ex.PW12/P2)
saying that the same had been recovered from the spot, has also
correctly identified some hairs (Ex.PW12/P3) saying that the same
had been recovered from the spot, has also correctly identified the
hair clip (Ex.PW12/P4) saying that the same had been recovered
from the spot.

64. PW13 Inspector Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on
15.06.2013, he was posted as SI/Draughtsman at Crime Branch PHQ
and on that day, at the request of Inspector Dharam Pal Kalra, he had
reached at police station Jaitpur and from there he along with
Inspector Dharam Pal Kalra and SI Subhash Chand had reached at
the spot i.e. Second Floor of House No.0-458А, Saurabh Vihar, Jait
Pur and at the spot, he had taken measurements and had prepared
rough notes at the instance of Dharam Pal Kalra and SI Subhash
Chand. It is further deposed by PW13 Inspector Mahesh Kumar that
on 11.07.2013, on the basis of abovesaid rough notes and
measurements, he had prepared scaled site-plan and had handed over

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 49 of 87
the same to investigating officer and he had destroyed the rough
notes after preparation of scaled site-plan (Ex.PW13/A).

65. PW14 Ct. Makhan Lal has deposed that on 10.07.2013,
he had taken seven exhibits from malkhana of police station Jaitpur
and got it deposited at FSL Rohini, thereafter, he had come back at
police station Jaitpur and had handed over the receiving (Mark
PW14/A) of the exhibits to MHC(M) police station Jaitpur and the
exhibits were not tampered till it remained in his possession.

66. PW15 WHC Geeta has deposed that on 07.06.2013, she
was working as wireless operator in control room of PHQ and on
that day, at about 2.30 a.m., a call was received in Police Control
Room that son of caller had killed his wife and she reduced said
information into writing vide PCR Form (Ex.15/A).

67. PW16 HC Vikas Tyagi has deposed that on 07.06.2013,
he had gone to the hospital along with the accused Satender Pal
Singh for his medical examination and after the medical
examination, he had obtained pullandas given by the doctor duly
sealed with the seal of AlIIMS and had handed over to the
investigating officer who seized the same vide seizure memo
(Ex.PW16/A).

68. PW17 SI Manohar Lal has deposed that on 29.01.2013,
he was working as SI at Mahila Thana District Baghpat, U.P and on
that day, complainant Smt. Kamlesh had come to the police station

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 50 of 87
and had produced him her complaint against her in-laws. It is further
deposed by PW17 SI Manohar Lal that during inquiry, he had called
both the parties in the police station and after some efforts
compromise had arrived between the parties. It is further deposed by
PW17 SI Manohar Lal that he had filed the complaint on records and
certified copy of the complaint was handed over to the investigating
officer of the case and has also brought the original complaint
(Ex.PW17/A) given by the complainant to him.

69. PW18 Ms. Anju Dixit, MRT, AIIMS Hospital, New
Delhi has deposed that she was working in AIIMS as Medical
Technician since February 2007 and she has brought the original
register containing record of MLC bearing No.5514/13 dated
07.06.2013 (Ex.PW18/A) of Mrs. Vimlesh 35 years female. It is
further deposed by PW18 Ms. Anju Dixit that the said MLC was
prepared by Dr. Pranay Choubey who had left the services of AIIMS
and she identified the signature of Dr. Pranay Choubey at point A on
the said MLC as she had worked with him and seen him signing and
writing during course of her duty and the patient was declared
brought dead.

70. PW19 Dr. Abhineeth K.P., Senior Resident (Surgery),
AIIMS, New Delhi has deposed that he was working as above since
year 2018 and he has been deputed by Medical Superintendent to
depose on behalf of Dr. Pranay Chobey in reference to MLC
No.5514/13 of Mrs. Vimlesh vide authority letter (Ex.PW19/A)
bearing signature of Medical Superintendent at point A. It is further
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 51 of 87
deposed by PW19 Dr. Abhineeth K.P. that he has seen the
aforementioned original MLC available on record (Ex.PW18/A) as
per which, patient Mrs. Vimlesh, 35 years female was brought to
casualty department with alleged history of strangulation by her
husband and as per the MLC, rigormortis was present, pupils were
fixed and dilated and BP and pulse not recordable and the body was
received with the cloth used for strangulation found tied around the
neck and the patient was declared brought dead.

71. PW20 SI Hemant has deposed that on 24.01.2013, he
was on emergency duty in the police station and during his duty
hours at about 12.40 a.m., a DD number 5B (Ex.PW20/A) was
recorded regarding the information about a quarrel in the area of O
block house number 458A Saurav Vihar Jaitpur and in pursuance of
the said information, he along with constable Sanjay had gone to O-
block house number 458A Saurav Vihar Jaitpur and upon reaching
there, the caller Satender who was present as accused in the court
met him and told that there was some altercations between his family
members and by that time they had settled the matter amicably,
therefore, the DD No.5B was filed. It is further deposed by PW20 SI
Hemant that he had recorded his arrival DD No.17A dated
24.01.2013 (Ex.PW20/B) to police station from the spot.

72. PW21 Inspector (Retired) Dharampal Kalra has deposed
that on 07.06.2013 he was posted as Inspector/ATO at police station
Jaitpur and on that day, while he was on night patrolling duty and
during the patrolling, the Duty Officer had informed him that he had
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 52 of 87
received a call regarding a murder of a lady by her husband in the
area of Saurbh Vihar and in pursuance of the said call, he had
reached at the house in the O-Block, Saurabh Vihar where SI
Subhash had met him with staff who told him about the facts. It is
further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that the FIR
had been got recorded by that time and the rough site-plan was
prepared by SI Subhash Chand and had also sent the dead-body
before he had reached there. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector
Dharampal Kalra that SI Subhash had collected the exhibits from the
spot through seizure memo (Ex.PW12/B) and had obtained the
inspection report from the in-charge of Mobile Crime-Team and had
recorded the statements of witness under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is
further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that he had
also prepared the site map (Ex.PW12/C) of the place where the dead-
body was found at the instance of SI Subhash. It is further deposed
by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that on 07.06.2013, he had
arrested the accused Satender Pal in this case vide arrest memo
(Ex.PW21/A), his personal search was conducted vide memo
(Ex.PW21/B) and had also recorded his disclosure statement
(Ex.PW21/C). It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal
Kalra that nothing could be recovered in pursuance of his disclosure
statement and the accused was got medically examined and his blood
sample was given by doctor in sealed condition through constable
Vikas which he had seized through seizure memo (Ex.PW16/A) and
had recorded the statement of two persons who identified the dead-
body vide (Ex.PW21/D and Ex.PW4/A). It is further deposed by

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 53 of 87
PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that on 08.06.2013, the dead-body
was handed over to his legal heirs vide receipt (Ex.PW4/B) and had
seized the wearing bloodstained clothes of accused i.e. one t-shirt
and one lower through seizure memo (Ex.PW21/E) and sealed them
with the seal of ‘DPK’. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector
Dharampal Kalra that Mark E was given to the said parcel and he
had given request to the doctor for the opinion about the chunni vide
his request (Ex.PW21/F), thereafter, the investigation was assigned
to some other officer as he was transferred from there. PW21
Inspector Dharampal Kalra has correctly identified the accused
Satender in the Court and has also correctly identified t-shirt having
blue strips and cut marks (Ex.PX1) and one lower of grey and blue
colours also having cut marks (Ex.PX2) saying that these clothes
were seized by him and belonged to Satender Pal and at the time of
seizure, the same were having bloodstains but the places of blood-
stains have been cut by the FSL.

73. PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra has further deposed
that during investigation, he had served notice under section 91
Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW21/G) to the SHO Mahila police station District
Baghpat, U.P. to receive earlier complaint between the parties and
copy of their settlement arrived in Mahila police station District
Baghpat, U.P. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal
Kalra that in pursuance to his aforesaid notice, he had received
certified copies of relevant document that is complaint dated
29.01.2013 of victim Vimlesh (since deceased) (Ex.PW21/H) (2

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 54 of 87
pages), certified copies of compromise dated 24.02.2013 between
accused Satender Pal @ Mintu and his wife/victim Vimlesh
(Ex.PW21/1) (2 pages), and certified copy of report of enquiry
officer of Mahila Police Station Bhagpat UP, (Ex.PW21/J). It is
further deposed by PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that during
investigation, he had sent request to obtain PCR form of present case
regarding intimation dated 07.06.2013 at about 02.30 a.m.,
(Ex.PW21/K) and in pursuance of his requisition, he had received
PCR form (Ex.PW21/L). It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector
Dharampal Kalra that during investigation, he got sent request to
Addl. C.P. (PCR) Delhi Police through Addl. D.C.P. SED Delhi for
receiving voice recording of PCR call which was later forwarded to
police station Jaitpur and recorded vide DD No.7A dated 07.06.2013
at 02.30 a.m. (Ex.PW21/M) and in pursuance same during
investigation on 12.07.2013 Head Constable Mathew George, PCR
4th Floor PHQ Delhi had produced one CD regarding voice
recording of caller Inderpal R/o O-458/A, Saurabh Vihar, N.D. in
which he intimated that “caller ke ladke ne apni wife ko maar diya
hai” through his mobile number 9910128067. It is further deposed by
PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra that he had sealed the said CD in
white cloth pullanda and sealed with seal of ‘DPK’ and had seized
vide seizure memo (Ex.PW21/N). PW21 Inspector Dharampal Kalra
has correctly identified the CD as above stated CD (Ex.MO-X3)
received from PCR PHQ Delhi and the said CD was played and
conversation was heard which is of two persons that was one lady
and one male and the male voice was heard saying “Inderpal bol rha

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 55 of 87
hu, bete ne apni patni ko maar diya hai aur thane chala gya hai”. On
the request of learned Addl. PP for the State the CD (Ex.MO-X3)
was retained on the Juidical file.

74. PW22 Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma has deposed that
on 19.08.2013, the present case file was marked to him for further
investigation after the transfer of Inspector Dharampal Kalra,
thereafter, he had arrested the accused persons Inderpal and Anil vide
their arrest memos (Ex.PW22/A and Ex.PW22/B), their personal
searches were conducted vide memos (Ex.PW22/C and
Ex.PW22/D). It is further deposed by PW22 Inspector Vipin Kumar
Sharma that he had also recorded their disclosure statements
(Ex.PW22/E and Ex.PW22/F) and had also prepared pointing out
memo at their instance (Ex.PW22/G and Ex.PW22/H). It is further
deposed by PW22 Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma that he had
recorded the statement of witnesses, thereafter, he was transferred to
NFC and file was deposited with MHC(R) and the accused Amit was
correctly identified.

75. PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan has deposed that on 07.06.2013,
he had received five sealed pullandas out of which four pullandas
were duly sealed with the seal of ‘SC’ and one pullanda was sealed
with the seal of DPK along with 2 sample seal of AIIMS Hospital
New Delhi through SI Shubhash Chandra. It is further deposed by
PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that he had entered the same in the register
numer 19 with entry number 1059 (Ex.PW23/A). It is further
deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that on 12.06.2013, he had
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 56 of 87
received five sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of
Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS along with one sample
seal of AIIMS Hospital New Delhi through Inspector D.P Kalra. It is
further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that he had entered the
same in the register number 19 with entry number 1070
(Ex.PW23/B). It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that
on 12.07.2013, Inspector ATO police station Jaitpur handed over him
one pullanda duly sealed with the seal of DPK and he had entered the
same in the register number 19 with entry number 1124
(Ex.PW23/C). It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that
on 04.09.2013, Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma had handed over him
the articles recovered from the personal search of the accused Amit
and Inderpal and he had entered the same in the register number 19
with entry number 1272 (Ex.PW23/D). It is further deposed by
PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that on 10.07.2013, he had handed over
seven pullandas and 2 sample seal to Constable Makhan Lal vide
road certificate number 131/21/13 to deposit with FSL and after
depositing the case-property Constable Makhan Lal had handed over
to him the acknowledgment slip which he had entered into the
register number 19. PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan has brought the register
number 19 in which Sr. No.1059 pertaining to this case vide entries
(Ex.PW23/E and receipt Ex.PW23/F). It is further deposed by PW23
ASI Lalit Mohan that on 01.07.2014, he had received the result of
the FSL through Ct. Wasim and had handed over the same to
Inspector Ravinder Kumar. PW24 ASI Om Prakash has deposed that
on 07.06.2013, he was on patrolling duty and his duty hours were

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 57 of 87
from to 12.00 mid night to 05.00 a.m. and at about 02.45-03.00 a.m.,
he had met the accused Satender Pal at House No.0-458A, Saurav
Vihar and the accused told that he had killed his wife, in the
meanwhile, SI Subhash Nagar, Ct. Niranjan and Inspector D.P Kalra
had also reached there, thereafter, they had gone to the second floor
of the said house and had found that one lady was lying with the help
of railing and had found wound on her neck and broken bangles were
found on the floor. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan
that they had also found a bloodstained plastic patri lying on the
floor, thereafter, Inspector D.P Kalra had called crime-team officials
and crime-team official had come and had taken the photograph of
the spot. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan that SI
Shubhash had prepared tehrir and had handed over him for
registration of FIR, thereafter, he had gone to police station and got
the present case registered. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Lalit
Mohan that after registration of the case, he had come back to the
spot and had handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to the
investigating officer Inspector D.P Kalra, thereafter, the investigating
officer had arrested the accused Satender Pal vide arrest memo
(Ex.PW21/A) and conducted his personal search vide memo
(Ex.PW21/B) and the investigating officer had also recorded his
disclosure statement (Ex.PW21/C). It is further deposed by PW23
ASI Lalit Mohan that the investigating officer had also seized the
wearing clothes of the accused Satender Pal vide seizure memo
(Ex.PW21/E), thereafter, the investigating officer had recorded his
statement. PW23 ASI Lalit Mohan has correctly identified Satender.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 58 of 87

76. PW25 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, Professor and Addl.
Medical Superintendent, JPN APEX Trauma Center, AIIMS New
Delhi has deposed that he was working with JPN Apex Trauma
Center since 2006 and has seen the postmortem report of the
deceased Vimlesh (Ex.PW25/A) and has identified signatures of Dr.
Shashank Punia at Point ‘A’ on each page as he was his student and
he had seen him writing and signing.

77. PW26 WHC Seema has deposed that on 11.11.2013, she
had joined the investigation of the present case and had accompanied
the IO/Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar to Saket Court and on that
day, the accused Seema present in the Court and the accused Omwati
(since died) had surrendered before the concerned Court. It is further
deposed by PW26 WHC Seema that the investigating officer, after
taking permission from the Court had interrogated and arrested them
in her presence vide arrest memo of the accused Seema
(Ex.PW26/A) and the arrest memo of the accused Omwati
(Ex.PW26/B) and their personal search was also conducted vide
memo (Ex.PW26/C & PW26/D). It is further deposed by PW26
WHC Seema that she had also recorded their disclosure statement
vide disclosure statement of the accused Omwati (Ex.PW26/E) and
te accused Seema (Ex.PW26/F).

78. PW27 Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar has deposed
that on 11.11.2013, the present case was assigned to him for further
investigation and pursuant to the information received from the
Court of learned ASJ where the trial of the present case was pending,
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 59 of 87
regarding surrender of the accused persons Omwati and Seema
before the Court, he along with W/Constable Versha and
W/Constable Seema had reached the said Court and after taking
permission from the Court, he had interrogated both the said accused
persons and arrested them vide arrest memo of the accused Seema
(Ex.PW26/A) and her personal search was also conducted vide
memo (Ex.PW26/C). It is further deposed by PW27 Inspector
Ravinder Kumar Tomar has deposed that the arrest memo of the
accused Omwati (Ex.PW26/B), her personal search was also
conducted vide memo (Ex.PW26/D) and he also recorded disclosure
statement of both the said accused persons vide memo of the accused
Seema (Ex.PW26/F) and the disclosure statement of the accused
Omwati (Ex.PW26/E). It is further deposed by PW27 Inspector
Ravinder Kumar Tomar that he had recorded the statement of the
witnesses who had been associated with him in the said proceedings
and prepared the supplementary charge-sheet qua the said
proceedings and submitted the same before the said Court.

79. It is further deposed by PW27 Inspector Ravinder
Kumar Tomar that on 08.01.2015, he had also submitted the FSL
report of biology division (Ex.PW27/A) (running into two pages)
vide his application (Ex.PW27/B) and he tendered the same in
evidence. PW27 Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar has correctly
identified the accused Seema in the Court and the accused Omwati
has died.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 60 of 87

80. It is also important to note here that during prosecution
evidence, on 01.10.2024, the accused Satender Pal Singh, Amit and
Seema had made joint statement under section 294 Cr.P.C., which is
reproduced as under:-

“We have consulted with our lawyer. We are not
disputing the genuineness of the document i.e.
FSL No.2013/B-5682 ΒΙΟ No.757/13 dated
22.05.14, which is already Ex.PW27/A.”

81. The above-mentioned document will be read in evidence
as per Section 294 Cr.P.C.

82. In the light of the charge framed against the accused
persons and the arguments advanced before the Court, following are
the points for determination:

1) Whether the accused persons have caused death of the
deceased Vimlesh by strangulating by means of chunni, with
the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
death of the person to whom harm is caused., or with the
intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death., or with the knowledge that
the fact is so imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 61 of 87

2) Whether the accused persons have acted in concert.

DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

83. On these points, to prove the commission of offence, the
testimonies of PW3 Kisan Singh, PW4 Virender Singh, PW8 Padam
Singh, PW9 Balinder Singh, PW10 Suresh, PW11 Ct. Niranjan and
PW12 SI Subhash, PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra and PW24 ASI Om
Prakash are relevant.

84. In the present case, the criminal justice system was set
into motion on receiving of an information which was recorded vide
DD No.7A at the police station Jaitpur. PW5 ASI Joginder Singh,
who was working as the Duty Officer of the police station on the
date of incident, has proved the DD No.7A (Ex.PW5/A). As per the
testimonies of PW5 ASI Joginder Singh, on the said date, an
information to the effect that the caller’s son had killed his wife at
House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, New Delhi, was received
on wireless set and he had reduced the said information in his own
handwriting in roznamcha as DD No.7A.

85. As per the testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, on
receiving a DD No.7A regarding murder of a woman by her husband
in the intervening night of 06/07.06.2013, he along with Ct. Niranjan

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 62 of 87
had reached the spot i.e. House No. O-458A, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur,
New Delhi, where, he had found a dead-body of a woman was lying
in the balcony of the second floor of the said premises; the injury
marks on her face and neck were visible; a small plastic stool of sky
blue colour was also lying over there, having bloodstains on it;
pieces of broken bangles were also scattered; one hair-clip was lying
on the ground; the right fist of the deceased was having hair.

86. It is also in the evidence of PW12 SI Subhash Chand
that he had informed the senior officers and Inspector D.P. Kalra
along with the staff had come at the spot.

87. The above-said testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash have
been duly corroborated by PW11 Ct. Niranjan, who had
accompanied SI Subhash to the spot of incident on receiving of the
DD No.7A.

88. PW21 Inspector Dharam Pal Kalra is the first
investigating officer of the present case and as per his testimonies, on
the relevant night during night patrolling duty, he had received
information from the Duty Officer about the receiving of a call
regarding a murder of a lady by her husband in the area of Saurabh
Vihar, so he had reached at the spot and met SI Subhash and other
staff, who had briefed about the facts to him.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 63 of 87

89. Regarding registration of FIR, testimonies of PW5 ASI
Joginder Singh, PW12 SI Subhash, PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra and
PW24 ASI Om Prakash are relevant.

90. As per the testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, PW21
Inspector D.P. Kalra and PW24 ASI Om Prakash, PW12 SI Subhash
Chand had made endorsement (Ex.PW12/A) on DD No.7A at point
‘A’, prepared the rukka and handed over it to HC Om Prakash for
registration of FIR, who had gone to the police station and got the
FIR registered.

91. PW24 ASI Om Prakash (the then HC) has corroborated
the testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash Chand and as per his
testimonies, he had gone to the police station, got the FIR registered
and after registration of FIR, he had come back to the spot and
handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to the investigating
officer Inspector D.P. Kalra.

92. PW5 ASI Joginder Singh, who was working as Duty
Officer at the police station Jaitpur on 07.06.2013, has proved that he
had made endorsement (Ex.PW5/C) on the rukka and got the FIR
(Ex.PW5/B) registered. It is also in the evidence of PW5 ASI
Joginder Singh that he had made an entry in the roznamcha at DD
No.10A while he had started recording the FIR and also made an
entry at DD No.11A when the said FIR was summed up. PW5 ASI
Joginder Singh has proved both the DDs No.10A and 10B as
(Ex.PW5/D colly.) and he had also forwarded the photocopies of the

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 64 of 87
FIR to the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate and the senior police officers
through Ct. Nemi Chand.

93. From the testimonies of PW5 ASI Joginder Singh,
PW12 SI Subhash, PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra and PW24 ASI Om
Prakash, the prosecution has been successful in proving the
registration of FIR against the accused persons. During the cross-
examination of prosecution witnesses and in the course of arguments,
the registration of FIR against the accused persons have not been
disputed by the defence counsel. No delay in the registration of FIR
has been pointed out by the defence.

94. To prove the commission of offence, the prosecution has
examined PW3 Kisan Singh, the father of the deceased and as per his
testimonies, he had nine children i.e. five sons and four daughters
including the deceased Vimlesh, who was married to the accused
Satender about eight/nine years back. It is also in the evidence of
PW3 Kisan Singh that they were vegetarians whereas the accused
persons were non-vegetarian but after the marriage of his daughter
Vimlesh with the accused Satender, the accused persons used to
compel her to cook meat and fish for them and on refusal by her, the
accused persons used to quarrel, harass and beat her. It is also in the
evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that whenever the accused persons
used to beat her and misbehave with her, she used to come back to
his place and initially, his daughter was sent back to her matrimonial
home by Panchayat/respectable members of the society in the village
but the beatings and harassment on the part of the accused persons
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 65 of 87
continued, so she was again brought to her parental home. It is also
in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that they had reported the
matter to Baghpat police and the matter was again pacified in the
presence of the police and his daughter was again sent to her
matrimonial home. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh
that the accused persons had treated his daughter well for about 15-
20 days and thereafter, they had again started harassing and beating
her. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that his daughter
used to tell that the accused Inderpal (father-in-law) used to abuse
her and rest of the accused persons i.e. Satender and all other accused
persons present in the Court used to beat her. It is also in the
evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that about one year back at about
04:00 a.m., the police had initially informed them that his daughter
was seriously ill but when they inquired from them, one of the
officials had informed them on phone that his daughter Vimlesh has
already died and that she has been shifted to the mortuary for
postmortem. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that they
had come to Delhi and had reached at the house of the accused
persons and the house of the accused persons was locked, however,
the neighbours present there had told them that the previous night at
about 09:00/10:00 p.m. when there was no light, they heard the
quarrel from the house of the accused persons as the accused persons
were beating her and by that time, the deceased Vimlesh had come
out on the road from the house of the accused persons but the
accused persons had dragged her back inside their house. It is also in
the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that the neighbours had also told

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 66 of 87
them that after the accused persons had dragged her inside the house,
they again heard the screamings (hai-hulla) once as the accused
persons were still beating her and then there was complete calm. It is
also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that the neighbours had
also told them that the accused persons had shown the
tamancha/pistol from the terrace and had intimidated the neighbours
not to become witness of the incident otherwise, the witness would
also be eliminated. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Kisan Singh that
they had also visited the police station as well as the hospital where
postmortem was conducted and the police had recorded his statement
to this effect and the accused persons were correctly identified by the
witness.

95. PW4 Virender Singh is the brother of the deceased and
he has corroborated the testimonies of PW2 Kisan Singh regarding
marriage of the deceased, harassment of the deceased by the accused
persons for not cooking meat for them, the beatings given by the
accused persons to the deceased and the information given by the
police to them after death of the deceased. Apart from the above, it is
in the evidence of PW4 Virender Singh that in the month of January
2013, one of their neighbours, namely, Sunil had informed them that
he had seen the accused persons and his sister in a vehicle in
Baghpat, U.P. and he had seen that his sister was mercilessly beaten
in the said vehicle. Similarly, PW8 Padam Singh, PW9 Balinder
Singh, both brothers of the deceased and PW10 Suresh Kumar,

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 67 of 87
brother-in-law of the deceased have also corroborated the testimonies
of PW3 Kishan Singh.

96. As noted-above, the information regarding the offence
was given to the police station Jaitpur and it was recorded vide DD
No.7A, duly proved by PW5 ASI Joginder Singh. A perusal of DD
No.7A (Ex.PW5/A) reveals that this DD was recorded at the police
station Jaitpur on the information given by wireless operator through
wireless at 02:30 in the night, whereby the caller had informed that
his son has killed his wife and the said DD was assigned to SI
Subhash Chand for necessary action, who along with Ct. Niranjan
Singh had departed to the spot of incident and the said information
was also given to the Additional SHO through telephone, who was
on night patrolling.

97. The call received in the police control room regarding
the incident has been proved by PW15 W/HC Geeta. As per the
testimonies of PW15 W/HC Geeta, on 07.06.2013, she had been
working as wireless operator in the control room of police head
quarter and on that day, at about 02.30 a.m., call was received in the
police control room that son of caller had killed his wife and she had
reduced said information into writing vide PCR Form (Ex.PW15/A).
During her cross-examination, a question was put to her by the
learned defence counsel which she admitted to be correct that in the
police control room, more than 100 people used to be present to
receive the calls at the system of receiving the call in the police
control room remains under the control of several persons.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 68 of 87

98. During the course of arguments, it is argued by learned
defence counsel that the prosecution should have obtained voice
sample of father of the accused Satender in order to prove that the
said call was made by him and it should have been got examined by
a forensic expert with the recording of PCR call. The argument
addressed by learned defence counsel on these points seems to be
misplaced. As noted above the present case initiated on receiving a
call in the police head quarter whereby the caller had informed that
his son had killed his wife. The call has been duly proved by PW15
Women HC Geeta who has brought the PCR call. Pursuant to receipt
of call in the police head quarter, its information was given to the
police station concerned which was reduced into writing vide DD
No.7A (Ex.PW5/A) and the said DD was handed over to PW12 SI
Subhash who reached at the spot along with PW11 Ct. Niranjan and
as noted above, both of them found the dead-body of the deceased in
the condition hereinabove explained by them.

99. As I have already observed that the above testimonies of
PW11 Ct. Niranjan and PW12 SI Subhash duly corroborated by
PW24 ASI Om Prakash who was on patrolling duty and met the
accused Satender Pat at his house and the accused had told him that
he had killed his wife.

100. Even otherwise, there is presumption under the law that
the official acts are performed regularly.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 69 of 87

101. In view of the above, the argument addressed by learned
defence counsel seems to be without any substance and it has been
duly proved that on 07.06.2013 at about 02.30 a.m., a caller had
informed the police control room that his son had killed his wife.

102. For proving the identity of the deceased/dead-body, as
per the testimonies of PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra, he had recorded
the statement of two persons who had identified the dead-body vide
(Ex.PW21/D and Ex.PW4/A). As per the testimonies of PW4
Virender Singh, brother of the deceased, he had identified the dead-
body of his sister Vimlesh in the hospital vide dead-body
identification memo (Ex.PW4/A) bearing his signature at Point ‘A’
and after the postmortem, the dead-body of his sister was handed
over to them vide dead-body handing over memo (Ex.PW4/B). In
view of the testimonies of PW4 Virender Singh, the identity of the
dead-body of the deceased is duly proved.

103. As per the testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, he had got
the dead-body of the deceased preserved at AIIMS mortuary vide his
request letter (Ex.PW12/D). It is also in the evidence of PW12 SI
Subhash that he had filled up Form No.25,35(1)(b) (Ex.PW12/D1)
and had made a request (Ex.PW12/E) to get the postmortem
conducted at AIIMS mortuary and also made a request (Ex.PW12/F)
to the CMO AIIMS mortuary for removing the ornaments of the
deceased and the postmortem was got conducted.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 70 of 87

104. Regarding preparation of scaled site-plan (Ex.PW13/A)
of the place of incident, it is in the evidence of PW13 Inspector
Mahesh Kumar that on 15.06.2013, on the request of Inspector
Dharam Pal Kalra, the investigating officer, he had reached at police
station Jaitpur and from there, he along with Inspector Dharam Pal
Kalra and SI Subhash Chand had reached at the spot i.e. House No.
O-458A, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, New Delhi and had taken
measurements and prepared rough notes and on the basis of rough
notes and measurements, he had prepared scaled site-plan
(Ex.PW13/A) and handed over it to the investigating officer.

105. For proving the injury on the body of the deceased,
testimonies of PW18 Ms. Anju Dixit, MRT and PW19 Dr. Abhineeth
K.P. are relevant.

106. PW18 Ms. Anju Dixit, MRT, AIIMS Hospital has
identified the signature of Dr. Pranay Chobey on the MLC bearing
No.5514/13 dated 07.06.2013 (Ex.PW18/A) of the patient Vimlesh
prepared by Dr. Pranay Chobey. It is in the evidence of PW19 Dr.
Abhineeth K.P., Senior Resident (Surgery) AIIMS that as per the
MLC (Ex.PW18/A) of the patient Vimlesh, the patient was brought
‘dead’ to the casualty department with the alleged history of
strangulation by her husband. It is also in the evidence of PW19 Dr.
Abhineeth K.P. that as per MLC, rigormortis was present, pupils
were fixed and dilated and B.P. and Pulse not recordable; the body
was received with the cloth used for strangulation found tied around
the neck.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 71 of 87

107. A perusal of MLC (Ex.PW18/A) of the deceased reveals
that the following opinion was given on the said MLC of the
deceased:

“Cloth used for strangulation found tied around the neck.
Injury present on right eyebrow suggestive of assault so,
when patient brought to AIIMS, no signs of life present
and rigormortis present. So, patient declared brought dead
and sent to mortuary for preservation.”

108. The postmortem report (Ex.PW25/A) has been proved
by PW25 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, Professor and Additional Medical
Superintendent, JPNATC, AIIMS. As per the testimonies of PW25
Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, he has identified the signatures of Dr. Shashank
Punia at point A on the postmortem report (Ex.PW25/A) as he had
seen him writing and signing being his student.

109. A perusal of postmortem report (Ex.PW25/A) reveals
that following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:

Ligature mark: A discontinuous reddish brown colour
ligature mark is running horizontally, present in front and
lateral sides of neck. It is 14 cm in length. It is extending
upto 5 cm to the risht side of neck from midline and 9 cm
to the left side of neck from midline, It is 6 cm below chin
and 5 cm above suprasternal notch. It is 7 cm below right
mastoid tip and 6 cm below left mastoid tip. Ligature mark
is not apparent on sides and postrio-lateral aspect of the
neck. Width of ligature mark is 2.5 cm in front, in midline
of neck. Width of ligature mark is varying between 1 cm
and 4 cm. On dissection, hematoma is present in
underlying subcutaneous tissue and musculature.
Thyrohyoid complex is intact. Tracheal mucosa is
congested.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 72 of 87

2). Two oval reddish brown colour contused abrasions of
size 0.5 x 0.7 cm and one oval reddish brown colour
contused abrasion of size 1 x 0.5 cm are present over right
lateral side of neck.

3). A reddish brown colour contused abrasion of size 2 x 1
cm is present over right eyebrow.

110. PW12 SI Subhash has proved the fact that he had got
conducted the postmortem of the deceased Vimlesh and also
collected the postmortem report.

111. In the light of testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, it is
proved that postmortem of dead-body of the deceased was got
conducted by him from AIIMS hospital and it was conducted by Dr.
Shashank Punia, who had opined that the cause of death in this case
is asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. Strangulation in this ccase
could be possible from the chunni (alleged ligature material) present
in the neck of deceased. Uterus contained gestational sac with a non
viable foetus (sex indistinguishable) of gestational age about 2 to 3
months.

112. Regarding recovery and identification of weapon of
offence i.e. chunni, the testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash and PW21
Inspector D.P. Kalra are relevant.

113. It is in the evidence of PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra that
SI Subhash had collected the exhibits from the spot vide seizure
memo (Ex.PW12/B). PW12 SI Subhash has also duly corroborated
the fact that he had collected the exhibits vide seizure memo

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 73 of 87
(Ex.PW12/B). As per the testimonies of PW11 Ct. Niranjan, after
postmortem, the doctor prepared some pullandas and sealed the same
vide memo (Ex.PW11/A) and he has identified his signatures at point
A and after sealing the pullandas, sample seal was handed over to
him. As per the seizure memo (Ex.PW11/A), the ligature material i.e.
chunni along with other articles was seized by the investigating
officer.

114. PW12 SI Subhash has also proved recovery of case
properties i.e. one small plastic stool of sky blue colour
(Ex.PW12/P1), broken pieces of bangles (Ex.PW12/P2) of the
deceased, some hair of the deceased (Ex.PW12/P3) and hair-clip
(Ex.PW12/P4).

115. From the testimonies of PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra,
PW22 Inspector Vipin Kumar and PW26 W/HC Seema, the arrest
and identification of the accused persons have been duly proved.

116. It is important to note here that an application
(Ex.PW12/E) was made by SI Subhash Chand to the Head,
Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS, New
Delhi for conducting the postmortem examination of dead-body on
08.06.2013, whereby a short summary of the case was mentioned by
him. The short summary of the case mentioned in application
(Ex.PW12/E) is reproduced as follows: –

In the night of 06/7.06.2013 at about 2:30 a.m. there
was a PCR call vide DD No.7A about killing of a

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 74 of 87
woman by her husband. After reaching on the spot,
Bimlesh w/o Satender Pal, R/o O-458A Saurabh Vihar,
Jaitpur, New Delhi age 35 years reportedly found
murdered by her husband Satender Pal by strangulation
with the help of a chunni. After enquiry, dead body was
deposited at AIIMS mortuary and a case FIR No.
204/13 Dated 7/6/2013 u/s 302 IPC has been registered
against the accused Satender Pal. The Postmortem of
dead body may be conducted. MLC No. 5514/13
refers.

117. In the light of short summary given in Ex.PW12/E also,
the involvement of the accused Satender Pal @ Mintu in the
commission of offence has been mentioned.

118. It is important to note here that there is no eye-witness
of the crime committed in the present case.

119. The prosecution has examined two neighbours, namely,
PW1 Anuj Negi and PW2 Dinesh Kashyap to be the eyewitnesses of
the incident, however, both those witnesses have turned hostile and
did not support the case of the prosecution during trial, except that
PW1 Anuj Negi had driven the vehicle containing the dead-body to
the hospital and that PW2 Dinesh Kashyap had come to know about
the death of the deceased Vimlesh.

120. During the cross-examination of PW2 Dinesh Kashyap,
immediate neighbour of the accused persons, certain questions were
put to him by the defence counsel in his cross-examination and his
testimonies made during cross-examination are noteworthy and
reproduced as under :

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 75 of 87

“It is correct that the house in which the accused persons
reside is a three storey building. It is correct that accused
Inder alongwith his wife stays at the ground floor, accused
Seema alongwith her husband stays at the first floor
whereas accused Satender Pal along with Vimlesh were
staying at the second floor.”

121. In the light of cross-examination of PW2 Dinesh
Kashyap, it has been asserted on behalf of the accused persons that
the accused Satender Pal along with the deceased Vimlesh was
staying at the second floor of the house of the accused persons and
the witness has admitted it to be correct.

122. From the above cross-examination of PW2 Dinesh
Kashyap, it has been on behalf of the accused persons, hence, proved
that the accused Satender Pal was staying at the second floor of their
house along with the deceased Vimlesh.

123. Since, there is no eyewitness of the crime committed in
the present case, therefore, the theory of last seen together shall also
apply here and the accused is expected to offer some explanation as
to when and under what circumstances the death of the deceased
Vimlesh (wife of the accused Satender Pal) has occurred.

124. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Gopal v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120 has analysed various
judgments on last seen theory and held as follows:

6. It may be noted that once the theory of “last seen
together” was established by the prosecution, the accused
was expected to offer some explanation as to when and
under what circumstances he had parted the company of

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 76 of 87
the deceased. It is true that the burden to prove the guilt
of the accused is always on the prosecution, however in
view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact
is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him. Of course, Section 106 is
certainly not intended to relieve the prosecution of its
duty to prove the guilt of the accused, nonetheless it is
also equally settled legal position that if the accused does
not throw any light upon the facts which are proved to be
within his special knowledge, in view of Section 106 of
the Evidence Act, such failure on the part of the accused
may be used against the accused as it may provide an
additional link in the chain of circumstances required to
be proved against him. In the case based on
circumstantial evidence, furnishing or non-furnishing of
the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial
fact, when the theory of “last seen together” as
propounded by the prosecution was proved against him.

In case of Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi), it
was observed as under:

“12.2.4. Having observed so, it is crucial to note that the
reasonableness of the explanation offered by the accused as
to how and when he/she parted company with the deceased
has a bearing on the effect of the last seen in a case,
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the
burden of proof for any fact that is especially within the
knowledge of a person lies upon such person. Thus, if a
person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an
explanation as to how and when he parted company with
the deceased. In other words, he must furnish an
explanation that appears to the court to be probable and
satisfactory, and if he fails to offer such an explanation on
the basis of facts within his special knowledge, the burden
cast upon him under Section 106 is not discharged.
Particularly in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, if
the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in
discharge of the burden placed on him, such failure by
itself can provide an additional link in the chain of
circumstances proved against him. This, however, does not
mean that Section 106 shifts the burden of proof of a
criminal trial on the accused. Such burden always rests on
the prosecution. Section 106 only lays down the rule that
when the accused does not throw any light upon facts

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 77 of 87
which are specially within his/her knowledge and which
cannot support any theory or hypothesis compatible with
his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce
an explanation as an additional link which completes the
chain of incriminating circumstances.”

In Satpal Vs. State of Haryana, this Court
observed as under: –

“6. We have considered the respective submissions and the
evidence on record. There is no eyewitness to the
occurrence but only circumstances coupled with the fact of
the deceased having been last seen with the appellant.
Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial
precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic
principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of
circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be a weak
kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the
same singularly. But when it is coupled with other
circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last
seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being
in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an
explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with
regard to the circumstances under which death may have
taken place. If the accused offers no explanation, or
furnishes- a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is
established, and there is corroborative evidence available
inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a
chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for
guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible
hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the
same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of
circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Each case will therefore have to be examined on its own
facts for invocation of the doctrine.”

In view of the afore-stated legal position, it is discernible
that though the last seen theory in a case based on
circumstantial evidence may be a weak kind of evidence by
itself to base conviction solely on such theory, when the
said theory is proved coupled with other circumstances such
as the time when the deceased was last seen with the
accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close
proximity of time, the accused does owe an explanation
with regard to the circumstances under which death might

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 78 of 87
have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation or
furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is
established and some other corroborative evidence in the
form of recovery of weapon etc. forming a chain of
circumstances is established, the conviction could be based
on such evidence.

125. As noted above, pursuant to the receipt of DD No.7A
(Ex.PW5/A), PW12 SI Subhash along with PW11 Ct. Niranjan had
first reached the spot of incident. PW12 SI Subhash has explained
the scene of crime as he had noticed after reaching there, which is at
the cost of repetition, reproduced as follows:

“At around 02:30 a.m., I received DD No.7A regarding
murder of a woman by her husband at O-458A, Saurabh
Vihar, Jaitpur. After receiving the same, I along with the
Constable Niranjan reached at the spot. I found a dead-
body of a woman lying in the balcony on the second floor
of the abovesaid premises. The injury marks on her face
and neck were visible. A small plastic stool of sky blue
colour was also lying over there having bloodstains on it.
Pieces of broken bangles were also scattered. One hair clip
was lying on the floor. The right fist of the deceased was
having hairs.”

126. The above testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash regarding
the scene of crime and the injury marks on the person of the
deceased, have been duly corroborated by PW11 Ct. Niranjan who
had accompanied PW12 SI Subhash to the spot of incident when the
DD No.7A (Ex.PW5/A) was assigned to the SI for necessary action
and both of them reached at the spot of incident and noticed the
crime scene.

127. Regarding the scene of crime, the testimonies of PW24
ASI Om Prakash also are of much importance. As per the testimonies

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 79 of 87
of PW24 ASI Om Prakash, on 07.06.2013, he was on patrolling duty
and at about 02:45-03:00 a.m., he had met the accused Satender Pal
at House O-458A, Saurabh Vihar, who told him that he had killed his
wife and in the meantime, SI Subhash, Ct. Niranjan and Inspector
D.P. Kalra had also reached there and they went to the second floor
of the house. PW24 ASI Om Prakash has also duly corroborated the
testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash and PW11 Ct. Niranjan about the
circumstances of the scene of crime.

128. PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra is the first investigating
officer of the present case and as per his testimonies, on 07.06.2013,
during night patrolling, he was informed of the call regarding a
murder of a lady by her husband and pursuant to the said call, he had
reached the spot.

129. As per the testimonies of PW21 Inspector Dharam Pal
Kalra, PW12 SI Subhash and PW11 Ct. Niranjan, the crime-team
was also called at the spot and the crime-team conducted inspection
of the spot and took photographs of the spot.

130. The testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, PW11 Ct.

Niranjan, PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra and PW24 ASI Om Prakash
regarding the condition of scene of crime and inspection of the
crime-team have been duly corroborated by PW7 ASI Sajjan Kumar
and PW6 Ct. Ashwani, who were posted in the crime-team at the
relevant time and they were called at the spot. It is in the evidence of
PW7 ASI Sajjan Kumar that on 07.06.2013, he along with

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 80 of 87
photographer Ct. Ashwani and fingerprint proficient Head Constable
Kirti Kumar had reached the spot, he met Inspector D.P. Kalra there
and he had inspected the spot and got the photographs of the spot
clicked from different angles, however, no fingerprints could be
lifted from the spot. It is also in the evidence of PW7 ASI Sajjan
Kumar that his detailed report was exhibited as (Ex.PW7/A).

131. The testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, PW11 Ct.

Niranjan, PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra, PW24 ASI Om Prakash and
PW7 ASI Sajjan Kumar regarding the inspection of scene of crime
by the crime-team have also been corroborated by PW6 Ct. Ashwani,
who had accompanied the crime-team in-charge, PW7 ASI Sajjan
Kumar and had clicked photographs of the spot of incident and
handed over the negatives (Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A7) of the same
to the investigating officer. PW6 Ct. Ashwani has also proved the
photographs (Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7).

132. During the course of arguments, the main defence taken
by learned defence counsel is that this is a case of suicide and not
homicide as the deceased was suffering from mental illness and
earlier also, she had tried to commit suicide.

133. It is important to note here that there is no evidence led
on behalf of the defence that earlier also the deceased had ever tried
to commit suicide, therefore, such contention is not acceptable as not
proved.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 81 of 87

134. In order to decide whether the death of the deceased was
suicide or homicide, the testimonies of the police witnesses, who had
first reached at the spot and noticed the scene of incident are of much
importance.

135. I have already observed above that PW12 SI Subhash,
PW11 Ct. Niranjan and PW24 ASI Om Prakash have first reached at
the spot on receiving of information regarding killing of a deceased
by her husband. It is in the evidence of PW12 SI Subhash, PW11 Ct.
Niranjan and PW24 ASI Om Prakash that when they had reached at
the spot, they had noticed a dead-body of the deceased was lying in
the balcony on the second floor of the above-said premises and there
were visible injury marks on her face and neck. A small plastic stool
of sky blue colour, as per their testimonies, was also lying there
which was bloodstained and the pieces of broken bangles were also
scattered; one hair-clip was also lying on the floor and the right hand
fist was having hairs. The crime-team has also reached the spot,
inspected the spot of incident and clicked the photographs of the spot
of incident/the deceased.

136. From the testimonies of PW12 SI Subhash, PW11 Ct.
Niranjan and PW24 ASI Om Prakash and the photographs
(Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7) of the dead-body, it clearly appears that
there were signs of resistance at the scene of crime as broken pieces
of bangles were scattered near the dead-body which goes to suggest
that there was some struggle. Such struggle is also corroborated by
the fact that the dead-body of the deceased, as per the testimonies of
FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 82 of 87
PW12 SI Subhash, PW11 Ct. Niranjan and PW24 ASI Om Prakash,
were having apparent injury marks, which fact is also corroborated
by the photographs (Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7). A perusal of
photographs (Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B7) of the deceased also shows
that the ligature mark on her neck is atypical kind of mark which is
not suggestive of suicidal hanging but it is more suggestive of a
homicidal strangulation, which is also corroborated by the cause of
death as mentioned in the postmortem report (Ex.PW25/A).

137. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been
brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above
prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by
either of them and PW12 SI Subhash, PW11 Ct. Niranjan and PW24
ASI Om Prakash have not been cross-examined by the defence on
the point of their explaining the scene of crime and their testimonies
have remained consistent to indicate towards the commission of
offence by strangulation and causing injuries sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature on the body of the deceased,
inflicted on the person of the deceased.

138. For proving that there were strained relationship
between the deceased and her husband/accused Satender Pal the
prosecution has examined PW17 SI Manohar Lal from police station
Mahila Thana, District Baghpat, U.P. and a complaint (Ex.PW17/A)
filed by the deceased has been proved him, according to which, the
matter was later settled between the parties. The record of such

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 83 of 87
complaint, as per the testimony of PW21 Inspector D.P. Kalra, was
obtained by him by issuing a notice under section 91 Cr.P.C.

139. From the above evidence led on behalf of the
prosecution which has been discussed herein above, the prosecution
has been successful in proving that the accused had strained
relationship with his wife Vimlesh, the deceased. There is no denial
to the fact that on the date of incident, the accused Satender Pal was
present with the deceased on the floor where they were living
together. The death of the deceased has been proved to be homicidal.
The weapon of the offence i.e. chunni has been recovered and it has
been proved the injury found on the person of the deceased could be
caused by that chunni. In these circumstances, the accused Satender
Pal owes an explanation but he has failed to do so and in his
statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., he has simply stated that this is
a case of suicide, which in the light of evidence produced by the
prosecution and the photographs of the scene of crime is not
plausible and is unacceptable.

140. There is another important circumstance which goes to
indicate towards guilt of the accused Satender Pal is his conduct. As
noted above, the information about killing of the deceased by the
accused Satednder Pal was given by his father. It has been
established that the death of the deceased was homicidal. However,
the accused has tried to mislead by pleading that the death of the
deceased was suicidal.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 84 of 87

141. Besides the accused Satender Pal, husband of the
deceased, the charge under section 302 read with section 34 IPC has
also been framed against the accused persons Inderpal (father-in-
law), Omwati (mother-in-law), Seema (sister-in-law) and Amit
(brother-in-law) of the deceased.

142. Proceedings against the accused persons, namely,
Inderpal and Omwati have been abated as they have died during trial.

143. Now, the question before the Court is whether all the
accused persons have acted in concert with the accused Satender Pal
in the commission of the offence.

144. As per the prosecution story, one Sonu has seen the
accused persons giving beatings to the deceased in a vehicle but the
prosecution has not examined such person who had witnessed such
beatings. As per the prosecution evidence, brother of the deceased
had also sustained severe head injuries but this fact is also not proved
by leading cogent evidence.

145. There is no cogent evidence against the accused persons
Seema and Amit as two neighbours, namely, PW1 Anuj Negi and
PW2 Dinesh Kashyap claimed to be the eyewitnesses of the incident
have turned hostile, therefore, it would not be safe to convict the
accused persons, namely, Seema and Amit for the offence they have
been charged with. As per the cross-examination of the house in
which the accused persons reside is a three storey building and the

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 85 of 87
accused Inder along with his wife stayed at the ground floor and the
accused Seema along with her husband stayed at the first floor,
whereas, the accused Satender Pal along with Vimlesh were staying
at the second floor at the relevant time.

146. In the light of evidence produced on behalf of the
prosecution and the discussion above-stated, the prosecution has
been successful in proving that (i) on the date of incident, the
accused Satender Pal was present with the deceased on the floor on
the date and at the time of the incident, ( ii) the dead-body of the
deceased was found at the place where both of them were living
together (iii) the death of the deceased has been proved to be
homicidal, (iv) the ligature material i.e. chunni was recovered from
the spot and it has been proved that it could cause the death by
strangulation which is also corroborated by the medical evidence.

147. In these circumstances, as observed above, the accused
Satender Pal owes an explanation but he has failed to give any
plausible explanation and has not thrown light on the circumstances
under which death of the deceased had occurred rather the accused
has tried to mislead the Court.

148. Further, the accused Satender Pal has not been able to
spell out any plausible reason for his false implication.

149. Furthermore, the accused Satender Pal @ Mintu has not
tendered any reasonable explanation of his conduct.

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 86 of 87

150. The accused Satender Pal has not led any evidence in
his defence.

151. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge under section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code against the accused Satender Pal, so the
accused Satender Pal is found guilty of having committed the said
offence and hence, he is convicted of offence punishable under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

152. Further, giving benefit of doubt, the accused persons,
Seema and Amit are hereby acquitted of the offence they have been
charged.

153. Let the convict Satender Pal be heard on the question of
sentence. Digitally
signed by
RAKESH
RAKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:

2025.06.05
18:13:59
+0530

Pronounced in the open Court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR)
rd
on 05 June, 2025. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02,
South-East, Saket Court Complex
05.06.2025

FIR no.204/2013 PS Jaitpur State v. Satender Pal Singh & Anr. Page 87 of 87