Delhi District Court
State vs Babita Etc on 10 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. AMBIKA SINGH
ASJ-02: WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT : DELHI
CNR No. : DLWT01-001172-2014
SC No. : 57029/2016
FIR No. : 871/2014
P.S : Uttam Nagar
Date of commission of offence : 05.08.2014
Name of complainant : Santosh Kumari
Name of accused/es. : Babita W/o Suresh
Suresh W/o Late Sh. Naresh
Meena S/o Sh. Raghubir
Offence complained of : 302/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not Guilty.
Arguments heard/order reserved : 07.01.2025
Final order : Accused Babita, Meena and Suresh
convicted for the offence u/s 302/34
IPC
Date of such order : 10.01.2025
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE
1. This is the prosecution of accused persons namely Babita, Meena
and Suresh pursuant to chargesheet filed by police station Uttam Nagar
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 1 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
Digitally
signed by
AMBIKA
AMBIKA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.01.14
16:12:48
+0530
u/s 302/34 IPC susbsequent to the investigation carried by by them in FIR
No.871/2014.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.08.2014, accused Babita,
Meena & Suresh committed murder of husband of Meena namely Naresh
Kumar by hitting him with dandas, stone and iron rod along with accused
Pradeep (Trial Seperated). On completion of investigation, charge sheet
was filed against accused Babita, Meena and Suresh. After compliance of
section 207 CrPC, the present case was committed to present court of
Sessions on 12.11.2014. The chargsheet against the accused Pradeep was
filed on 10.03.2015.
3. On 05.12.2014, charge u/s 302/34 IPC was framed against the
accused Babita, Meena, Suresh to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. In the meanwhile, co-accused Pradeep was apprehended
and supplementary chargesheet against him was filed on 10.03.2015
offence u/s 302/34 IPC and 174A IPC and charge was framed on
03.10.2016 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is
pertinent to mention here that the trail against him has been seperated.
4. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined 25 witnesses and the
brief of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined during trial
are as under:
5. PW1/SI Ram Kumar, No. 3380/D, PCR West Zone, Delhi deposed
that on 05.08.2014, he was posted as Incharge PCR Van Power 49. On
that day at 9.37 AM, he received a call from the control Room regarding a
quarrel at H. NO. 408A, Shiv Vihar, JJ Colony, Near Mother Dairy.
Uttam Nagar. Accordingly, he with his staff reached at the abovesaid
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 2 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
address and Sandhu alongwith Suresh Kumar met them there and
informed that the quarrel had taken place at D-310. Therefore, they
reached there and found one Naresh Kumar who was lying in injured
condition and unconscious state. They shifted the injured to Mata Chanan
Devi Hospital & the local police was also informed.
6. PW2/A Constable Mandeep, No. 1480/W, P.S. Uttam Nagar, Delhi,
deposed that on 03.11.2014, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar. On that
day on the directions of SHO he took one sealed parcel alongwith sample
seal of DDU Hospital vide Road Certificate No. 158/21/2014 from the
MHC(M) and deposited the same at FSL Rohini. He obtained a receipt
from FSL and handed over the same to MHC(M) on his return to PS.
Copy of receipt is Ex PW2/A. Copy of the RC is Ex PW2/B. During the
tenure the abovesaid parcel remained in his possession, nothing was
tempered or allowed to be tempered with it. IO also recorded his
statement.
7. Matter was then fixed for examation of child witness Preeti.
Proceedings were recorded as under
“The matter was fixed for examination of child witness Preeti. The Court had
earlier requested the Distt & Sessions Judge Office (HQ) for making available
the Child/ Vulnerable witness Room for examination of the child witness. It
had been informed to the Court that the same was not operational as yet.
Accordingly, the Court environment had been transformed for the purpose of
making it Child Friendly. The witness had been called on the dias and had been
made to sit on a chair. The support person Ms Sangeeta Verma, Counsellor,
DCW had been called from the existing POCSO Court and the child had been
given biscuits to eat. The Court had made general inquiries from the child to
assess whether she was comfortable in deposing before the Court.
Q1 What is your name.
Ans. Preeti
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 3 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
Q2. What is your age.
Ans. I do not know.
Q3. Do you study.
Ans. No. I used to go earlier. Ihave studied upto class I. I left after death of my
bhade papa.
Q4. In which school
Ans. I do not know.
Q5. What is the name of your teacher.
Ans. I do not know.
Q6. Do you play.
Ans. Yes.
Q7. What game do you play.
Ans. Chupan Chupai (Hide and Seek)
Q8. Do you worship
Ans. Yes.
Q9.Which god.
Ans. Mata Devi.
Q10.Which temple do you visit.
Ans. I have seen Hanuman Temple near my house.
Q11. Dou you think that we should always speak truth.
Ans. Yes we should speak truth.
Q13. Suppose you have taken the ice cream at your friend’s house and when
you came back, your mother asked you whether you have taken the ice cream
or not and you said No. Whether you have spoken the truth or lie?
Ans. I will tell it to my mother and I speak the truth.
Q14. Suppose you are playing with your friend and one of them has slapped
you but has told you not to tell the same to your mother. Will you tell or will
you keep quite. Why?
Ans. I will not tell to my mother because she might hit me again.
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 4 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
On the basis of aforesaid answer given by child witness the Court was
satisfied that she was now comfortable and adjusted to the Court environment
She was competent enough to give rational answers after reflection and
undertaking the import of the questions. Her statement be recorded.
PW-2/Preeti deposed that in her family she has her father and three
elder brother but does not have her mother. Her Bade Pappa, Naresh used
to visit their home. He was very loving to her, he was killed by her Bade
Mummi Meena. He was killed by her mother, Babita, Bade Mummi,
Meena, her Mama, Pardeep and Suresh uncle. She further deposed that
she does not remember the day and date but he was killed in night time.
He was assaulted with a danda by her elder mother Meena and hit by a
lathi by Suresh uncle. He was hit on his back. He screamed but did not try
to run away. Her Bade Mummi Meena also hit him with her legs when
her Bade Papa had fallen down. Babita, her mother had also hit him with
a broom (Jharu) The incident has taken place before her when she was
standing on the stairs. She did not tell that to anyone at that time as all
others were sleeping. She told that to her Dadi (Grand mother) next day
in the morning. Dadi told her to call her Bua. At that stage, witness
correctly identified accused Babita, as her mother. At that stage, witness
correctly identified accused Meena, as her elder mother. At that stage,
witness correctly identified accused Suresh.
In Cross Examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Suresh, she
deposed that no police met her in the morning. He did not meet her even
outside Court. She does not know English alphabets. She knows the name
of the days of the week. She does not know the Hindi word of Sunday.
The stairs are from the outside of the house. She denied the suggestion
that a person cannot see anything inside the house if he is standing on theFIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 5 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
stair case. On the day of the incident the school was closed. Her bade
papa did not use to take liquor (Daru). The incident happened on the
ground floor outside room. She denied the suggestion that deceased has
expired after falling from the stairs. Blood did not ooze out after her Bade
Pappa was hit. Nobody from outside came at the spot when her Bade
Pappa was beaten. No one else was present except the accused persons at
the time of incident. She denied the suggestion that Komal, Rahul, Sarov,
Gaurav and Deepu were present at the time of incident. She voluntarily
stated that they had gone outside. She deposed that does not remember
the exact time of incident, however, it was night time.
She deposed that Bua was present with her Dadi when she told her
about the said incident. After the incident only the accused Pardeep had
run away from the spot. Police has come after she told her Dadi about the
incident. At the time she informed about the incident to her grandmother
and the police did not make any inquiry from her but she was inquired by
the police later. She denied the suggestion that she informed the police
that deceased had fallen from the stair case and had died. She denied the
suggestion that the statement has been given falsely at the instance of her
dadi and bua. That day, further cross examination was deferred as it was
lunch time. After the lunch time, in cross examination by Ld. Counsel for
accused Babita and Meena, she deposed that she had come to the Court
with her grand mother, aunt (Bua) and brother in law (Jeeja). She have
been told what she had to do in the Court that day. She denied the
suggestion that prior to that day she had been continuouly tutored by
them for the purpose of present deposition. She denied the suggestion that
her Nana and Nani had come to take her with them after the incident but
she was not sent deliberately by her Dadi. She further deposed that theFIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 6 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
danda with which the deceased was hit was little long (Thoda Bada).
There was only one danda. She denied the suggestion that IO had told her
as to what is to be deposed in the Court. She further deposed that she had
met him when he used to come to her Bau’s house. She further stated that
she had met him there three/ four times. He had talked to her during those
occasions for some time. When IO met her for the first time, he asked her
about how the incident of Bade Pappa had happened. Her Bua and Dadi
were present at that time. She further stated that she resided in Shiv
Vihar, JJ Colony. She does not remember the number of her house. The
witness denied the suggestion that she had been threatened by her Dadi
and Bua to depose in a particular manner. She denied the suggestion that
she had been tutored by her Dadi and Bua to depose against the accused.
She had been asked about the distance from which she had seen the
incident precisely the distance between staircase and the place of incident
which she had been interpreted in different manner through the
Counsellor. The same is assessed to be abbot 8-10 feet. She further
deposed that she was standing on the top of staircase at the time of
incident. She stated that her mother was residing on first floor. She used
to sleep after watching Doremon on T.V and after she used to get her
food. Further cross-examination was deferred.
8. On further cross-examination as done on 20.07.2015, she turned
hostile and, she deposed that they were three brothers and sisters. She
does not know the year of their birth. She further deposed that her
birthday was on Saturday. She denied the suggestion that her Bade Papa
never used to come home back as he was working outside. She further
deposed that after the death of her Bade Papa she met her grandmother
after one day of incident. She further deposed that she was not aware
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 7 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
which day of the week it was. She denied the suggestion that Bade Papa
had gone upstairs to fetch water. She denied the suggestion that one uncle
residing in the neighbourhood also met her Dadi at the same time when
she was talking to her. She admitted the suggestion that Bade Papa fell on
the stairs. She admitted the suggestion that Bade Papa had rolled down
the stairs. She admitted the suggestion that he received injuries during the
said rolling down. He had received head injury as well as injury on his
feet, blood also oozed out. She denied the suggestion that Doctor had
come at home. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police
that bade papa had fallen down the stairs. She denied the suggestion that
she had told the incident regarding bade papa to the police at the instance
of her Bua Sunita. She admitted the suggestion that she had told her Dadi
that her Bade Papa had fallen down from the stairs. She further deposed
that she had also told to her Dadi that her Bade Papa was not getting up.
She further deposed that her Bade Papa had died out of falling from the
stairs. She further deposed that he was not hit her danda. Police wrote the
statement of its own and not after asking of her. At that stage, Ld. Addl.
PP requested to re-examine as the witness was found resiling from her
previous statement. Request was allowed. In Cross Examination by Addl.
PP Sh. Rajat Kalra for State, she admitted the suggestion last time when
she had deposed before the Court, she told that her Bade Papa was killed
by her mother Babita, Meena, Pardeep and Suresh uncle. That day she
had deposed that he had died because of fall from the stairs and what she
is speaking is truth and her previous statement regarding beatings was
false. She further deposed that she gave her previous statement at the
instance of her Bua namely Sunita. She denied the suggestion that Bade
Pappa had been killed by the accused persons and he had not died
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 8 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
because of fall from staircase. Last time she visited with her Bua Sunita
and that time also she visited with her. She denied the suggestion that she
was not tutored by Sunita Bua, last time. She further deposed that her
Bade Papa had fallen down the stairs when he was descending down and
she was also on the stairs. Police lifted her Bade Papa after he had fallen
from the stairs. Police was called by her Badi Mummy Meena. She was in
the same house in the room at the ground floor. She had told the police as
to how her Bade Papa died. She denied the suggestion that police asked
her who had beaten her Bade Papa with what thing. She denied the
suggestion that she is telling a lie that police had asked the said fact to
me. She denied the suggestion that she told the police that Meena, Babita
and her Mama had beaten Bade Pappa with Danda and Suresh had given
leg blows to him. She denied the suggestion that she told the police that
her Bade Papa had died because of the injuries given by them.
(Confronted with the statement Mark A from Point A to A1 where the
said facts are recorded.) She denied the suggestion that she is deposing
falsely that day as she had been won over by the accused persons. She
denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely in order to save her
mother, Badi Mummy and her Mama.
9. PW3 Constable Satbir, No. 1062/W, P.S. Uttam Nagar, Delhi
deposed that on 02.09.2014, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar. On that
day on the directions of SHO, he took two sealed pullandas alongwith
two samples seal of DDU Hospital vide Road Certificate No. 89/21/2014
and 90/21/2014 from the MHC(M) and deposited the same at FSL
Rohini. He deposed that he obtained two receipts from FSL and handed
over the same to MHC(M) on his return to PS. Copy of receipts are Ex
PW3/A & B. Copy of the RCs are Ex PW3/C & D. During the tenure the
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 9 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
abovesaid parcels remained in his possession, nothing was tempered or
allowed to be tempered with them. IO also recorded his statement.
10. PW4 W/HC Munni Devi No. 515/West, PS Hari Nagar, Delhi
deposed that on 05.08.2014, she was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as Duty
Officer and her duty hours were 8.00 A.M. to 4.00 PM. On that day, at
about 9.55 A.M., she received a call from Control Room, West regarding
a quarrel has taken place at House No. 408 A-Block, Near Mother Dairy,
Shiv Vihar and reduced the same into DD Entry No. 22A. He further
deposed that she had marked the same to SI Braham Parkash. That day
she had the DD Register. Copy of which is Ex.PW4/A (original seen and
returned) which is her hand writing. She further deposed that on the same
day, at about 11.53 A.M, she received another call from Control Room,
West regarding a patient named Naresh Kumar, aged 40 years R/o 310
Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, was admitted in Chanan Devi Hospital,
Janakpuri, Delhi in unconscious condition and thereafter, he was declared
dead and she had reduced the same into DD Entry No. 32A. She had
marked the same to SI Braham Prakash. That day she had brought the DD
Register. Copy of which is Ex.PW4/B (original seen and returned) which
is her hand writing.
11. PW5 Ms. Sangeeta, aged about 17 years, D/o Sh. Lal Bahadur, R/o
D-279, JJ Colony, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi deposed that she
knows Pradeep, Suresh, Babita & Meena. She can identify them if shown
to her. She correctly identified accused Pradeep, Suresh, Meena and
Babita who are present in the court that day. She further deposed that she
also knows Naresh (deceased). She further deposed that on 04.08.2014 at
about 10:00 PM she saw Naresh coming in the street and going towards
his house in drunken condition. He was not in his control in walking
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 10 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
(girte-padte). She saw him going on stairs in uncontrolled condition. She
further stated that after sometime she found him lying on the ground
outside the house. She further deposed that after sometime Meena,
Pradeep and Rahul came and took Naresh inside the house. Police made
inquiries from her and recorded her statement. She voluntarily stated that
Police had obtained her signature on written paper. She further deposed
that she had not seen accused Pradeep, Suresh, Babita and Meena being
giving beatings to Naresh.
12. PW6 Ms. Anu, w/o Sonu deposed that she got married in 2016 and
in the year 2014, she was residing with her parents. She knew Naresh,
who was residing in the same street in which she was residing with her
parents. Said Naresh was then not alive. She does not remember the date
and month, however, in one evening in 2014 Naresh came in drunken
condition and when he was climbing on the stairs of his house he fell
from the stairs. After seeing him in such condition she left for her home.
The witness further stated that Police did not meet her nor made any
inquiries from her regarding the death of Naresh.
13. PW7 ASI Vijay Kumar, no. 303 OD, PS Paschim Vihar, New
Delhi deposed that on 07.08.2014, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as
Head Constable. He was on duty as MHC(M). On that day, SI Braham
Prakash has deposited three sealed exhibits along with three sample seals
of DFMD vide DD no. 22 dated 05.08.2014. He further deposed that he
made entry in that respect in register no. 19 at S. No. 4419. He further
deposed that he had brought the original register no. 19 and photocopy of
the said entry is Ex. PW7/A (OSR). He further deposed that on
09.08.2014, Inspector Bhagwan Singh had deposited one sealed pullanda
sealed with the seal of BS. He made entry in that respect in register no. 19
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 11 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
at S.No. 4420. The photocopy of the said entry is Ex. PW7/B (OSR). He
further deposed that on 02.09.2014, one sealed envelope with the seal of
DFMT DDU Hospital along with one sample seal was sent to FSL Rohini
through Ct. Satbir vide RC no. 89/21/14. Photocopy of the said entry is
already Ex. PW3/C (OSR). Ct. Satbir returned to the police station after
depositing the exhibits and handed over the acknowledgement.
Photocopy of the same is already Ex. PW3/A (OSR). He further deposed
that that on 02.09.2014, one sealed exhibit with the seal of DFMT DDU
Hospital along with one sample seal was sent to FSL Rohini through Ct.
Satbir vide RC no. 90/21/14. Photocopy of the said entry is already Ex.
PW3/D (OSR). Ct. Satbir returned to the police station after depositing
the exhibits and handed over the acknowledgement. Photocopy of the
same is already Ex. PW3/B (OSR).
He further deposed that that on 03.11.2014, one sealed exhibit with
the seal of DFMT DDU Hospital along with one sample seal was sent to
FSL Rohini through Ct. Mandeep vide RC no. 158/21/14. Photocopy of
the said entry is already Ex. PW2/B (OSR). Ct. Mandeep returned to the
police station after depositing the exhibits and handed over the
acknowledgement. Photocopy of the same is already Ex. PW2/A (OSR).
He further deposed that on 07.11.2014, one sealed exhibit with the
seal of DFMT DDU Hospital along with one sample seal was sent to FSL
Rohini through Ct. Mahesh Pratap Singh vide RC no. 164/21/14.
Photocopy of the said entry is already Ex. PW7/C (OSR). Ct. Mahesh
Pratap Singh returned to the police station after depositing the exhibits
and handed over the acknowledgement. Photocopy of the same is already
Ex. Pw7/D(OSR)
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 12 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
14. PW8 Smt. Sunita, aged about 42 years, w/o Late Sh. Sukhbir
deposed that Naresh (deceased) was her younger brother. Meena is wife
of Naresh. Suresh is her youngest brother. Babita is the wife Suresh.
Babita and Meena are real sisters. On 05.08.2014, at about 9 AM her
mother came to her and informed that something had happened to Naresh.
She along with her mother in her two sons-in-law namely Ricky and
Sidharth went to the house of Naresh. On opening the door of the room
she found Naresh was lying on the floor and urine was also found passed
out of her brother Naresh. She made a call at no. 100. PCR van reached
and took her brother Naresh to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital where he was
declared brought dead. She further deposed that her mother told her that
her niece Preety informed her that Naresh was not getting up since last
many days (Kai din se). Preety had also told to her mother that accused
Babita, Meena, Pradeep and Suresh gave beating to Naresh with danda,
saria and silli (stone slab). These facts were told to her by her mother.
During inquiry from neighbours that fact was also told by one of the
neighbour who was also a witness in that case. However, she does not
remember her name. She further deposed that she can identify accused
Meena, Babita, Pradeep and Suresh who are present in the court
(correctly identified by the witness).
She further deposed that accused Suresh was having illicit
relationship with accused Meena since last 15 years. Due to that reason
all the accused persons had killed Naresh in connivance to each other.
She does not remember the phone number by which she had made call on
100 number. She further deposed that she can tell the said number after
confirming the same from her son in laws. The said number might have
not in use.
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 13 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
15. PW9 Smt. Santosh, aged about 60 years, w/o Sh. Pale Ram, R/o
446, JJ Colony, Shiv Vihar, Delhi. Edu. deposed that though illiterate, she
does not remember the date, he expired three days prior to rakhi festival.
One day her granddaughter Preety came to her in the morning. Preety told
her that “bade papa” is not awaking up. And then her elder daughter
Sunita and her two sons in law namely Sidhu and Rikki, herself and her
granddaughter Preety went to the house of her son Naresh (deceased).
She saw that her son was lying on the ground. He had done toilet.
Her elder daughter namely Sunita called the police. Police reached
at the house and took her son to Channan Devi Hospital. Preety had told
her that “bade papa” was given beating with “silli, danda and pathar”. He
was given beatings by accused Suresh, Pradeep and both sisters namely
Meena & Babita with the help of “silli pathar and danda”. Naresh was
residing with his family and six months prior to the incident sister of
Meena namely Babita came to reside with Meena. His brother in-law
namely Pradeep was also residing with them. Accused Suresh was
residing nearby the house of Naresh. He was working as a sweeper in
Tilak Nagar police station and used to threaten them. He used to visit the
house of Naresh as he had illicit relationship with Meena w/o Naresh
(deceased). Her son Naresh was working as a sweeper in Delhi Jal Board
at C2B, near Janakpuri, Delhi. Her younger son Suresh also reached at
the house of Naresh. Prior to the incident her son Naresh was residing at
his office. He had to live there as his wife Meena used to quarrel with him
and forced him to leave the house. Police had recorded her statement Ex.
PW9/A bearing her thumb impression at point A. She had visited the spot
where her son was lying dead with the police. Police had taken
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 14 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
photographs of the spot. All the accused persons present in the court that
day (correctly identified).
16. PW10 Retired SI Braham Parkash R/O VPO Gubhana, Distt
Jhajjar, Haryana. On 05.08.2014, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as
Sub Inspector. On that day, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 AM to
8.00 PM. On receipt of DD No.22-A on the said date he alongwith Ct
Namo Narain went to A-408, JJ Colony Shiv Vihar, Delhi. Where he
came to know that a quarrel had taken place D-310, JJ Colony Shiv
Vihar. He went at D-310, J Colony Shiv Vihar, Delhi. The said house was
locked and it came to his knowledge that the injured had been taken to the
hospital. In the meantime Duty officer had telephonically informed him
vide DD No.32-A that the injured had been taken to Chanan Devi
Hospital. Thereafter, he and Ct Namo Narain reached Chanan Devi
Hospital. There injured was found admitted there vide MLC NO.5715
/14, on which the Doctor had declared him dead. He got shifted the dead
body to mortuary of Chanan Devi Hospital. He reached at mortuary and
inspected the dead body of the deceased. There were marks of old injury
on eyes and face of the deceased. He did not notice any fresh injury on
the person of deceased.
He further deposed that thereafter, the dead body of deceased
Naresh was shifted to DDU Hospital mortuary through Ct. Namo
Naraian. In Mata Chanan Devi Hospital Smt. Santosh mother of deceased
and one Sunita sister of deceased and Suresh Brother of deceased met
him there. He recorded their statements. As no incriminating evidence
was found at that time hence DD no. 22A was kept pending by him till
the receiving of PM report of the deceased.
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 15 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
He further deposed that on 06.08.2014, he went to DDU Hospital
mortuary. The dead body of Naresh was identified by his family
members. He prepared inquest proceedings the same is Ex. PW10/A
which bears his signatures at point A. He also prepared brief facts same is
Ex. PW10/B which bears his signatures at point A. Thereafter, he made
request to incharge mortuary to conduct the postmortem on the body of
deceased. Carbon copy of the same is Ex. PW10/C. Thereafter, the
postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted.
He further deposed that after the postmortem the dead body of
deceased was handed over to his family member. Carbon copy of the
receipt is already Ex. PW14/B which bears his signatures at point A1.
After the postmortem doctor handed over three sealed parcels sealed with
the seal of DFMD and 3 sample seals to him and he took the same into
possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/D which bears his signatures at
point A. Thereafter, he came back to police station case property was
deposited by him in the malkhana intact.
He further deposed that next day, he collected the PM report from
the doctor. As per PM Report doctor opined the cause of death as a result
of blunt forceful impact upon the head of the deceased. Doctor also
opined that the possibility of physical assault cannot be ruled out.
He further deposed that on 08.08.2014, he again recorded the
statement of Smt. Santosh the same is already Ex. PW9/A and she put her
right thumb impression on the same at point A. Statement was duly
attested by him at point B. He made endorsement on the same and same
is Ex. PW10/E which bears his signatures at point A and handed over the
same to Duty officer for the registration of the case. On the basis of
which the present case was registered. As the case was registered U/s
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 16 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
302/34 IPC hence the investigation was marked to Inspector Bhagwan
Singh the then SHO PS Uttam Nagar. He briefed him about the facts of
the investigation conducted by him and also handed over the relevant
papers to him.
Thereafter, he joined investigation with him. On the same day, i.e.
08.08.14, he along with IO, WASI Krishna, Ct. Pramod and other staff
left the police station in search of accused persons. At about 10:15 AM,
they reached at spot i.e. H. No. D-310 where they found crime team
present there who inspected the spot and photographer took photographs.
Crime team Incharge handed over crime team report to IO. Thereafter,
they reached H. No. A-481, JJ Colony, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi from where accused Babita present in the Court that day correctly
identified by witness was apprehended by the IO with the help of W/ ASI
Krishna. Accused Babita was interrogated and arrested by IO in the
present case vide arrest memo PW10/F which bears his signatures at
point A. Her personal search was taken by W/ASI Krishna and thereafter
IO prepared personal search memo of accused which is Ex. PW10/G
which bears his signatures at point A. Thereafter, accused Babita made
disclosure statement the same is Ex. PW10/H which bears his signatures
at point A. Thereafter, accused led them to the spot and pointed out the
same. IO prepared pointing out memo which is Ex. PW10/J which bears
his signatures at point A. Thereafter, accused Meena was apprehended
from H. No. D-310, i.e. spot with the help of W/ASI Krishna vide arrest
memo Ex. PW10/K which bears his signatures at point A. Her personal
search memo was also prepared vide memo Ex. PW10/L which bears his
signatures at point A. Her disclosure was recorded vide memo Ex.
PW10/M which bears his signatures at point A. Pointing out memo is Ex.
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 17 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
PW10/N which bears his signatures at point A. Accused Meena is present
in the court that day (correctly identified).
Thereafter, both the accused persons were brought to PS. IO
recorded his statement. On 09.08.2014, he again joined the investigation
with IO in the present case. Thereafter, he along with IO and other staff
reached at H. No. E-21, JJ colony, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
From where accused Suresh Kumar present in the court that day
(correctly identified) was apprehended by IO. After interrogation he was
arrested in that case by the IO in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.
PW10/0 which bears his signatures at point A. Personal search memo of
accused is Ex. PW10/P which bears his signatures at point A. The
disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide memo Ex. PW10/Q
which bears his signatures at point A.
Thereafter, he led them to the spot and pointing out the same was
pointing out memo Ex. PW10/R which bears his signatures at point A.
Thereafter, accused got recovered one danda from behind the door of his
house. IO sealed the same in a pullanda with the seal of BS and was taken
into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/S which bears his
signatures at point A. Thereafter, accused Suresh was brought to police
station. IO recorded his supplementary statement. He deposed that can
identify the said danda if shown to him.
He deposed that during the course of the investigation on the
direction of the IO of the present case, he took the sealed parcel in sealed
condition after receiving from MHC(M) in mortuary DDU hospital
alongwith written request of the IO to obtain subsequent opinion
regarding the weapon of offence. After examining the weapon of offence
i.e Danda, Doctor B.N. Mishra, gave subsequent opinion and the weapon
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 18 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
of offence was sealed with the seal of DFMT, DDU hospital and the same
was handed over to him alongwith sample seal. He came back to police
station. Case property was deposited by him in the Mal Khanna and
subsequent opinion was handed over to IO. He can identify the Danda if
shown to him, at that stage MHC(M) produced the case property i.e.
Parcel No. 1 sealed with the seal of FSL, seal broken, pulanda consist of
one wooden danda same is shown to the witness, after seeing the same
witnesses identify the same as the weapon of offense, examined by
doctor, same is Ex P1.
17. PW 11 Sidhant @ Sidhu s/o Sh Moti Lal, aged 27 years R/O 722,
B Block, JJ Colony, Shiv Vihar, Delhi deposed that on 05.08.2014, he
was sleeping at his house. His house and the house of mother-in-law
namely Sunita is situated opposite to his house. In the morning on the
said day at about 9.00 AM his mother-in-law was shouting that her
brother had been killed. Hearing the noise he came outside his house. He
inquired from his mother in law Sunita as to what happened. She told him
that Naresh had been killed. He inquired from her whether she informed
at 100 number or not. Then she called the police at 100 number. PCR
reached at the house of Sunita. He went to the house of Naresh with the
PCR in D- Block. He got down from PCR van. Sunita, his elder brother
Rajan @Ricky, his wife Neha, wife of his elder brother namely Sonia
were present at the house of Naresh. Naresh was lying on the floor of the
room. The police took Naresh to Chanan Devi. He also went to Chanan
Devi Hospital.
18. PW12 Sh Rajan @ Ricky s/o Sh Moti Lal aged 28 yrs R/O A-325,
J.J Colony Shiv Vihar, Delhi deposed that on 05.08.2014 at about 9.00
AM in the morning he was in his house. His mother-in-law namely Smt
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 19 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
Sunita came to him and told him that there was quarrel going on at the
house of deceased and asked him to accompany her. Thereafter he
alongwith his mother-in-law reached at the house of Naresh, ie House
No. D-310 J.J Colony, Shiv Vihar, Delhi. Smt Santosh, mother of his
mother-in-law also reached there. The witness further stated that his
mother-in-law Sunita opened the door of the room of the deceased
Naresh. He saw that the deceased was lying on the floor of the room. His
urine had passed out and there was blackening over the face. He further
deposed that then he came out of the room. Then he left the house as his
wife was expecting a baby at that time. At the time of incident he was
residing at A- 497, J.J Colony, Shiv Vihar, Delhi.
19. PW-13 Dr. B.N.Mishra, Head of Department, Department of
Forensic Medicine, DDU Hospital, Delhi, he deposed that on 06.08.2014,
he was posted in the abovesaid department as Medical Officer cum
Medical Legal Expert and Criminologist. On that day, he had conducted
postmortem examination on the body of deceased Naresh Kumar S/o Pale
Ram, aged 40 years, Male. On examination of the body, he had observed
multiple bruises on different parts of the body with different dimensions
alongwith one haematoma on the head. On internal examination of the
body, there was subdural haemorrhage present on the different parts of
the brain with thin layered subarachnoid and haemorrhage present on all
parts of the cerebrum with contusion on the occipital lobe of brain with
generalized brain oedema. Rest of internal organs did not show any
significant findings except enlarged liver being 1600 grams with fatty
changes.
After completion of postmortem examination he
had opined that cause of death was due to head injury as a result of blunt
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 20 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
forceful impact on the head and manner of death was deferred till the
receipt of forensic lab analysis of blood and viscera of deceased.
All the injuries sustained on the body of deceased were appearing
3-4 days in duration and injury no.3 was sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature. The time since death was approximately two
days prior to postmortem examination. The detailed PM Report is
Ex.PW-13/A bearing his signatures at point A.
After postmortem examination, he had preserved the blood in
gauge piece and in sodium flouride alongwith viscera and clothing of
deceased and same were handed over to IO for examination.
On 31.10.2014, Insp. Bhagwan Singh, PS Uttam Nagar submitted
application regarding subsequent opinion for consistency of weapon of
offence with respect to injuries. sustained on the body of deceased Naresh
Kumar S/o Pale Ram. IO of the case produced one sealed parcel sealed
with the seal of BS for examination and opinion. On opening of parcel,
one wooden stick/Danda was taken out. After examination of the same
weapon of offence, he opined that the said wooden stick could have been
inflicted on the body of deceased which caused injuries as mentioned in
PM Report Ex.PW-13/A, his subsequent opinion is Ex.PW-13/B bearing
his signatures at point A.
During cross-examination, he deposed that he had gone through the
FSL report pertaining to blood and viscera from the judicial file that day.
After going through FSL report it is mentioned in the report that no
common poisons/alcohol could be detected in the blood and viscera of
deceased. At the stage of preparing the PM report of deceased the manner
of death was deferred for the point of FSL report concerned to chemical
analysis of blood and viscera. In that stage, he further deposed that he had
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 21 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
seen the FSL report and findings does not show any poisons or otherwise
substance. After going through FSL and PM report he was of the opinion
that the manner of death was homicide and the rest of opinion was the
same as mentioned in PM report.
He further deposed that he can identify the, weapon of offence i.e.
danda, if shown to him. At that stage, MHC(M), PS Uttam Nagar
produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of court, same is opened
and found containing one danda, taken out from the pulanda, shown to
the witness and witness has correctly identified the same danda and stated
that the same was examined by him at the time of subsequent opinion.
Danda is Ex. Pl.
He denied the suggestion that injuries found on the body of
deceased can be possible by falling on the ground, accidentally or by
falling on some hard surface. He further denied the suggestion that he had
not examined the weapon of offence mentioned above or that he had only
given opinion as per the facts briefed to him by IO.
20. PW14 Sh. Surender, s/o Sh. Dharampal, R/o 382, Block D1,
Sultanpuri, Delhi -110086. On 06.08.2014, he went to Mortuary, DDU
Hospital, Delhi. There he identified the dead body of deceased Naresh
vide an identification memo Ex. PW14/A which bears his signatures at
point A. After the postmortem the dead body of Naresh was handed over
to them vide handing over memo Ex. PW14/B which bears his signatures
at point A. Deceased Naresh was his sala (brother- in-law).
21. PW15 Sh. Suresh, s/o Pale Ram, R/o 431, JJ Colony, Shiv Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that he was illiterate, therefore, he
cannot remember the exact date. But on the day of incident, at about 9:30
AM, he went to the house of his brother Naresh. He further deposed that
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 22 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
he saw that Naresh was lying on the floor of his room and toilet has come
out. Froth (Jhaag) was coming out of his mouth. He further deposed that
his sister namely Sunita Devi and his two damad (son-in-laws) namely
Sidhu and Ricky were present there. His mother Santosh was also
present. He further deposed that his son-in-law Ricky call police on 100
number. PCR van reached at the spot and took the Naresh to Mata
Channan Devi Hospital. Naresh was declared dead at the hospital.
He further deposed that his daughter Preeti had told him that his
wife Babita, Meena, Pradeep and Suresh uncle had gave beating to
Naresh with dandas and caused his death. He further deposed that his
wife Babita who is accused in the present case was not residing with him
for last 6 months of the incident. And she was residing with Meena. All
the accused persons are present in the Court that day. (correctly
identified).
22. PW16 Sh. Mahender, Age 40 years, S/o Sh. Ranveer, R/o WZ-218,
Virender Nagar, New Delhi-110058. He deposed that on 06.08.2014, he
had went to mortuary DDU Hospital Delhi. There he identified the dead
body of deceased Naresh who was his cousin brother i.e. son of his
maternal uncle. his statement was recorded by IO in that regard. The
same is Ex. PW16/A which bears his signatures at point A.
23. PW17 W/ASI Krishna, No. 4308D, Police Training School
Dwarka, Sector 9, New Delhi. She deposed that on 08.08.2014, he was
posted at PS Uttam Nagar. On that day, he joined the investigation in that
case with the IO. He along with IO & SI Braham Prakash and other staff
reached at H. No. D-310. Crime team was present there who inspected
the spot. Incharge Crime Team handed over his report to the IO at the
spot. Thereafter they reached at H. No. A-431, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar.
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 23 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
From there accused Babita present in the Court that day (correctly
identified) was apprehended by IO with his help. She further deposed that
She was interrogated and arrested in that case vide arrest memo already
Ex. PW10/F which bears his signatures at point B. She further deposed
that her personal search was taken by him and thereafter IO prepared
personal search memo of accused which is already Ex. PW10/G which
bears his signatures at point B. She further deposed that thereafter,
accused Babita made disclosure statement the same is already Ex.
PW10/H which bears his signatures at point B.
She further deposed that thereafter, accused led them to the spot
and pointed out the same. IO prepared pointing out memo which is
already Ex. PW10/J which bears his signatures at point B.
She further deposed that thereafter, accused Meena was
apprehended from H. No. D-310, i.e. spot with his help vide arrest memo
already Ex. PW10/K which bears his signatures at point. Her personal
search memo was also prepared vide memo already Ex. PW10/L which
bears his signatures at point B. Her disclosure was recorded vide memo
already Ex. PW10/M which bears his signatures at point B. Pointing out
memo is already Ex. PW10/N which bears his signatures at point B.
Accused Meena was present in the court that day (correctly identified).
She further deposed that thereafter, both the accused persons were
brought to PS. Both the accused were also medically examined at DDU
Hospital. IO recorded his statement.
24. PW-18 SI Ajit Singh No. 1146D, Main Security Line, Vinay Marg,
New Delhi deposed that on 08.08.2014, he was posted in Mobile Crime
Team in West District at PS Janak Puri. On that day, on the basis of
information received from Control Room, he alongwith HC Lalit,
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 24 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
proficient and Ct. Rajesh, and Ct. Jagat (photographer) reached at the spot
i.e D-310, JJ Colony, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. They inspected the
spot of incident form 11 AM to 11.35 AM. Photographs were taken by
Ct. Jagat. He gave instructions to IO Inspector Bhagwan Singh and
prepared his report which is Ex.PW18/A bearing his signature at point A.
25. PW-19 Doctor Jitender Kumar, RMO, Mata Chanan Devi Hospital,
C-1, Janak Puri, New Dehi deposed that On 05.08.2014 he was on duty in
Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. He further deposed that on that day at about
11.05 A.M. patient Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Pale Ram, was brought to
hospital by SI Ram Kumar and one Sidhu for medical examination. He
further deposed that patient was examined by him and he was in gasping
and unconscious condition. After examination patient was declared as
dead at about 11.30 A.M. The MLC of the patient prepared by him is Ex.
PW-19/A which bears his signatures at point A.
26. PW-20 W/Ct. Kamlesh, No. 2238/Dwarka, PS Uttam Nagar,
deposed that on 05.08.2014 she was posted in police control room and
was on duty. At about 9:16 AM. An information was received in control
room regarding quarrel at H.No.408-A Mother Diary, Shiv Vihar, Uttam
Nagar from mobile no. 9718597891. She further deposed that she filled
the said information in the PCR form and passed the information on net
to the District Control Room. The PCR form is Ex. PW-20/A.
27. PW-21 Ct. Namo Narayan, No. 1959/C, PS Chandni Mahal
deposed that On 08.08.2014 he was posted as Constable at PS Uttam
Nagar. He further deposed that on that day on the receipt of DD no. 22A
he alongwith SI Braham Prakash reached at the spot i.e. H.No. A-408, JJ
Colony, Shiv Vihar, Delhi where we came to know that quarrel had taken
place at D-310, JJ Colony, Shiv Vihar, Delhi. They reached there and
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 25 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
came to know that injured was removed to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital.
Thereafter he alongwith IO reached Mata Chanan Devi Hospital where
IO received an information of DD no. 32A that injured was admitted in
Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and he had expired. IO had given an
application for preserving the dead body in the Mortuary of DDU
hospital. He further deposed that he took the dead body to DDU Hospital
and got preserve the dead body of deceased Naresh Kumar in the
mortuary. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by IO.
28. PW-22 Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya, Assistant Director, Biology
Department, FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed that she was a summoned
witness and working as Assistant Director in the aforementioned Lab
w.e.f. year 2016, however, she was working in the said Lab since year
1999. FSL report 2014/B-6508 was prepared by her after
examination/analysis. At that stage, original FSL report from the judicial
file shown to the witness and after seeing the same witness identified her
signatures at point A and B on the said report and state that it is the same
report which was prepared by her, which is Ex. PW22/A. She further
deposed that said report was handed over to the police officers vide letter
dated 23.10.2014 bearing the signature of witness at point A, same is Ex.
PW22/B. As per report Ex. PW22/A the result of analysis was (i) Blood
was detected on Ex.1, (ii) Blood stained gauge cloth piece were found
detected human blood of ‘B’ Group.
At that stage, another FSL report no. 2014/B-8063 is put to the
witness from the judicial file and after seeing the same witness deposed
that it was prepared by her after examination/analysis. Witness identified
her signatures at point A and B on the said report and deposed that it is
the same report which was prepared by her, which is now Ex. PW22/C.
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 26 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
She further deposed that said report was handed over to the police
officers vide letter dated 19.05.2015 bearing the signature of witness at
point A, same is now Ex. PW22/D. As per report Ex. PW22/C the result
of analysis was (i) Blood was detected on Ex.1, (ii) Wooden danda was
found detected human blood but there was no reaction of ABO Grouping.
29. PW-23 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, No. D-460, Drafsman, Crime
Branch, PHQ, New Delhi, on 30.09.2014, he was posted as Draftsman at
Crime Branch, PHQ, New Delhi. On that day at the request of Inspector
Bhagwan Singh, SHO PS Uttam Nagar, he reached at the spot i.e. H.No.
D-310, JJ Colony, Shiv Vihar, Delhi. There at the instance of Inspector
Bhagwan Singh, he inspected the site and took rough notes and
measurements of the spot. On 20.10.2014, on the basis of rough notes and
measurements, he prepared scaled site plan and handed over the same to
IO. At that stage, original scaled site plan from the judicial file is put to
the witness and after seeing the same witness states that it is same site
plan which was prepared by him and handed over to the IO. Same is
Ex.PW23/A which bears his signature at point A. After preparing the
scaled site plan he destroyed rough notes and measurements. His
statement was recorded by IO.
30. PW-24 HC Jagat Singh No. 5174 DAP, VIIth BN, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi deposed that on 08.08.14, he was posted in the Mobile Crime
Team, West District Janak Puri as a photographer. On receiving call by
the Incharge, Mobile Crime Team namely ASI Ajit Singh, he
accompanied him to the spot I.e D-310, JJ Colony, Shiv Vihar, Uttam
Nagar, Delhi where at the direction of Incharge Crime Team,he took five
photographs from different angles of the spot and after developing the
same, he handed over the said photographs to the IO he had also brought
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 27 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
five negatives of said photographs that day. Photographs are
Ex.PW24/A-1 to Ex.PW24/A-5 and negatives are Ex.PW24/A-6 to
Ex.PW24/A- 10.
31. PW-25 Retired Inspector Bhagwan Singh, s/o. Late Sh. Makhan
Lal, r/o. Village Ketela, District Mathura, U.P deposed that on
08.08.2014, he was posted as SHO, Uttam Nagar. After registration of
FIR in the present case, the investigation was marked to him. SI Braham
Prakash handed over to him all the documents concerning the present
case i.e. inquest papers, PM report and DD entries alongwith copy of the
tehrir and briefed him about the facts of the case. He further deposed that
Thereafter, he called the crime team and photographer at the spot i.e.
D-310, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. SI Braham Prakash accompanied
him to the spot. He further deposed that he got the spot inspected through
the crime team and got it photographed. Thereafter, he prepared site plan
the site plan Ex. PW-25/A bearing his signatures at point A. The crime
team Incharge after inspector handed over the crime scene report already
Ex. PW-18/A to me.
He further deposed that thereafter, on 08.08.14, he made local
inquiries from the neighbours and from the mother, brother and other
relatives of the deceased. He further deposed that on the same day, one
lady ASI and one lady constable was called on the spot to join the
investigation. Thereafter, one alleged accused namely Babita was
interrogated and after interrogation she was arrested vide arrest memo
already Ex. PW10/F and her personal search was carried out by W/ASI
Krishna vide memo already Ex. PW10/G. Both bearing his signatures at
point X. He further deposed that thereafter he recorded disclosure
statement of accused Babita vide memo already Ex. PW10/H bearing his
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 28 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
signatures at point X. Accused Babita pointed out the place of occurrence
and he prepared the pointed out memo already Ex.PW10/J bearing his
signature at point X. He further deposed that thereafter, one alleged
accused namely Meena was interrogated and after interrogation she was
arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW10/K and her personal search
was carried out by W/ASI Krishna vide memo already Ex. PW10/L. Both
bearing his signatures at point X.
He further deposed that thereafter he recorded disclosure statement
of accused Meena vide memo already Ex. PW10/M bearing his signatures
at point X. Accused Meena pointed out the place of occurrence and he
prepared the pointed out memo already Ex.PW10/N bearing his signature
at point X.
He further deposed that thereafter, he searched for other accused
persons namely Suresh and Pradeep but they were not found present at
their addresses. The said arrested accused ladies namely Babita and
Meena were produced before the Ld. MM after their medical examination
on the said date. Babita and Meena are present in the court that day
(Correctly identified by the witness). He further deposed that thereafter,
he recorded the statement of SI Braham Prakash and W/ASI Krishna and
other crime team members.
He further deposed that on the next date i.e. on 09.08.2014, he
joined SI Braham Prakash and Ct. Indu in the investigation and searched
for the accused persons namely, Suresh and Pradeep. He further deposed
that accused Suresh was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW10/O
bearing his signatures at point X and his personal search was carried out
by him vide memo already Ex. PW10/P bearing his signatures at point X.
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 29 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
He further deposed that thereafter, he recorded disclosure statement
of accused Suresh vide memo already Ex. PW10/Q bearing his signatures
at point X. Accused Suresh also pointed out the place of occurrence and
he prepared the pointed out memo already Ex. PW10/R bearing his
signatures at point X.
He further deposed that thereafter, accused Suresh got recovered
the weapon of offence i.e. the danda from his house lying behind the door
of her house and it was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW10/S
after converting it into pulanda and sealed it with the seal of BS. The
witness further stated that It was seized vide the said seizure memo
bearing his signatures at point X. Thereafter, we returned to PS and
deposited the case property in malkhana. After coming to the PS, detailed
interrogation was made from him and he recorded the statement of the
witnesses qua their roles in the investigation for the said date. He further
deposed the accused Suresh was medically examined and lodged in the
lock-up. On the next day, the accused Suresh was produced in the court.
Accused Suresh is present in the court that day (correctly identified by the
witness). He further deposed that continued to search for accused Pradeep
thereafter, but he could not be found. He further deposed that he obtained
the NBWs against accused Pradeep. He further deposed that he got
inspected the place of incident through draftsman Inspector Mahesh
Kumar and got prepared the scaled site plan already Ex. PW23/A. He
further deposed that he obtained the subsequent opinion from doctor
concerned regarding the weapon of offence by sending the weapon on
offence to him alongwith the copy of PM report. It is already Ex.
PW13/B. He further deposed that he collected the PCR Form as well
concerning the present case and photographs taken by crime team.
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 30 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
He further deposed that he got sent the exhibits concerning the
present case to the FSL to obtain the opinion of the FSL experts. He
further deposed that he filed the chargesheet in the court against the
accused persons namely Babita, Meena and Suresh after recording the
statement of all the witnesses. Subsequently, FSL reports were received.
He further deposed that he submitted the said FSL results vide two
applications Ex. PW-25/B and Ex. PW-25/C. Both bearing his signatures
at point A. He further deposed that at the time of recovery of danda by
accused Suresh he prepared site plan of the place of recovery which is
then Ex. PW- 25/D.
At that stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed pulanda sealed
with the seal of court seal and it is opened and out of it, one wooden
danda is taken out and shown to the witness. The same is shown to the
witness. After seeing the same, the witness states that it is the same danda
which was got recovered by accused Suresh and was seized by him vide
seizure memo Ex. PW10/S. It is already Ex. Pl.
STATEMENT U/S 313 CR.P.C
32. After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of accused
u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded. Accused persons have denied the
allegations of the prosecution. They deposed that they are innocent and
have been falsely implicated in the case. However, they did not lead any
defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
33. I have heard the arguments of Ld. counsel for accused persons and
ld. Addl. PP at length and perused the record carefully.
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 31 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
34. It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused persons
deserves acquittal in the present case as there is no eye-witness to the
present case and the alleged eye-witness PW-02/Preeti has turned hostile
and has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further argued that
the deceased has fallen off the stairs as he was drunk. It is argued that the
case of prosecution should not be believed in as many of the PWs have
turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution and
when the recovery was made, no independent public witness has joined
the investigation. Further that the accused persons have not committed
any offence for which they have been charged.
35. On the other hand, Ms. Parul Singh, ld. Addl. PP argued that PW-2
Preeti has supported the case of the prosecution in her examination in
chief and also in cross-examination. He further duly opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the accused persons with reference to the
evidence on record. Also, it is argued that the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses establish beyond doubt that the accused persons
had killed the deceased Naresh using danda and stones. Hence, the Ld.
Addl. PP for the state has argued that accused Babita, Meena and Suresh
be convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
FINDINGS:
36. I have carefully examined the testimonies of all the prosecution
witnesses. The relevant sections are reproduced below for ready
reference.
SECTION 302 IPC READS AS UNDER:
Punishment for murder.-“Whoever, commits murder shall be
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 32 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to
fine”.
The offence of murder u/s 302 IPC is the most heinous crimes
under the penal law which provides a maximum punishment uptil death.
Section 302 IPC provides for punishment for murder in a very simple
language thereby laying down that “whoever commits murder shall be
punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to
fine”. The substantive offence of murder is defined u/s 300 IPC which
provides for an inclusive definition of murder, at the same time
distinguishing it with section 299 IPC where the culpable homicide not
amounting to murder has been explained. The offence of murder requires
a perfect combination of important ingredients of crime which are mens
rea and actus reus. It also prescribes that there should be a complete
coherence between the actus and mens rea at the time of death of a person
is committed. The section further provides that in case the degree of
actus or mens rea is lessened, or the circumstances falls under any of the
exceptions as enumerated, in such an eventuality, the offence again slips
back to Section 299 IPC. Simply stating in every offence of murder,
there shall a culpable homicide as defined under section 299 IPC but not
vice versa. Reliance placed on case titled Narsingh Challan Vs. State of
Orissa (1997) 2 Crimes 78.
IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
37. In so far as the identity of the accused persons is concerned, the
same is not disputed by the accused persons and further prosecution has
also established the same beyond reasonable doubt. Accused persons have
not themselves denied that they are not named accused persons who are
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 33 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
mentioned in the case FIR. All the public witnesses PW-02 Preeti, PW-05
Sangeeta, PW-06 Anu, PW-08 Sunita, PW-09 Santosh, PW-11 Sidhant @
Sidhu, PW-12 Rajan @ Ricky, PW-15 Suresh have correctly identified
the the accused Suresh, Babita and Meena in the court. In these
circumstances, the identity of the accused persons stands proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE/CAUSE OF DEATH.
38. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Naresh Kumar
died on 05.08.2014 at 11:05 AM, the deceased was first admitted to Mata
Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri wherein he was brought gasping,
unconscious and at 11:30 AM, he was declared dead. The MLC was
prepared by PW-19/Dr. Jitender Kumar and the same was Ex.PW-19/A.
39. Further, PM report No. 1034/2014 dated 06.08.2014 which is
Ex.PW-13/A states that the on 05.08.2014 at about 09:55 PM and
information was received to PCR about the deceased was found
unconscious at his house and then PCR brought him to Mata Chanan
Devi Hospital wherein declared brough dead at 11:40 AM on the same
day. It is noted as under:
“External Injuries:
I. Multiple bruises having 3cmx2 cm to 1.5 cm x 1 cm present on teh right
side of face, above the eyebrow with brown in color.
II. Multiple bruises of size 4cm x 2cm to 2 cm x 1 cm present on the knees,
back, shoulder and right foor (dorsal aspect) showing brown in color.
III. One contusion (haematoma) of size 6 cm X 5 cm present on the
occipital region of head. On dissection dark colored blood clot explored
cut.
Internal injuries:
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 34 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
IV. Head; Scalp: Sub scalp tissue contused on the occipital region of head
having size of 5 cm X 4 cm with reddish brown in color.
V. Brain, Meanings & Vessels: Massive subdural haemorrhage present on
the bilateral temporo-parietal, vertex and occipital part of brain with
then layered subarachnoid haemorrhage present on avergae all parts of
cerebrum with contusions on occipital lobe withe generalized brain
oedema.
VI. Base of Skull: The middle and posterior cranial fossa contained blood
clots.
VII. Neck; Hyoid Bone/Thyroid Cartilage/Cricoid Cartilage/Tracheal
Rings & Mucosa/Any Foreign body in Trachea: Bloody fluid present into
lumen of trachea.
VIII. Abdomen….; liver, gall blader, biliary passages : Liver
moderately enlarged weighting 1600 grams. On dissection fatty changes
observed.
IX. …Opinion: The cause of death is due to head injuries as a result of
blunt forceful impact upon the head of deceased.; Manner of death-
The possibility of physical assault cannot be ruled out, however,
the final opined in this regard shall be opined after receipt of FSL
report of blood and viscera.; All injuries sustained on the body
appears 3-4 days in duration. The injury no.3 was sufficient to
cause death in an ordinary course of nature.”
40. PW- 13 B.N.Mishra has deposed that on 06.08.2014, he was posted
in the abovesaid department as Medical Officer cum Medical Legal
Expert and Criminologist. On that day, he had conducted postmortem
examination on the body of deceased Naresh Kumar S/o Pale Ram, aged
40 years, Male. On examination of the body, he had observed multiple
bruises on different parts of the body with different dimensions alongwith
one haematoma on the head. On internal examination of the body, there
was subdural haemorrhage present on the different parts of the brain with
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 35 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
thin layered subarachnoid and hemorrhage present on all parts of the
cerebrum with contusion on the occipital lobe of brain with generalized
brain oedema.
After completion of postmortem examination he has opined that
cause of death was due to head injury as a result of blunt forceful impact
on the head and manner of death was deferred till the receipt of forensic
lab analysis of blood and viscera of deceased.
All the injuries sustained on the body of deceased were appearing
3-4 days in duration and injury no.3 was sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature. The time since death was approximately two
days prior to postmortem examination. The detailed PM Report is
Ex.PW-13/A bearing his signatures at point A. After postmortem
examination, he had preserved the blood in gauge piece and in sodium
flouride alongwith viscera and clothing of deceased and same were
handed over to IO for examination.
On 31.10.2014, Insp. Bhagwan Singh, PS Uttam Nagar submitted
application regarding subsequent opinion for consistency of weapon of
offence with respect to injuries. sustained on the body of deceased Naresh
Kumar S/o Pale Ram. After examination of the wooden stick/danda i.e.
weapon of offence, he opined that the said wooden stick could have been
inflicted on the body of deceased which caused injuries as mentioned in
PM Report Ex.PW-13/A, his subsequent opinion is Ex.PW-13/B bearing
his signatures at point A.
During cross-examination, he deposed that he had gone through the
FSL report pertaining to blood and viscera from the judicial file that day.
After going through FSL report, he deposed that in the report that no any
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 36 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
common poisons/alcohol could be detected in the blood and viscera of
deceased. At the stage of preparing the PM report of deceased the manner
of death was deferred for the point of FSL report concerned to chemical
analysis of blood and viscera. In that stage, the witness further stated that
he had seen the FSL report and findings does not show any poisons or
otherwise substance. After going through FSL and PM report he was of
the opinion that the manner of death was homicide and the rest of opinion
shall be the same as mentioned in PM report. He also correctly identified
the danda as recovered from accused Suresh and deposed that the same
was examined by him at the time of subsequent opinion. Danda is Ex. Pl.
He denied the suggestion that injuries found on the body of
deceased can be possible by falling on the ground, accidentally or by
falling on some hard surface. He denied the suggestion that he had not
examined the weapon of offence mentioned above or that he had only
given opinion as per the facts briefed to him by IO.
41. As per PM report, Ex.PW13/A, the cause of death is due to head
injuries of blunt forceful impact upon the head of the deceased. In view of
the above, the present court is of the opinion that the prosecution has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was
caused due to forceful impact of danda which is in consonance with the
prosecutions version that deceased died due to the reason as above.
42. Now the identity of accused has been established and cause of
death is also proved beyond reasonable doubt, the only moot question that
is before the court is that whether the accused Babita, Meena and Suresh
killed deceased Naresh.
TESTIMONY OF EYE-WITNESS
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 37 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
43. The prosecution has based its case upon the testimony of PW-02
Preeti as the main eye witness of entire incident and the testimonies of the
witnesses who has seen the quarrel between the accused persons and the
deceased. In the present case, the entire incident was witnesses by PW-02
Preeti who is the daughter of PW-15 Suresh i.e. brother of deceased
Naresh. PW-02 Preeti has deposed that her bade-papa Naresh used to visit
their house and he was very loving to her. He was killed by her badi
mummy Meena, her Mama Pradeep and Suresh uncle. She also deposed
that the deceased was killed in the night and he was assaulted with danda
by her elder mother Meena and hit by a lathi by Suresh uncle. He was
also hit on his back. He screamed but did not try to run away. Her Bade
Mummi Meena also hit him with her legs when her Bade Pappa Naresh
had fallen down. Babita, her mother had also hit deceased Naresh with a
broom (Jharu). She deposed that when the incident took place before her,
she was standing on the stairs. She did not tell that to anyone at that time
as all others were sleeping. She told that to her Dadi next day in the
morning. Dadi told her to call her Bua. On the same day, she was cross-
examined (through the child counselor), she deposed that no police uncle
met her in the morning. He did not meet her even outside Court. The
stairs are from the outside of the house. She denied the suggestion that a
person cannot see anything inside the house if he is standing on the stair
case. On the day of the incident the school was closed. Her bade papa did
not use to take liquor (Daru). The incident happened on the ground floor
outside room. She denied the suggestion that deceased has expired after
falling from the stairs. Blood did not ooze out after her Bade Papa was
hit. Nobody from outside came at the spot when her Bade Papa was
beaten. No one else was present except the accused persons at the time of
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 38 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
incident. She denied the suggestion that Komal, Rahul, Sarov, Gaurav
and Deepu were present at the time of incident. She voluntarily stated that
they had gone outside. She does not remember the exact time of incident
however, it was night time. She further deposed that her bua was present
with her Dadi when she told her about the said incident. After the incident
only the accused Pardeep had run away from the spot. Police has come
after she told her Dadi about the incident. At the time she informed about
the incident to her grandmother the police did not make any inquiry from
her but she was inquired by the police later. She denied the suggestion
that she informed the police that deceased had fallen from the stair case
and had died. She denied the suggestion that the statement has been given
falsely at the instance of her dadi and bua. Further, she deposed that she
had come to the Court with her grand mother, aunt (Bua) and brother in
law (Jeeja). She have been told what she had to do in the Court that day.
She denied the suggestion that prior to that day she had been continuous
tutored by them for the purpose of present deposition. She denied the
suggestion that her Nana and Nani had come to take her with them after
the incident but she was not sent deliberately by her Dadi. She further
stated that the danda with which the deceased was hit was little long
(Thoda Bada). There was only one danda. She denied the suggestion that
IO had told her as to what is to be deposed in the Court. She further stated
that she had met him when he used to come to her Bau’s house. She
further stated that she had met him there three/ four times. He had talked
to her during those occasions for some time. When IO uncle met her for
the first time, he asked her about how the incident of Bade Pappa had
happened. her Bua and Dadi were present at that time. She further stated
that she resided in Shiv Vihar, JJ Colony. She does not remember the
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 39 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
number of her house. She denied the suggestion that she had been
threatened by her Dadi and Bua to depose in a particular manner. She
denied the suggestion that she had been tutored by her Dadi and Bua to
depose against the accused. She had been asked about the distance from
which she had seen the incident precisely the distance between staircase
and the place of incident which she had been interpreted in different
manner through the Counsellor. The same is assessed to be about 8-10
feet. She further deposed that She was standing on the top of staircase at
the time of incident. The witness further stated that her mother was
residing on first floor. She later on turned hostile in cross-examination
and deposed that they were three brothers and sisters. She does not know
the year of their birth. She further stated that her birthday was on
Saturday. She denied the suggestion that her Bade Papa never used to
come home back as he was working outside. She further stated that after
the death of her Bade Papa she met her grandmother after one day of
incident. She further stated that She was not aware which day of the week
it was. She denied the suggestion that Bade Papa had gone upstairs to
fetch water. She denied the suggestion that one uncle residing in the
neighbourhood also met her Dadi at the same time when she was talking
to her. She accepted the suggestion that Bade Papa fell on the stairs. She
accepted the suggestion that Bade Papa had rolled down the stairs. She
accepted the suggestion that he received injuries during the said rolling
down. He had received head injury as well as injury on his feet, blood
also oozed out. She denied the suggestion that Doctor had come at home.
She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that bade papa
had fallen down the stairs. Shes denied the suggestion that she had told
the incident regarding bade papa to the police at the instance of her Bua
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 40 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
Sunita. She accepted the suggestion that she had told her Dadi that her
Bade Papa had fallen down from the stairs. She further stated that she had
also told to her Dadi that her Bade Papa was not getting up.
She turned hostile on 20.07.2015 and she deposed that her Bade
Papa Naresh i.e. the deceased had died out of falling from the stairs. She
further stated that He was not hit her danda. Police wrote the statement of
its own and not after asking of her. She was further cross-examined by
the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, however, she has stated that she had given
her previous statement at the instance of her bua namely Sunita.
At this stage, I want to discuss the law on the hostile witness as
well as the law regarding the child witness. At the very outset, the present
court want to mention that all the precautions were taken on 07.07.2015,
before recording the statement of child witness PW-02/Preeti. Many
questions have been put by the court to her which were to the satisfaction
of the court and she was comfortable and adjusted to the court
environment and she was held to be competent enough to give rational
answers after reflection and undertaking the import of the questions.
44. She turned hostile on 20.07.2015, it is well settled law that the
testimony of hostile witnesses should not be rejected in toto and their
testimonies can be read in evidence, even if they have turned hostile on
some aspects. In that regard, I place reliance upon Ramesh Kumar and
Ors. Vs. State 2013 VIII AD (Delhi) 617 Crl.A. Para 4 of the said
judgment is relevant which is reproduced as follows:-
“… It is settled legal preposition that statement of hostile witnesses can
not be rejected in toto. The evidence of such witnesses can not be treated
as effaced or washed of the record altogether. It can be admitted to the
extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny
thereof. Statement of PW9 (Neer Singh) can be taken into consideration
to the extent it is in consonance with the testimony of PW6 (JagjitFIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 41 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
Singh)…”
45. In the case of Selvamani Vs. The State, relying on the judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Bhagwan Singh v.
State of Haryana, Sri Rabindra Kuamr Dey v. State of Orissa, Syad Akbar
v. State of Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 627 : 1991 INSC 153 (1976) 1 SCC
389 : 1975 INSC 306 (1976) 4 SCC 233 : 1976 INSC 204 (1980) 1 SCC
30 : 1979 INSC 126, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the
evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely
because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined
him. It was further held that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be
treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be
accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful
scrutiny thereof…
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that in the case of C.
Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu10, it has been observed:
” It is settled legal proposition that : (Khujji case, SCC p. 635, para 6)
‘6. … the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto
merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-
examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as
effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted
to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful
scrutiny thereof.”
In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, (1996) 10 SCC 360] that Court
held that (at SCC p. 363, para 7) evidence of a hostile witness would not
be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused
but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the
evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence
can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by that Court in
Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 543], Gagan
Kanojia v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 (2010) 9 SCC 567 : 2010 INSC
553 SCC 516], Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P.,(2006) 2 SCC 450],
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 42 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 360] and Subbu
Singh v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 462.
46. Thus, the law can be summarized to the effect that the evidence of
a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts
thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the
defence.
47. PW-2/Preeti has deposed that it was the accused person who have
beaten up the deceased when no one else was present in home and he was
not moving after that she deposed that he had not fallen from the stairs as
alleged by the accused persons. In the present case, PW-2 Preeti has
turned hostile during the cross-examination as done on 20.07.2015. The
witness turning hostile during cross examination has been dealt
extensively in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it has been held that:
“…But counsel for the State is right when he submits that the evidence
of a witness, de-clared hostile, is not wholly effaced from the record
and that part of evidence which is otherwise acceptable can be acted
upon. It seems to be well settled by the decisions of that Court
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, [1976] 2 SCR 921; Rabinder
Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, [1976] 4 SCC 233 and Syed lqbal v.
State of Karnataka, [1980] 1 SCR 95 that the evidence of a
prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the
prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The
evidence of such witness- es cannot be treated as effaced or washed
off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent
their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny
thereof…”
The High Court came to the conclusion and, in our opinion rightly,
that during the one month period that elapsed since the recording of
his examination-in-chief something transpired which made him shift
his evidence on the question of identity to help the appellant. We are
satisfied on a reading of his entire evidence that his statement in
cross-examination on the question of identity of the appellant and his
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 43 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
companion is a clear attempt to wriggle out of what he had stated
earlier in his examination-in-chief”.
48. In view of the above case law, the present court is of the opinion
that testimony of PW-02 Preeti can be read in evidence as she has
supported the case of the prosecution in her examination-in-chief and
cross-examination as done on 07.07.2015. As I have discussed earlier, on
that day the court has taken all the necessary precautions and only after
that her testimony was recorded. Further, the present court can very well
understand the mental state of the child witness who has deposed against
her own mother and her turning hostile on later stage can be very well
explained because of that. It is also relevant here to mention that Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in umpteen number of cases has mandated that
cross-examination of child witness must be completed on the same day
which explains the tendency of the child witness turning hostile at a later
stage and the situation becomes more complex when that child witness
deposing against her own mother or other relatives like in our case.
49. It is reflecting that entire prosecution is primarily based on
testimony of PW2/victim A. The witness is considered to be an important
factor or integral part of the administration of justice and role of a witness
is paramount in the criminal justice system. She by giving evidence
assists the court in discovery of the truth. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Mahender Chawla and Others V. Union of India and Others , (2019) 14
SCC 615 observed that witnesses are important players in the judicial
system, who help the judges in arriving at correct factual findings. The
instrument of evidence is the medium through which facts, either
disputed or required to be proved, are effectively conveyed to the courts.
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 44 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
50. The prosecution in establishing the guilt of the accused persons
has heavily relied upon the testimony of PW-02 Ms. Preeti. It has been
held by the Hon’ble Suprerior court in a number of cases that the cases
pertaining to henious crimes, conviction can be done on the sole basis of
child witness. If such witness is found competent to testify and the court
after careful scruitiny of evidence believes it. I would like here to rely the
judgment Dattu Ramrao Sakhare and Others V State of Maharashtra,
(1997) 5 SCC 341 in which it was held that when the testimony of the
child witness inspires confidence as there is a thread of truth in the
statements recorded by the Investigating Officer and the testimony
recorded in the court. PW-Preeti has deposed that she has stated to the
police that her bade papa i.e. deceased has been beaten mercilessly by
accused persons. PW-Suresh who is the father of PW-2 Preeti has also
corroborated the testimony that Preeti has infact told him that accused
persons have beaten the deceased. Similarly her testimony stands
corroborated from the testimony of PW-09 Santosh who has deposed that
Preeti had told her that bade papa was given beatings by Suresh, Pradeep,
Meena and Babita. The testimony of PW Preeti was done after taking the
necessary precautions and care. She has deposed that the accused persons
have given beatings to the deceased and he has not fallen down from
stairs as the defence taken by the accused persons. She has struck to her
stand even during her cross-examination on that day and it was only on
20.07.2015 when she turned hostile.
51. Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the
witnesses who can testify. It provides that all persons shall be competent
to testify, unless in the consideration of court they are prevented from
understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 45 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
to those questions by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of
body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. The issue of
evidentiary value of the testimony of child witness has been considered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on many occasions. It is observed and
held that the credibility of a child witness depends upon the
circumstances of each case and the precaution which should have been
taken while assessing the testimony of a child witness is that the witness
must be reliable and demeanour of child witness must be like any other
competent witness without likelihood of being tutored.
52. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak V
State of Gujarat, (2004) 1 SCC 64 also held as under:-
…The decision on the question whether the child witness has sufficient
intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who notices his manners,
his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and the said Judge may
resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and
intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath.
The decision of the trial court may, however, be disturbed by the higher
court if from what is preserved in the records, it is clear that his
conclusion was erroneous.
This precaution is necessary because child witnesses are amenable
to tutoring and often live in a world of make- believe. Though it is an
established principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses as they
are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded, but it
is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of their evidence the
court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there
is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of a child witness.
53. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Ramesh V State Rep by
Inspector of Police, (2019) 20 SCC 593 also held as under:- In order to
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 46 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
determine the competency of a child witness, the judge has to form her or
his opinion. The judge is at the liberty to test the capacity of a child
witness and no precise rule can be laid down regarding the degree of
intelligence and knowledge which will render the child a competent
witness. The competency of a child witness can be ascertained by
questioning her/him to find out the capability to understand the
occurrence witnessed and to speak the truth before the court. In criminal
proceedings, a person of any age is competent to give evidence if she/he
is able to (i) understand questions put as a witness; and (ii) give such
answers to the questions that can be understood.
54. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if she/he has the
intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers
thereto. A child becomes incompetent only in case the court considers that
the child was unable to understand the questions and answer them in a
coherent and comprehensible manner. If the child understands the
questions put to her/him and gives rational answers to those questions, it
can be taken that she/he is a competent witness to be examined.
55. The courts as a rule of prudence before accepting the testimony of
a child witness cautioned that the testimony has to be evaluated carefully
being susceptible to tutoring. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh V Ramesh and Another, (2011) 4 SCC 786 held as
under:-
In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to
the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require
corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the
court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court
may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be
evaluated more carefully with grater circumspection because he is
susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence or record to showFIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 47 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
that a child has been tutored, the court can reject his statement partly or
fully. However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or
not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition.
56. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjeet Kumar Ram @ Ranjeet
Kumar Das V State of Bihar, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 500 also observed
that evidence of the child witness and its credibility would depend upon
the circumstances of each case and only precaution which the court has to
bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the
witness must be a reliable one.
57. The acceptance of testimony of a child witness under henious
offences came into consideration before the Courts on many occasions.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganesan V State Rep. by Its Inspector of
Police, (2020) 10 SCC 573 while dealing with conviction under POCSO
Act held that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of
credence and reliable, requires no corroboration and the court may
convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.
58. PW2/Preeti supported case of prosecution in examination in chief
and cross-examination as done on the first day of the recording of
evidence but did not support case of prosecution in cross examination
done at a later stage. The evidence of the hostile witness cannot be
rejected but has to be considered with caution. As discussed earlier, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions has discussed admissibility
of testimony of a hostile witness. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
U.P. V Ramesh Prasad Misra and Another, (1996) 10 SCC 360 held the
evidence of a hostile witness should not be totally rejected but it can be
subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is
consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted.
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 48 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Muniappan and Others V State of
Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567 held that the evidence of a hostile witness
cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are
admissible in law can be used by the prosecution or the defence. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrinal Das and Others V State of Tripura,
(2011) 9 SCC 479 held as under:
59. It is settled law that corroborated part of evidence of hostile
witness regarding commission of offence is admissible. The fact that the
witness was declared hostile at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and
he was allowed to cross-examine the witness furnishes no justification for
rejecting en bloc the evidence of the witness. However, the court has to
be very careful, as prima facie, a witness who makes different statements
at different times, has no regard for the truth. His evidence has to be read
and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight
should be attached to it. The court should be slow to act on the testimony
of such a witness, normally, it should look for corroboration with other
witnesses. Merely because a witness deviates from his statement made in
the FIR, his evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable. To make it
clear that evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the
extent, he supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of a person
does not become effaced from the record merely because he has turned
hostile and his deposition must be examined more cautiously to find out
as to what extent he has supported the case of the prosecution.
60. PW-2 Preeti has deposed that it was the accused persons who have
given beatings to the deceased. She has specifically denied that he had
fallen from the stairs on examination done on 07.07.2015. At this stage
the medical evidence also become important, PW-13 Dr. B.N. Mishra has
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 49 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
observed mutiple bruises on different parts of the body with different
dimensions along with one Haematoma on the head. He has given the
cause of death due to head injury as a result of blunt forceful impact on
the head. He also opined that injury no.3 was sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature. He has also given his subsequent opinion on
wooden danda/stick which could have inflicted the injuries as mentioned
in PM report Ex.PW-13/A. He has also gone through FSL and PM report
and he was of the opinion that the cause of death was homicidal in nature.
He has specifically deposed during cross-examination where he denied
the suggestion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased can be
possible by falling on the ground, accidentally or by falling on some hard
surface and also he denied the suggestion that he had not examined the
weapon of offence mentioned or that he had only given opinion as per the
facts briefed to him by IO.
61. Also, PW-05 Sangeeta and PW-06 Anu has seen the accused
persons present in the house as per the story of the prosecution, however,
they both turned hostile, but they both have deposed that they have seen
the deceased in the house that day which corroborates the testimony of
PW-02 Preeti that the deceased was present in the house that day.
62. PW-09 Santosh who is the mother of the deceased has deposed that
Naresh was residing with his family and six months prior to the incident,
sister of Meena namely Babita was residing with Meena and his brother-
in-law namely Pradeep was also residing with them. PW Suresh has
deposed that his wife Meena was residing with Babita. PW-2/Preeti has
deposed that she had seen the accused persoons beating the deceased
Naresh at that point of time and no onle else was present in the house
except the accuse persons. Also, in the stament u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 50 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
accused persons have not providing any explanantion that they were not
residing with the deceased. Accused Suresh has also not disclosed
regarding his presence else whereh. At this stage, the Section 106 Indian
Evidence Act becomes important.
63. In opinion of the court, that is a fit case for invoking Section 106 of
the Evidence Act which lays down that when any fact is especially within
the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving the fact is upon him.
In Ram Ghulam Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar 2001(8) SCC 311, the
Hon’ble Apex Court had considered the applicability of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act. It was observed therein that even though Section 106 of the
Evidence Act may not be intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but the Section
would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving
facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the
death. The accused by virtue of their special knowledge were expected to
offer an explanation which might lead the Court to draw a different
inference.
64. In State of Rajasthan v/s Jaggu Ram, in Crl. Appeal No.1133 of
2000, decided on 04.01.2008, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of
acquittal of the High Court while noting the observations of the Apex
Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra 2006(1) SCC
681 and observed as follows:-
“The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the bride has
shown a phenomenal increase in the last few years. Cases are frequently
coming before the courts, where the husband or in-laws have gone to the
extent of killing the bride if the demand is not met. These crimes are
generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it
becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. No member
of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forwardFIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 51 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
to depose against another family member. The neighbours, whose
evidence may be of some assistance, are generally reluctant to depose in
court as they want to keep aloof and do not want to antagonise a
neighbourhood family. The parents or other family members of the bride
being away from the scene of commission of crime are not in a position
to give direct evidence which may inculpate the real accused except
regarding the demand of money or dowry and harassment caused to the
bride. But, it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside
the houses should go unpunished.”
If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such
circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and
commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it
will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to
establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial
evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts. A judge does
not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is
punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape.
Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the
prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost
impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty
on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of
leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it
is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says
that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the
burden of proving that fact is upon him.
The victim had died within two years of marriage.
The police had collected the ashes and the bones from the cremation
ground. The Forensic Experts did not find any poison. The fact that the
FSL report did not show any traces of poison by itself is not a ground for
acquittal. I have gone through the judgments referred to by the
appellants. I find that the facts there are distinguishable. In the present
case, the mother has spoken about various episodes of cruelty and
harassment and of demand. In Gurdeep Singh‘s case (supra) the Court
had found that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the
witnesses had stated that they were indeed present when the cremation
had taken place. The Court had found that there were contradictions in
what was narrated in the Court and the case also failed the proximity test
and therefore the appeal was allowed.
65. In view of the aforesaid case law, the unnatural conduct of the
accused persons also becomes important and it requires detailed
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 52 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
delibration. As I have discussed earlier that accused Meena and Babita
were staying in the house of the deceased Naresh and PW-02 Preeti has
deposed empatically on oath that accused Suresh was also present at the
time of the incident. In the cross-examination of the public witnesses,
accused persons have taken the stand that accused has fallen down from
the stairs and he was in drunken condition, as questions have been put
regarding the same to the prosecution witnesses during examination. It
has also been suggested to the PWs that he was drunk and that is why he
fell down. In the PM report there is no alcohal found in the blood of the
deceased. Most importantly, there is no explanantion as to why the
deceased was not taken to the hospital when he got injured, even if it is
presumed that the deceased was drunk & had fallen from the stairs, which
points towards the unnatual behaviour of the accused perons. It was PW
Santosh and PW Sunita who have called the police and the police took
the deceased to hospital, until then he kept laying on the floor, there is no
explanation as to why the deceased was not taken to hospital when
admittedly when they were present in the house of the deceased Naresh.
Accused Suresh has not brought any evidence/witness to prove that he
was not present at the place of incident at that time.
66. At this stage reliance is placed on the case titled as Prem Singh Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2023 decided on
02.01.2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that:
“14……..Moving on to the other applicable provisions and
principles, we may usefully take note of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act, casting burden of proving a fact especially within
knowledge of any person, and a few relevant decisions in regard to
its operation qua an accused.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads as under: –
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 53 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
“106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. — When
any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the
burden of proving that fact is upon him.”
67. In the case of Sudru v. State of Chhattisgarh: (2019) 8 SCC 333
had been the one where the appellant was charged of the murder of his
son in his house; and the principal prosecution witnesses, including wife
of the appellant, turned hostile to the prosecution but, the facts did come
out of their testimony that the deceased was left alone in the company of
the appellant and the next day, the deceased was found dead.
68. In this view of the aforesaid case law, the prosecution has
established the aforesaid fact that deceased was present in the house
along with accused persons, the burden would shift upon the accused
persons under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Once the prosecution
proves, that it is the deceased and the accused, who were alone in that
room and on the next day morning the dead body of the deceased was
found, the onus shifts on the accused persons to explain, as to what has
happened in that night and as to how the death of the deceased has
occurred.
69. Further, recovery has been done at the instance of the accused
Suresh. PW-25 Retrd. Bhagwan Singh has deposed that on 09.08.2014, he
has joined SI Braham Prakash and Indu for invesigation and search of
accused Pradeep. Accused Suresh got recovered the weapon of offence
i.e. the Danda from his house which was lying behind the door and the
same was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW10/S after converting
it into pulanda and sealed it with the seal of BS. The witness further
deposed that it was seized vide the said seizure memo bearing his
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 54 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
signatures at point X. Thereafter, they returned to PS and deposited the
case property in malkhana.
70. PW-10 Braham Prakash deposed that on 09.08.2014, he joined the
investigation of the case and apprehended accused Suresh along with IO
and he was arrested. Also, they got recovered the weapon of offence i.e.
the danda from the house of the accused Suresh behind the door of his
house. Thereafter, accused led them to the spot and pointing out the same
was pointing out memo Ex. PW10/R which bears his signatures at point
A. Thereafter, accused got recovered one danda from behind the door of
his house. IO sealed the same in a pullanda with the seal of BS and was
taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/S which bears his
signatures at point A. Thereafter, accused Suresh was brought to police
station. IO recorded his supplementary statement. He deposed that can
identify the said danda if shown to him.
71. It is argued by Ld. defence counsel that recovery is planted one as
there is no public witness who has joined the investigation when the
recovery of danda was made. Also, in the cross-examination of PW-25
Retrd. Bhagwan Singh, he has denied the suggestion that he did not make
any effort to join public witness and he had deposed that he has asked few
passerbys to join the investigation but none joined.
72. However, in the opinion of the court, there are number of
judgments in which it has been held that the testimonies of police
witnesses is equal footing with the testimony of any other witness, if it is
clear, coherent and reliable. To substantiate my view, I would like to
refer to the following judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
State Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and another (2001) 1 SCC
652, it has been observed:
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 55 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
“In that context we may point out that there is no requirement either
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to obtain signature of independent
witnesses on the record in which statement of an accused is written.
The legal obligation to call independent and respectable inhabitants of
the locality to attend and witness the exercise made by the police is
cast on the police officer when searches are made under Chapter VII
of the Code. Section 100(5) of the Code requires that such search
shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in the
course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively
found, shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by
such witnesses. It must be remembered that search is made to find
outa thing or document which the searching officer has no prior idea
where the thing or document is kept. He prowls for it either on
reasonable suspicion or on some guess work that it could possibly be
ferreted out in such prowling. It is a stark reality that during searches
the team which conducts search would have to meddle with lots of
other articles and documents also and in such process many such
articles or documents are likely to be displaced or even strewn helter-
skelter. The legislative idea in insisting on such searches to be made
in the presence of two independent inhabitants of the locality is to
ensure the safety of all such articles meddled with and to protect the
rights of the persons entitled thereto. But, recovery of an object
pursuant to the information supplied by an accused in custody is
different from the searching endeavor envisaged in Chapter VII of the
Code. that Court has indicated the difference between the two
processes in the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad & anr. Vs. S. Sardar Ali & Ors. (1983 SC 1225).
Following observations of Chinnappa Reddy J. can be used to support
the said legal proposition: Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure
Code to which reference was made by the counsel deals with searches
and not seizures. In the very nature of things when property is seized
and not recovered during a search, it is not possible to comply with
the provisions of sub-section (4) and (5) of section 100 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of a seizure [under the Motor
Vehicles Act], there is no provision for preparing a list of the things
seized in the course of the seizure for the obvious reason that all those
things are seized not separately but as part of vehicle itself. Hence, it
is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to
any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the
investigating officer contemporaneous with such recovery must
necessarily be attested by independent witnesses. Of course, if any
such statement leads to recovery of any articles it is open to theFIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 56 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
investigating officer to take the signature of any person present at that
time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But, if no witness
was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the
document, if is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the
document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted
and the recovery evidence unreliable. The Court has to consider the
evidence of the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of
recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own
worth.
We fell that it is in archaic notion that actions of the police officer
should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a
notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen
also knew about it. Its hang over persisted during post-independent
years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the
actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the Court
cannot start with the presumption that the police records are
untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the
other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly
performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by
the legislature. Hence, when a police officer gives evidence in Court
that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the
statement made by the accused it is open to the Court to believe the
version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is
for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through
any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is
either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular
case. If the Court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of
such records of the police the Court could certainly take into account
the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of
recovery. But, it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the
police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action
merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of
independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with
such actions.”
73. It is abundantly clear from the abovesaid judgment that there is no
rule of law which enjoins upon the Court not to rely upon the testimony
of the police officials in the absence of any independent/public witness.
The only concern is to be more cautious and circumspect before placing
any reliance on their testimonies. In other words, their testimony is to be
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 57 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
subjected to careful scrutinization and assessment as compared to the
testimony of any other public person. On the touchstone of these
principles, the present court is of the opinion that in the instant case, there
is no ground not to believe the testimonies of all the police personnel.
74. Perusal of the testimony of PW-25 Retrd. Bhagwan Singh clearly
shows that he had deposed that he had asked the passerby to join the
investigation, however, none gave them their willingness to join
investigation. He had been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel,
however, he struck to his stand and nothing could be elicited from his
testimonies which can in any way give, even, a hint that the recovery is a
planted one.
75. In view of the above, the argument of defence counsel that the
testimony of police officials should be discarded merely because there is
no independent public witness of recovery does not hold ground as their
testimonies are clear, coherent and inspires the confidence of the court.
Reference in that regard can be made to the decision in Ajmer Singh Vs.
State of Haryana 2010(2)RCR (Crl.) 132 and Ram Swaroop Vs. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2013 VI AD (SC 228).
MOTIVE
76. Coming to the aspect of motive of the accused persons to commit
the crime. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defence that the accused
persons had no motive to kill Naresh Kumar and infact it was PW-
Santosh and PW-Sunita who have falsely implicated them in the present
case. In the case titled as Nandu Singh Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 58 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
(Now Chhattisgarh), Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 7998 of 2021), it
is held that by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India that:
“..Relying on Anwar Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court
made the 1(2020) 10 SCC 1665 legal position clear in following
words:- …….it is true that the absence of proving the motive cannot be a
ground to reject the prosecution case. It is also true and as held by this
Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar that if motive is
proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence
but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution
case. However, at the same time, as observed by this Court in Babu Vs.
State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189, absence of motive in a case
depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour
of the accused…”
77. No doubt in the cases based on circumstantial evidence, existence
of motive assumes significance and plays crucial link completing the
chain of circumstantial evidence, however, if the evidence is clear and
unambiguous and the circumstances proves the guilt of the accused
persons, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not established.
In judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suresh
Chandra Bahari v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 it was held that
if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of
circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof, cannot be a ground to
reject the prosecution case.
78. The motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused
themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what
actually prompted or ex-cited them to commit the particular crime. The
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 59 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for
assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and
the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not
weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one.
79. In the present case, PW- Sunita and PW-Santosh have deposed
that the accused Suresh was having illicit relationship with Meena and
therefore they all have committed this crime. However, both the
witnesses have deposed in the cross-examination that they have not filed
any complaint to the police or panchayat regarding this alleged illicit
reliationship.The present court can understand that parties may not take
the recourse to any legal authority in such kind of cases due to social
circumstances. Be that as it may be, even the absence of motive would
not be relevant in the present case which is based on direct evidence of
PW-2 Preeti. The evidence is clear and unambiguous and inspires the
confidence of the court which is sufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused persons and the same is not weakened even if the motive is not
established. In judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Suresh Chandra Bahari v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 it was
held that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of
circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to
reject the prosecution case.
80. Moreover, PW Sunita, PW Santosh & PW Suresh have deposed
emphaticallt on oath that PW Preeti has told them in the morning that she
has sesen the accused persons giving beatings to the deceased. Though, it
would not be substantive piece of evidence being heresay in nature,
however, it can be seen that she has told PW Santosh first thing in the
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 60 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
morning when she got the opportunity to tell about the incident. As
discussed earlier, the accused persons did not take the deceased to
hospital and he kept laying on floor for the entire night.
DISCREPANCIES:
81. As far as the contention of the Ld. counsel for accused that there
are certain discrepancies in the testimony of PWs, I would like to say that
minor discrepancies on trivial mater not touching the core of the matter
cannot bring discredit to the story of the prosecution. Giving undue
importance to them would amount to adopting a hyper-technical
approach. It has been held in Thoti Manoher Vs. State of A.P. (2012) 7
Supreme Court cases in para 38.
‘…the Court, while appreciation the evidence, should not attach much
significance to minor discrepancies, for the discrepancies which do not
shake the basic version of the prosecution case are to be ignored…’
82. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some
omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be
disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the
evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements,
the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is
sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not
be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not
go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the
prosecution’s witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be
expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor
discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. Vide
Sohrab v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 751, State of U.P. v. M.K.
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 61 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of
Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217, State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2007) 12
SCC 381, Prithu v. State of H.P., (2009) 11 SCC 588, State of U.P. v.
Santosh Kumar, (2009) 9 SCC 626 and State v. Saravanan, (2008) 17
SCC 587″.
83. Now coming to grip with charge under section 34 IPC against the
accused persons. Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint
liability in the commission of a criminal act. The liability of one person
for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act
perpetrated by several persons arises under section 34, if such criminal
act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join
in committing the crime. In the case titled Jagan Shravan Patil Vs. State
of Maharashtra, 2009 (2) RCR (criminal) 269, it has been SC No.
57115/2016 FIR No. 30/2013held by Apex Court that where offence is
committed by a number of persons in furtherance of common intention,
direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such
intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the
proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring
home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by
evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting
of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they
are charge with the aid of section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of
the moment, but it must necessarily be before the commission of the
crime. In the instant case, it has been specifically deposed by
PW-02/Preeti that all the accused persons gave beatings to the deceased
together using danda. Thus, it can be safely extrapolated that all the
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 62 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
accused persons shared the common intention of restraining him
wrongfully and causing injuries on his person.
84. Further, injuries were inflicted by the accused persons on vital part
of the deceased Naresh in furtherance of common intention of all the
accused. After committing the gruesome incident, accused persons left
the deceased at the place of incident and tried to implicate a story that the
deceased has fallen from the stairs. In furtherance of common intention
they committed joint attack on the deceased. It proves the common
intention of the accused. In furtherance of common intention accused
inflicted injuries using danda jointly which is the cause of death of
deceased Naresh.
85. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present court concludes that
the accused persons were only present in the house where the whole
incident occurred along with the deceased and PW-Preeti gave her
testimony in the court and she has deposed that accused persons gave
beatings to the deceased. She specifically denied in cross-examination
that she informed the police that deceased had fallen from the stair cases
and had died. She also denied the suggestion that the statement has been
given falsely at the instance of her dadi and Bua. Also, she denied the
suggestion that IO had told her as to what is to be deposed in the court.
Further she denied the suggestion that she had been threatened by her
dadi and bua to depose in a particular manner and she had been tutored by
her dadi and bua to depose against the accused. Consequently, after
carefully examining the entire circumstances surrounding the incident,
deposition of PW-2 Preeti is clear & coherent and inspires the confidence
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 63 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar
of the court and it is sufficient to made basis for the conviction of the
accused persons.
86. In view of my discussions mentioned herein above and keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of this case, present Court is of the
opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
and therefore, the accused Babita, Meena and Suresh are convicted for
the offence u/s 302/34 IPC
87. Let the accused persons be heard on the point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN Digitally signed
by AMBIKA
AMBIKA SINGH
COURT ON THIS 10.01.2025 SINGH Date:
2025.01.14
16:12:58 +0530
(AMBIKA SINGH)
ASJ-02 (WEST), DELHI
10.01.2025
FIR No. 871/2014 State Vs. Babita & Ors. Page 64 of 64
PS Uttam Nagar