BIKRAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal assails the impugned judgment dtd. 20/10/2018 convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC and order on sentence dtd. 13/11/2018 sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000.00for offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC (SI for 3 months in default of payment of fine).

(2.) As per the case of the prosecution the appellant is guilty of murder of Smt. Renu Singh on 7/7/2011, at first floor, House No. A-422, Gali No. 6, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi. The investigation was triggered off by an information received in the Police Control Room by PW-22 lady Ct. Munesh Yadav at about 11.50 a.m. from mobile No. 9873088958 (of the complainant Sh. Ajay Singh Masih PW-5) informing that he found his wife murdered at his house. The said information was transmitted to PS Burari and was received by PW-1 HC Chander Pal who recorded it in DD No. 14A (Ex. PW-1/A). The case was assigned to PW-13 SI Bhupender who reached the spot. In the meantime, PW-23, the IO Inspector Vikramjit Singh also reached the place of incident. The deceased was found lying on the bed with wound marks on her neck. The complainant/husband of the deceased was present and his statement was recorded and the rukka was prepared. PW-23 lifted exhibits including blood samples of the deceased, blood lying near the bed, pink color salwar kameez, bloodstained bedsheet and pillow, small pieces of cigarette butts and hair strands found lying there. Site plan Ex. PW-13/A was also prepared. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed in the learned Trial Court and charges were framed against the appellant under Sec. 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The appellant was arrested first in FIR 189/2011 in a case related to extortion of one Mr. R.S. Malhotra. On a search of the appellant in FIR 189/2011, a phone was recovered from which calls had been made to Mr. Malhotra for ransom. This phone was found to be that of the deceased and therefore the appellant was finally arrested in this matter as well. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses, the statement of the accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and no evidence was led in defence. Submissions by the Appellant

(3.) The appellant through its appeal and submissions made on his behalf by the senior counsel submitted that since there was no eyewitness to the incident, the case was purely based on circumstantial evidence, as relied upon by the prosecution. As per the appellant there was no motive for commission of the crime which had been established by the prosecution. It was the prosecution's case that the appellant to impress his girlfriend 'Deepti' had committed the crime of extortion and first killed the deceased to steal her mobile phone and then used that mobile phone for calling one Mr. R.S Malhotra for extortion of money. The prosecution failed to examine 'Deepti' or cite her as witness. Further, it was submitted that no valuable artifact, jewellery or money was missing from the house of the deceased and therefore the issue of the appellant being interested in impressing 'Deepti' with money was not tenable. Mr. Malhotra who was allegedly a victim of extortion by the appellant in another separate case was not cited as a witness in this case and never examined by the prosecution. Moreover, Mr. Malhotra in the other case bearing FIR No. 189/2011 categorically stated that the phone recovered was 'Nokia' and this aspect was unrebutted by the prosecution. No chance prints had been collected from the spot which would connect to the appellant nor was there any mark of any violence or struggle on the body of the appellant as per the MLC. No blood group matching of the deceased or that of the appellant was concluded by the FSL on the knife allegedly used for committing the offence. There was no match of DNA fingerprints, and no opinion was offered due to non-availability of DNA profiles. Six cigarette buds recovered from the room were not sent to FSL for analysis nor was the DNA of the complainant or any third person taken by the police. It was further submitted that there was no eyewitness to the recovery which was made after 12 days on 19/7/2011 from an open place which is opposite to a main market and was a crowded and busy area. The local police were not informed about the recovery proceedings and no witnesses were asked to endorse the seizure memo. The post mortem report prepared on 8/7/2011 states that the time of death was 24 - 36 hours which would fix the time of the murder any time after 12:45 a.m. on 7 th July, 2011 indicating the possibility of some foul play by the husband of the deceased or friends of the husband who were present in the night before as was evident by the cigarette buds present in the room. In this context the statement of the husband that he has spoken to the deceased at 10:55 a.m. on 7/7/2011 was contrary to the medical report. The senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire case of the prosecution rested upon the alleged recovery of the mobile phone (make "Bling'). There were no calls between PW-5 and the deceased from 1/1/2011 till 15/6/2011 and the first call originated only on 16/6/2011 which is highly improbable since as per the prosecution the husband and the wife were living together in the same house. It was submitted that the SIM card as well as the mobile phone of make 'Bling' was falsely planted by the prosecution on the appellant to buttress their case. Further, complaint/rukka which was later converted into an FIR has no indication by PW-5, the husband/complainant, about any missing mobile phone. Even as per the case of the prosecution if the appellant had spoken to the deceased at 10:55 a.m. and discovered the body at 11:15 a.m., it would be quite improbable that in a time frame of 20 minutes the deceased was able to prepare his breakfast i.e. boil eggs on the ground floor kitchen and subsequently be found dead on bed on the first floor without clothes. It was also improbable that in broad day light at 11:00 a.m. in the month of July no one saw the appellant going out of the house particularly when the house was in a densely populated area which is evident from the site plan itself.