State Vs 1 Sudhir Kumar On 6 April 2021

In The Court Of
Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam: Additional Sessions Judge–03:

East District: Karkardooma Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 577 of 2018
State Versus 1. Sudhir Kumar

S/o Sh. Dasai Ram
R/o B-45, Gali No.4,
Gazipur Dairy Farm, Delhi.
Per. Add. : Vill. Daudpur,
PS Shahpur, District Patna, Bihar.
2. Munni Devi
W/o Sh. Pramod Kumar
R/o H.No. B-1, Gali No.2,
Gazipur Dairy Farm, Delhi.
Per. Add. : Village Bhagraria,
PS Gangahata, District -
Sant Kabir Nagar, U.P.
FIR No. : 456/2017

Under Section : 364/302/201/497/34 IPC
Police Station : Gazipur
Chargesheet Filed On : 13.03.2018

Chargesheet Allocated On : 16.03.2018
Chargesheet received by this Court on: 20.03.2018
Judgment Reserved On : 30.03.2021
Judgment Announced On : 06.04.2021
SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 1 of 44

JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts, as germane from the prosecution story, are
that on 13.12.2017 at about 10.51 p.m. on receipt of DD No. 50-A
regarding missing of a girl aged seven years, ASI Yashpal along with Ct.
Rameshwar reached at the spot i.e. Gali No.2, B-1, Gazipur Dairy Farm,
Delhi where complainant Pramod Kumar met them who stated that he has
been residing at abovesaid house as tenant and is a rickshaw puller by
profession. He stated that his minor daughter Kajal, aged about seven
years, went to the house of his neighbour to watch TV along with his two
sons and at about 8.30 pm, Kajal left the said house but did not return
back till that time and they searched for her but in vain. He also gave
physical description of his daughter to the police and also raised a
suspicion on some unknown person who took his daughter away.
2. On the basis of said statement of complainant, a case under
Section 363 IPC was registered. Insp. Amar Singh also reached at the
spot and made inquiries from other tenants and neighbours and searched
the missing girl with parents and landlord Ram Avtar Singh Yadav. During
search, one Ajeet noticed the said girl on the roof of H.No. B-2, Gazipur
Dairy Farm and informed the girl was lying there whose neck was

ruthlessly slaughted. On that, father of girl along with police reached there
and identified the deadbody as of his said missing daughter Kajal. Crime
team was called at the spot who reached the spot, inspected and
photographed the spot. Exhibits were lifted from the spot. On 14.12.2017,
postmortem on the deadbody was got conducted. Statements of
witnesses were recorded. During investigation, CDR of mobile phone no.
8750793763 of mother of deceased Munni Devi was inspected in which it
was found that she was in touch with one mobile no. 8368657668 from the
period 05.12.2017 to 13.12.2017 and location of said mobile number was
also of Gazipur Dairy Farm. Thereafter inquiry was made from Munni
Devi, mother of deceased girl, who confessed her guilt stating that she
along with her paramour – accused Sudhir Kumar murdered her daughter
by cutting her neck because she has seen both of them in objectionable
position. Thereafter, accused Munni Devi was arrested and her mobile
phone and clothes worn by her at the time of incident were also taken into
possession. At the pointing out of accused Munni Devi, accused Sudhir
Kumar was inquired and was also arrested who also confessed his guilt
and hand over his mobile phone make LAVA of silver colour and clothes
worn by him at the time of incident were also seized. Accused Sudhir
Kumar also got recovered one knife from the room of accused Munni Devi

which was also taken into possession after preparing its sketch.
Postmortem report was obtained from the hospital. Exhibits were sent to
FSL, Rohini. Scaled site plan was got prepared. PCR form and CDRs of
mobile phones of both accused persons were obtained. On the basis of
entire investigation and statements of witnesses, Sections 302/201/34 IPC
were also added.
On conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed
against both these accused persons before the court of ld. MM for their
trial for the offences punishable under Sections 363/302/201/34 IPC.
3. After compliance of provisions of Sec. 207 CrPC by the court
of Ld. MM, case was committed to the Court of Sessions as Sec. 302 IPC
is exclusively triable by it.
4. Vide order dated 05.04.2018, Charge-I under Section 364/34
IPC & 302/34 IPC was framed against both accused persons; Charge-II
under Section 497 IPC & 201 IPC was framed against accused Sudhir
Kumar and Charge-III under Section 201 IPC was framed against accused
Munni Devi. To the said charges, both accused persons pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.

5. The Prosecution in support of its case, examined 27 witnesses
in all whose testimony are as under :
PW-1 Ajeet Kumar, neighbour of complainant namely
Pramod (PW-2), stated that on 14.12.2017 at about 8/8.15 p.m., he was
inside his house and on hearing some noise, he came out and came to
know that one baby girl namely Kajal D/o Pramod, was missing. He also
searched Kajal in nearby area. He further stated that during search,
accused Munni Devi (mother of deceased) told him to search Kajal at the
adjacent roof of his house and then he reached at roof and saw the
deadbody of Kajal was lying there. Thereafter, he immediately informed
said fact to the police.
PW-2 Pramod Kumar, complainant/father of deceased Kajal
aged 7 years, (and also husband of accused Munni Devi) lodged complaint
Ex.PW2/A to the police regarding missing of his daughter Kajal on
13.12.2017. He stated that police started search of his daughter in his
house as well as in the house of neighbourers and at that time, his wife
told neighbour Ajeet to search Kajal at the adjacent roof of his house.
Thereafter, Ajeet immediately reached at said roof and informed that Kajal
was sleeping in the chhajja as there was dark. Thereafter, he and police

officials also reached there and found the body of Kajal, missing girl, on a
mattress in dead condition and her throat was barbarically cut and blood
was lying there. PW-2 proved the seizure memo of blood lifted from said
place vide Ex.PW2/B, seizure memos of blood stained mattress and blood
stained earth vide Ex.PW2/C & PW2/D, his statement regarding
identification of deadbody vide Ex.PW2/E, seizure memo of blood in gauge
Ex.PW2/F and seizure memo of earth control vide Ex.PW2/G.
PW-3 Dr. Sumit Dixit, CMO, identified the signatures of Dr.
Shalini, Junior Resident on MLC No. 17791 Ex.PW3/A and death
certificate of Kajal, aged seven years, vide Ex.PW3/B.
PW-4 Sh. Pratap Singh stated that accused Sudhir used to
work as labour/helper in godown at B-37, Gazipur Dairy Farm and accused
Munni Devi also used to work in another godown at main road, Gazipur
Dairy Farm and both i.e. Munni Devi and Sudhir Kumar known to each
other. He further stated that police along with accused Munni Devi came
to his godown and arrested accused Sudhir in his presence.
PW-5 Dr. S. Lal, HOD & Specialist at Department of Forensic
Medicines, conducted the postmortem on the deadbody of deceased Kajal,
aged seven years, and proved the postmortem report Ex.PW5/A.

PW-6 Lal Mohan, neighbour of complainant Pramod, stated
that house of Pramod was situated just adjacent in front of his house. He
further stated that during night hours of 13.12.2017 at about 7.30/8 p.m.,
he was watching TV along with Baby Kajal, her brother and his nephew
Ajeet and at about 8 p.m., Kajal left his house. He further stated that after
about half an hour, accused Munni Devi came to his house and asked from
her son about Kajal and they replied that she was watching TV just before
and left the said room. Thereafter, she started search of Kajal and after
about an hour, accused Munni Devi again came to his room in search of
Kajal but she was not found there. Thereafter, she informed to the police
through phone about missing of Kajal. PW-6 also deposed on the line of
PW-1 Ajeet Kumar. PW-6 further stated that when he saw accused Sudhir
Kumar in Police Station on 15.12.2014, he informed the police that he was
the boy who came during night hours of 13.12.2017 at the room of Pramod
Kumar and earlier also said boy used to visit there to meet Munni Devi.
PW-7 Ram Avtar Singh Yadav, landlord of Property no. B-1,
Gali No.2, DDA Complex, Gazipur Dairy Farm, where complainant Pramod
along with his family was residing at first floor of the said house as tenant,
stated that on the day of incident at about 10 p.m., he received a telephone

call from Pramod who informed that his daughter was missing and
thereafter, he again received another call on his mobile phone from
Pramod who informed that his daughter was being killed by someone.
Police also contacted him on phone and then at about 12.30 a.m. during
night hours, he along with his son reached at the spot and in his presence,
deadbody of deceased child was sent to hospital by the police. This
witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by ld. Addl. P.P. for the
State. PW-7 proved the disclosure statements of accused Munni Devi and
Sudhir Kumar vide Ex.PW7/A & PW7/B, seizure memo of mobile phone
make LAVA of accused Sudhir vide Ex.PW7/C, blood stained clothes of
accused Sudhir vide Ex.PW7/D, sketch of knife Ex.PW7/E got recovered
by accused Sudhir from the room of accused Munni Devi and its seizure
memo Ex.PW7/F, seizure memo of mobile phone as recovered from the
custody of accused Munni Devi vide Ex.PW7/G, blood stained clothes of
accused Munni Devi vide Ex.PW7/H as well as pointing out memos of the
place of incident pointed out by both accused persons vide Ex.PW7/I and
PW7/J.
PW-8 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer of Vodafone Idea Ltd.,
proved the call details and ownership proof of mobile phone no.
8750793763 which was in the name of Kishore Sahani, voter I-card

Ex.PW8/A, CAF Ex.PW8/B, CDR from 01.10.2017 to 15.12.2017
Ex.PW8/C (colly.) and Certificate under Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act
vide Ex.PW8/D.
PW-9 Sh. Kamal Kumar, Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio
Infocom Ltd., proved the call details and ownership proof of mobile phone
no. 8368657668 which was in the name of Sudhir Kumar, CAF Ex.PW9/A,
CDR from 01.10.2017 to 15.12.2017 Ex.PW9/B (colly.), Cell ID Chart
Ex.PW9/C (colly.) and Certificate under Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act
vide Ex.PW9/D.
PW-10 Sh. Kishore Sahani stated that he knew Lal Mohan as
he was the resident of his neighbouring village. He stated that in the year
2006, he applied for SIM from a shop and same was issued to him on his
ID. Said shopkeeper also issued another SIM card bearing no.
8750793763 on his ID and handedover the same to Pramod Yadav without
his knowledge and he came to know said fact when he was called at
Police Station Gazipur.
PW-11 SI Rajeev Kumar, Incharge of Mobile Crime Team,
who on receipt of information from Control Room regarding present case,
along with his staff including PW-16 ASI Manoj Kumar, Photographer and
Ct. Jai Singh, Proficient reached and inspected the spot. This witness

proved the SOC Report Ex.PW11/A. PW-16 took 14 photographs of the
spot and proved the positive of 14 photographs vide Ex.PW6/A1 to
PW16/A14 and negatives Ex.PW16/B1 (colly.).
PW-12 SI Umed Singh issued the Certificate under Sec. 65-B
of Indian Evidence Act on 12.01.2018 regarding PCR form vide
Ex.PW12/A.
PW-13 Ct. Hardeep Singh recorded an information on
13.12.2017 regarding missing of a girl, aged seven years, at Gazipur Dairy
Farm and proved the copy of PCR form Ex.PW13/A in this regard.
PW-14 Ct. Naveen stated that on instruction of IO, collected
the exhibits from MHC(M) on 26.02.2018 and deposited the same in FSL,
Rohini vide Road Certificate Ex.PW14/B and obtained the receipt for the
same as Ex.PW14/A.
PW-14A ASI Surender Singh (inadvertently mentioned as
PW-14) is the DD Writer who recorded DD No.50A regarding missing of a
girl, aged seven years, vide Ex.PW14/A.
PW-15 Ct. Krishanveer Singh stated that on 26.02.2018, on
the instruction of IO, he took the custody of accused Sudhir Kumar for his
medical examination in LBS Hospital and after his medical, collected the
MLC and doctor concerned also handedover sealed parcel containing

blood sample of accused Sudhir and then he handedover the same to
Investigating Officer in the Police Station vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A.
PW-15A Sh. Manoj Kumar (inadvertently mentioned as PW-
15) is proved the detailed report Ex.P15/A regarding exhibits of this case.
PW-17 HC Mukesh Kumar, MHC(M), proved entries
Ex.PW17/A (colly.) he also sent the parcels to FSL, Rohini on 26.02.2017
through PW-14 Ct. Naveen Kumar and received the FSL result and
relevant sealed parcels in the Malkhana through ASI Hari Prakash.
PW-18 Master Ramu, aged 12 years, brother of deceased
Kajal (son of accused Munni Devi), stated that he along with his sister
Kajal and Raja Babu went to the house of Lalman to watch TV at about 8/9
p.m. and when he asked from his mother about whereabouts of Kajal, he
was informed by her that she (his mother) was not aware. Thereafter, they
started searching Kajal nearby their house and one neighbour told them
that Kajal was sleeping on the roof and then he came to know that she has
died. This witness was declared hostile and during his cross-examination
by ld. Addl. P.P., he stated that Sudhir uncle (accused) came to their house
while they were leaving their house to watch the TV in house of Lalman
uncle and sometimes before that also. He stated that he did not state to
the police about the whereabouts of Kajal as his mother told that Kajal was

taken by the ghost.
PW-19 Sonu Singh, witness of arrest of both accused
persons, proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused
Sudhir vide Ex.PW19/A and PW19/B. This witness also stated that
exhibits were also recovered from possession of both accused persons in
his presence.
PW-20 ASI Birpal Singh, Duty Officer, proved endorsement
Ex.PW20/A on the rukka, copy of FIR Ex.PW20/B and Certificate under
Sec 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW20/C.
PW-22 SI Yashpal stated that on receipt of DD No. 50A at
about 10.51 p.m., he along with PW-21 Ct. Rameshwar went to the spot
and met with complainant and recorded his statement regarding missing of
his daughter and made his endorsement Ex.PW22/A on it. He further
stated that deadbody of Kajal was found on the roof of adjacent house in
presence of both witnesses and then the same was sent to LBS hospital.
PW-22 lifted the exhibits from the spot and seized vide different seizure
memos and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer (hereinafter
referred as IO) vide Ex.PW22/B.
PW-23 W/Ct. Preeti is a witness of arrest of both accused
persons. She has proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of

accused Munni Devi vide Ex.PW23/A and PW23/B. She is also a witness
of clothes as recovered from the possession of accused Munni Devi which
she was wearing by her at the time of incident.
PW-24 Insp. Mahesh Kumar proved the scaled site plan
Ex.PW24/A.
PW-25 Insp. Amar Singh, Investigating Officer, has
conducted the entire proceedings of present case. He also proved the
various documents apart from statement of Deenanath regarding
identification of deadbody vide Ex.PW25/A.
6. All the incriminating evidence brought on record has been put
to both these accused persons during their statement recorded under
Section 313 CrPC in which they denied the same. They pleaded their
innocence and further pleaded their false implication.
7. Accused Sudhir further pleaded that he did not know the
reason for his false implication in the present matter. He further pleaded
that he was beaten by the police and police obtained his signatures on end
number of blank papers and even he did not know either Kajal or co-
accused Munni.
8. Accused Munni Devi further pleaded that she did not commit
any crime as alleged at any point of time further pleading that she was

beaten by the police mercilessly and implicated falsely in this case.
9. Accused Munni did not opt to lead any evidence in her
defence while accused Sudhir Kumar opted to lead evidence in his
defence.
10. In support of contentions of defence, accused Sudhir Kumar
examined his younger brother Ranjeet Kumar as DW-1. DW-1 stated that
his brother Sudhir used to work in a plywood factory of one Pratap in Gali
No.6, Gazipur Dairy Farm and on 13.12.2017, Sudhir came back from his
work in the evening at around 7.35 pm and thereafter, they prepared their
meals and after taking meal, main gate of the house was locked and
Sudhir remained with him and did not go anywhere thereafter. Police
official came to their house on 14.12.2017 in the afternoon at about 3/3.30
p.m. along with Sudhir. DW-1 proved his Election I card Ex.DW1/A.
11. Having heard learned Addl. PP for the State and ld. defence
counsel and as well as also scrutinised the record in view of the law laid
down.
12. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has
been able to prove the charges through evidence of all material witnesses
coupled with other material on record beyond all reasonable doubts. He
also submitted that PW-1 Ajeet Kumar, who is neighbour of accused Munni

Devi, and not an interested to any party, clearly supported the prosecution
case by stating that deceased girl Kajal was the daughter of complainant
Pramod Kumar who is his neighbourer and on the day of incident, after
knowing the fact of missing of the girl Kajal, he also searched Kajal in
nearby area and during search, it was only accused Munni Devi (mother of
Kajal/accused), who told him to search Kajal at the adjacent roof of his
house and then he reached at the roof and saw the deadbody of Kajal
lying there and all this circumstances shows the conduct of accused Munni
Devi who committed the murder of her daughter with the connivance of co-
accused Sudhir Kumar and thus, successfully proved the case of
prosecution with other material on record including medical evidence. Ld.
Addl. PP further submitting that defence taken by the accused – Sudhir - is
of no value as no complaint was made about the lifting of accused Sudhir
by the police and then his implication falsely in the present case. It is also
contended that no ill-will, grudge or enmity has either been alleged or
proved against any of the witness examined including any of the police
officials and hence, there is no reason of false implication of the accused
persons in the present matter for a murder of a minor girl who is daughter
of accused Munni Devi. Besides the above, ld. Addl. PP submitted that
CDRs brought on record is clear indication that both accused were in touch

with each and used to talk each other and even motive of murder has also
been brought on record. Apart from that, ld. Addl. PP contended that if
defence of the accused Sudhir is taken on record, for the sake of
arguments, even then also there is no explanation as to how and by whom
an innocent minor girl was murdered and there is no evidence as to why
any of the prosecution witness would depose against the accused persons.
Ld. Addl. PP, thus, prayed for conviction to both accused persons.
13. Per contra, ld. counsel for accused persons submitted that the
case of the prosecution is full of contradictions and improvements which is
a major blow on the prosecution case. He further submitted that the
testimony of the witness of defence be also taken at par in view of the
judgments reported as State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh, 2002 (1) JCC
385 (Supreme Court of India) and Anil Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of
Jharkhand [2004 (3) RCR (Cri) 774] wherein it is observed that the
evidence tendered by the accused persons can not always be termed to
be a tainted one and defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and
equal respect as that of the prosecution and the issue of credibility and the
trustworthiness ought also to be attributed at par with that of the
prosecution.

14. Apart from that, ld. defence counsel further argued that there
is much difference in age group of these accused persons as accused
Munni Devi is more than thirty years having three-four kids while accused
Sudhir Kumar is only young boy of twenty years and hence, story of their
illicit relations is indigestible and makes the prosecution story as a heap of
sand and is liable to be discredited.
15. Besides the above, ld. counsel further argued that it is very
strange that accused Sudhir Kumar would got recovered the knife i.e.
weapon of offence from the room of accused Munni Devi after his arrest
and there is no reason to hide and got recovered the knife at the instance
of accused Sudhir Kumar from the room of accused Munni Devi. Moreover,
said knife i.e. alleged weapon of offence was never sent to FSL for
examination and this all casts a doubt on the prosecution case and as
such, both accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Thus, ld. counsel
prayed for acquittal of the accused persons for the offences for which they
have been charged with.
16. Having carefully gone through the entire material on record
and the rival submissions of the parties, in the light of the law laid down in
the judgments on the issue in question.

17. First of all court will deal with the contention of defence
witness. There is no denial to the law laid down in the judgments cited by
ld. defence counsel on the point of defence witness. But it is also to be
seen that whether defence witness(s) is/are reliable and truthful or not.
18. DW-1 Ranjeet Kumar is stated to be the brother of accused
Sudhir Kumar. Admittedly, he is an interested witness and testimony of the
interested witness is also to be taken on record but it is to be examined
whether his testimony is trustworthy or not. DW-1 Ranjeet Kumar stated
that he was residing with his elder brother Sudhir at a house in Gali No.4,
Gazipur Dairy Farm and on the day of incident i.e. 13.12.2017, Sudhir
came back from his work in the evening at around 7.35 pm and thereafter,
they cooked and have their meals and main gate of house was locked and
Sudhir remained with him and did not go anywhere and then on the next
morning, Sudhir had gone to his factory. He stated that on 14.12.2017 at
about 3/3.30 p.m., police officials came to his house along with Sudhir and
after search of their house for about 10 minutes, they took Sudhir along
with them on the pretext of some inquiry and thereafter Sudhir was
implicated falsely in the present case by the police officials of Gazipur.

19. It is an admitted fact that no complaint is on record to be filed
before any authority for false implication of accused Sudhir i.e. too in a
murder case. Besides the above, it is also general practice that if police
official comes to the house of any one, mohalla people gathered there and
come to the help of said person. However, no neighbourer has come
forward to depose on this aspect. In view of the above, the court is of the
view that this defence witness is an interested witness being real younger
brother of accused Sudhir Kumar and as such, his testimony is neither
corroborative nor reliable and also do not inspire any confidence.
20. Now court shall analysis the testimony of prosecution
witnesses on record to the effect as to whether prosecution has been able
to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts or not.
21. Accused persons have been charged for the offences
punishable under Sections 364/34 IPC; 302/34 IPC. Both accused persons
have also been charged for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC
individually and accused Sudhir Kumar has also been charged for the
offence punishable under Sec. 497 IPC.
22. Court shall deal with the charges for which accused persons
have been charged one by one. Firstly, evidence will be tested on stone for

the offene punishable under Sec. 302/34 IPC.
Qua offence punishable under Sec. 302/34 IPC:
23. As none of the prosecution witness is eye-witness to the
murder committed in this case, the case is to be treated as based on
circumstantial evidence. It is clearly observed in case reported as State of
Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. (2007 III AD (S.C.) 349 as under:
Para 13 : The prosecution case is based on the

circumstantial evidence and it is a well settled
proposition of Law that when case rests upon
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must
satisfy the following tests:
(1) The circumstances from which an inference of

guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and
firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite

tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the
accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should

form a chain so complete that there is no escape
from the conclusion that within all human
probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain

conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of
guilt of the accused and such evidence should not
only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
should be inconsistent with his innocence.

24. Besides the above, in another case reported as Sunder @
Sundarajab Vs. State by Inspt. of Police (2013) 2 scale 204 and also in
judgment reported as Sharad Birdichand Sarda V. State of Maharastra
(AIR 1984 SC 1662), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :
“A close analysis of this decision would show that

the following conditions must be fulfilled before a
case against an accused can be said to be fully
established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this court indicated

that the circumstances concerned 'must or
should' and not 'may be' established. There is not
only a grammatical but a legal distinction between
'may be proved' as was held by this court in
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharastra
where the following observations were made:
Certainly, it is a primary principle that the

accused must be and not merely may be guilty
before a court can convict and the mental distance
between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent

only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
there is to say, they should not be explainable on
any other hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive

nature and tendency.

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete

as not to leave any reasonable ground for this
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
153. These five golden principles, if we may say

so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case
based on circumstantial evidence.”
25. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy & Another Vs. State of
A.P [(2006) 10 SCC 172], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
follows :
“It is now well settled that with a view to base a

conviction on circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution must establish all the pieces of
incriminating circumstances by reliable and
clinching evidence and the circumstances so
proved must from such a chain of event as would
permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the
accused. The circumstances cannot be on any
other hypothesis. It is also well settled that
suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a
substitute for a proof and the courts shall take
utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only
the basis of the circumstantial evidence”.

26. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P. [AIR 1952
SC 343], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“It is well to remember that in cases where the

evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully
established and all the facts so established should
be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused. Again, the circumstances should
be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they
should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but
the one proposed to be proved. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence so far complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and it must be such as to show that within
all human probability the act must have been done
by the accused.
27. Now the court has to look into as to whether chain of
circumstantial evidence is complete without any break and is trustworthy.
28. In a murder case, the trial court is charged with the supreme
duty of making proper appreciation of evidence and of law before reaching
the finding that the case proved is culpable homicide amounting to murder
as defined in Sec. 300 IPC. This constitutional duty flows from Article 21
because conviction under Sec. 302 IPC is liable to expose the accused to
the extreme penalty that of deprivation of life in regard to which the court

must follow reasonable procedure of due application of mind.
29. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside
over a trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished but he also
preside to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both the public duties.
The Court has to sift the evidence, separate the chaff from the grain unless
the court thinks that both versions are not reliable, the short cut path to
acquittal is not the legitimate path. [Ref.: Bijoy Kr. Agarwal V. State of
Orissa, (1989) 2 Crimes 34 (Ker.)]
30. It is the duty of the court to all out the nuggets of truth from the
evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or
falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses.
It is necessary to remember that 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. One is as important as the other.
Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform. (Ref. State of UP
vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998).
31. The case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of PW-1
Ajeet Kumar. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Munni Devi
has committed the murder of her own daughter Kajal with knife with the
help of co-accused Sudhir Kumar. PW-1 categorically testified that it was

accused Munni Devi who told him to search her daughter on the adjacent
roof of her house and during search, he saw the deadbody of Kajal lying
there whose neck was cut.
32. Prosecution has also examined PW-18 Master Ramu, brother
of deceased (son of accused Munni Devi) who deposed as follows :
“.... On the day of incident, I, Kajal and Raja Babu

were gone to the house of Lalman to watch TV at
about 8.00-9.00 pm. I asked from my mother for
whereabouts of my sister Kajal and she told that
she is not aware. Thereafter, we started searching
Kajal nearby our house. Our neighbour told us that
we made search of the Kajal on the roof as she was
sleeping there. I did not go there but I came to
know lateron that Kajal was died. Even though, I
cannot tell how she was died. While watching the
TV at house of Lalman, my sister Kajal had left the
said house firstly and after half an hour, we also left
from there. When we left for watching TV, I and my
brother Raja Babu left in the house lastly and my
mother was cooking the food and there was nobody
else in our house and my mother was alone at that
time. My mother Munni Devi is present in the
docket. xxxxx
However, during cross-examination conducted by ld.

Addl. P.P., this witness stated that :
“.....Sudhir uncle came to our house while we
were about to watch the TV in house of Lalman
uncle. I did not stated to the police on query about
the whereabouts of Kajal that my mother Munni Devi
told that Kajal was taken by the ghost. It is correct
that sometime, Sudhir uncle came in our house at
the time when we left for watching the TV at the
house of Lalman and sometime before that.....”

33. There is no rule of law which states that evidence of a hostile
witness is to be rejected enbloc. It is not to be washed off the record
altogether. It is for the Judge to consider in each case whether as a result
of such cross examination and contradiction, the witness has been
altogether discredited or not. Perusal of the record is clear to the effect
that being son of one of the accused earlier this witness tried to hide some
material fact but during cross-examination, facts came on record and as
such, testimony of this witness is to be read as a whole and not in
piecemeal.
34. From the testimonies of the witnesses produced on record
coupled with other material on record, it is made clear that these witnesses
have narrated the events of incident in a very chronological order in a loud
voice by putting a finger of guilt towards the accused persons. There is
also no denial to the fact that PW-1 Ajeet Kumar is not relative or friend to
the family of deceased in any manner except was residing in the same
colony and also that have no grudge, enmity or ill-will against either of
these accused persons Devi. At any stage accused Munni Devi did not
come forward with the plea that PW-1 has any enmity, ill-will or grudge
against her or her family in any manner. There is no reason for his false

deposition against the accused persons. It is undisputed fact and even
witnesses have categorically deposed that accused Munni Devi is the real
mother of deceased - Kajal.
35. Besides this, it is trite law that man may speak lie but
circumstances cannot tell lie. PW-1 Ajeet Kumar stated that on asking of
accused Munni Devi, he searched Kajal on the adjacent roof and after
seeing the deadbody of deceased Kajal on the adjacent roof, he
immediately informed to the police and other persons, about the said
crime. Further, on the issue that man may lie but documents cannot,
prosecution has produced on record the CDRs of mobile phone numbers –
87509793763 and 8368657668 – showing that users of the same were in
touch with each other. It is undisputed fact that mobile phone number -
87509793763 was being used by accused Munni. PW-9 Kamal Kishore –
Nodal Officer – proved the record/CDR for the mobile phone number -
8368657668 as Ex.PW9/A to C. No suggestion has been put to this
witness that said number was not in the name of the accused – Sudhir
Kumar or Sudhir never used the said mobile phone. It is very interesting to
note that when the said incriminating evidence was put to accused -Sudhir
during his statement recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC vide question no. 20 –
he replied stating as – I do not remember now. This all draws an adverse

inference against the accused persons. In case reported as Laxman
Yadav V State 2013 AD (Crl) DHC 112 – wherein Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi observed as - false explanation by accused – effect of – false
explanation by accused to built up defence which is otherwise contrary to
established version of prosecution leads to drawing of adverse inference
against such accused.
36. Apart from that, it is also revealed from the record that DW-1-
Ranjeet Kumar – brother of the accused – during his cross-examination
conducted by ld. Add. PP replied to the question which is being reproduced
as to facilitate the matter -
Q. It is suggest by ld. Addl PP that mobile
number 8368657668 belongs to Sudhir. Whether it is correct
or incorrect?
Ans.: It is incorrect.
37. CDRs of both mobile phone number - 87509793763 and
8368657668 – is clear to the effect that users of both these numbers were
in touch with each other during the period of incident. No explanation has
come on record as to why and for what reason they were in touch with
each other. Though nothing has come on record by way of documentary
proof that accused Sudhir was present in the house of the accused Munni

but oral evidence has come on record by way of deposition of prosecution
witnesses. PW-6 Lal Mohan, neighbour of accused Munni during his
examination conducted on 16.07.2018 clearly stated as – It is correct that I
had stated to the police in my statement that when Kajal left from my
house at about 8 p.m. at that time, one boy who used to come at the
house of Munni Devi and was present at her house xxxx It is correct that I
had stated to the police in my statement dated 15.12.2014 when I saw
accused Sudhir Kumar in PS I told to the police that he was the boy who
came in the night of 13.12.2017 at the room of Pramod Kumar and earlier
he used to visit there to meet Munni Devi. This witness denied the
suggestion put to him by ld. defence counsel that he had never seen
accused Sudhir on 13.12.2017 while entering to the house of mother of
deceased and meeting her or prior to the said incident and also that he
had not met accused Sudhir in PS nor identified him. No reason has been
assigned to this witness as to why he would depose falsely against the
accused Sudhir to that effect, particularly when no enmity, ill-will or grudge
has either been alleged or proved between them.
38. Apart from that, PW-4 Pratap Singh during his examination-in-
chief recorded on 15.05.2018 clearly stated as – xx I have another
godown at main road Gazipur Dairy Farm where accused Munni Devi used

to reside in front of my godown. Accused Sudhir Kumar used to work at
both godowns and both Munnni Devi and Sudhir Kumar known to each
other as I heard. During investigation, police officials including lady police
officials came at my godown with accused Munni Ddevi and thereafter they
arrested accused Sudhir Kumar from my godown. Subsequently, I came to
know the fact that accused Sudhir Kumar committed murder of Kajal with
the help of Munni Devi. Deceased Kajal was the daughter of accused
Munni Devi.”
39. There is no suggestion put to PW-4 Pratap Singh denied the
above facts and during the statement of this witness nothing has come on
record to the effect that accused Munni Devi was not known to accused
Sudhir Kumar or police never came to his godown with accused Munni
Devi or accused Sudhir Kumar was not arrested from said place. Thus,
testimony of this witness goes unrebutted and unchallenged.
40. During cross-examination to PW-4 Pratap Singh, he
stated that accused Sudhir Kumar was arrested from said place on
14.12.2017 at about 7.30/8 pm. Ex.PW19/A arrest memo of this accused
also strengthen this fact wherein it is clearly mentioned that said accused
Sudhir was arrested on 14.12.2017 at 8 p.m. Apart from this, accused
simply denied his arrest and nothing has come on record for his implication

falsely in the present matter or place from where he was arrested.
41. One of the contentions of the ld. defence counsel is that there
is much difference in the age group of both accused persons i.e. accused
Munni Devi is more than 30 years having three-four kids while accused
Sudhir Kumar was a young boy of 20 years only and hence, story of illicit
relations between them is indigestible. Qua said contention, this court is of
the view that for such type of relations age does not matter. It is choice of
one's to find love/lust in the other. There is no hard and fast rule that
love/illicit relations can be developed only between the same age group.
There is no denial to the fact that since Satyug till Kaliyug, there are so
many instances where love/illicit relations developed between parties
irrespective of age group and even of class. Hence, qua contention of ld
counsel that relations cannot be made between accused persons
considering the difference of age group, has no substance and has no legs
to stand.
42. One of the contention of the ld defence counsel is that weapon
of offence has not been sent to FSL for examination, is also of no value.
There is no suggestion to the effect that injuries caused to the deceased
are not possible with the weapon of offence.

43. Ld. defence counsel further contented that it is indigestible that
co-accused Sudhir got recovered knife from the room of co-accused Munni
Devi. When the commission of murder can be committed with common
intention, is there any bar that weapon of offence cannot be hide at the
house of one of the accused and that be anyone. It seems that ld counsel
has raised the contentions only for the sake of arguments.
44. Post-mortem report vide Ex.PW5/A is clear that cause of death
of deceased was - “shock and hamorrhagic shock due to cut throat injury
and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries
were antemortem in nature, fresh in duration and could be possible to
cause by sharp edged weapon”.
45. As per the post-mortem report, deceased was having following

external injuries:
1) Multiple incised wound intermingling to each
other resulting cut throat injury of size 15x7 cm x
vertebrae deep over upper middle front of neck extend
to both side of neck. The upper border of wound in
middle placed 3.5 cm below the tip of chin and lower
border is placed 5.5 cm above the suprasternal notch.
The right angle of wound extend to right side mastoid
area upto ear lobule and left angle of wound shows
multiple tailing placed 2.5 cm below the angle of
mandible. The would cut the soft tissues, muscles of
neck at the level of upper boarder of thyroid cartilage
to cut trachea, oeshophagus and also cut the vessels
of both sides of neck.

2) Multiple superficial incised wound (8 in
number) present over neck just below the lower
boarder of injury no.1. These wounds extend to both
side of neck more on right side with varying in size
from 15x0.2 x skin deep to 3.5x0.2 x skin deep.
46. Hence, it is proved that deceased died due to cut throat injury
with a sharp edged weapon which resulted into her death on account of
shock and hammorrhagic shock due to cut throat injury. It is nowhere
suggestion that neck cut injury cannot be caused by the recovered knife.
47. Photographs placed on record depicting the photos of
deceased Kajal are clear that her throat was cut and blood was present on
her neck as well as on her clothes and mattress on which she was lying.
48. Photographs placed on record clearly show that deceased
was having a deep cut in her neck and post-mortem report Ex.PW5/A
clearly mentions the injuries on the body of deceased which tallied with the
photographs and even corroborated with the disclosure statements made
by both accused persons. This all shows that accused tried to evade the
incriminating evidence brought and put against him. This all puts a stamp
on the prosecution case. Chain of the evidence in all respect are
complete/without any link missing therein.
49. Contention of the ld. defence counsel qua contradictions and
improvements, it is also to mention that ld. defence counsel has failed to

mention or point out any major contradiction and/or improvement. It is well
settled law that - only such omissions which amount to contradiction in
material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness.
The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render
the testimony of witness in the Court is different in material particulars from
that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution
become doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to
occur in the statements of truthful witnesses too, as memory sometimes
plays false and sense of observations differ from person to person. The
omissions in the same does not found to cause any dent in the testimony
of prosecution witnesses. Even if there is contradiction of statement of a
witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the
testimony of such witness. There is bound to be some discrepancies
between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details,
and unless the contradictions are of material dimension, the same should
not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally,
corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected
in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by
reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye-witnesses
unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise

acceptable evidence and for all this reference can be taken from case
reported as Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra (Crl. A. 25-26/2000) decided by Hon'ble Apex Court, and
as such, contention on the issue mentioned above has no value in the
eyes of law.
50. Now turn to the issue of motive, it also cannot be denied that
murder cannot be committed without motive. However, in the present case,
motive of the murder is clear. As per the record, accused Munni Devi was
having extra marital relations with Sudhir Kumar, co-accused. Sudhir
Kumar used to visit the house of accused Munni Devi off and on. As
already mentioned, though accused Sudhir Kumar denied the suggestion
that he ever met Munni Devi and even his defence is that he did not know
co-accused Munni Devi, but as mentioned above, it is clear from the record
that they knew each other and having intimacy and when Kajal threatened
them she would disclose the facts to her father, both accused got
frightened and committed murder of said kid namely Kajal.
51. “Culpable homicide” is defined in Sec. 299 of the IPC, thus :
299 – Culpable homicide – Whoever caused death by

doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with
the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by
such act to cause death, commits the offence of
culpable homicide.”

52. Viewing the facts of the present case in the light of the
definition of “culpable homicide” and “murder” as contained in Section 299
and 300 of the IPC, it is transpired the requisite “intention” and
“knowledge” of the accused persons by cutting throat of deceased with
ulterior motive to get rid from her as she has seen both accused persons in
an objectionable position in the room of accused Munni Devi. Thus, the
knife blow with violent force on the vital part of the body give rise to the
presumption that intention of the accused persons was to take away the
life of deceased Kajal. When cut throat injury was on the neck i.e. vital
part of the body of the deceased who succumbed to the injuries from this
fact alone, the accused persons had clear intentions to finish the life of the
deceased and also get rid from her in future forever when they meet.
Accused persons when giving the blows of deadly weapon to a minor
victim with intention to kill her with knife, the intention to cause death is
very much inferred. All this would amount to culpable homicide with
intention to “murder”.
53. A holistic appreciation of all the evidence referred to
hereinabove can lead to no other conclusion except “murder” and that too
at the hands of both accused persons who committed the barbaric act

jointly with the common intention. The fact of death of Kajal having died a
homicidal death is not disputed. The case of both accused persons
squarely falls under Sec. 300 of the IPC, clear case of murder.
54. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and judgments cited,
it has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove
its case beyond all reasonable doubt that accused persons namely Munni
Devi W/o Shri Pramod Kumar and Sudhir Kumar S/o Shri Dasai Ram
have committed the murder of Kajal (daughter of accused Munni Devi and
PW Pramod Kumar) and as such, are liable to be held guilty. Accordingly,
accused Munni Devi W/o Pramod Kumar and Sudhir Kumar S/o Dasai
Ram are held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 302/34 IPC.
55. Now Court shall deal with the offence punishable under
Section 364/34 IPC.
56. It is matter of record that deceased Kajal was real daughter of
accused Munni Devi. Accused Sudhir Kumar was present with accused
Munni Devi before the commission of alleged murder of Kajal.
57. Section 364 Indian Penal Code defines as – whoever
kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered
or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall

be punished xxxxx
58. It has come on record through the evidence of prosecution
witnesses i.e. PW-1 Ajeet Kumar and PW-2 Pramod Kumar that either of
these accused or any one of them at any point of time kidnap or abduct the
deceased. Rather it has come on record that Kajal, the deceased, herself
came in her house i.e. where both accused were present in objectionable
position and on account of fear that she would disclose the matter to her
father, both accused committed murder of Kajal after taking her to the roof
top of the house. Even both accused persons during their disclosure
statements disclosed this fact. As such, nothing has come on record which
may even remotely suggest that this case falls within the ambit of Sec. 364
IPC. As such, this court is the view that prosecution has failed to prove its
case against either of these accused persons for the offence punishable
under Sec. 364 IPC and as such, accused persons – Sudhir Kumar and
Munni Devi are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under
Sec. 364/34 IPC for which they have been charged with.
Qua for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC:
59. To facilitate the matter Section 201 IPC is being reproduced as
under - Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence
has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that

offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal
punishment or with intention gives any information respecting the offence
he knows or believes to be false xxxxx
60. Hon'ble Apex Court om Roshanlal Vs. State of Punjab, AIR
1965 SC 1413 criticised Sec. 201 as somewhat clumsily drafted. It was
observed: Section 201 is somewhat clumsily drafted, but the expression
'knowing or having reasons to believe' in the first paragraph and the
expression 'knows or believes' in the second paragraph are used in the
same sense. Take the case of an accused who has reason to believe that
an offence has been committed. If the other conditions of the first
paragraph are satisfied, he is guilty of an offence under Sec. 201 IPC.
From the evidence and material on record, it is clear that body of the
deceased was found on the roof only at the information of accused Munni
Devi.
61. The true import of the word 'causes' in the collocation of the
words 'causes any evidence of the commission of the offence to disappear'
fell for consideration. It held that the dictionary meaning of the expression
'cause' clearly envisages some active step on the part of the doer of the
act, and so in the matter of causing disappearance of evidence relevant to
a particular offence, the person charged must be proved to have actively

participated in the matter of disappearance of the evidence and not mere
sufferance by him or her of the removal of such evidence by others. Mere
knowledge on the part of the accused of the removal of the deadbodies
alone would not bring the case within the ambit of sec. 201 IPC. And that
section's essential requirement is causing any evidence of commission of
offence to disappear. Unless the prosecution could establish that the
accused had caused any evidence to disappear, the charge under Sec.
201 IPC would not be sustainable [Ref. Sumitra Sherpani In ref 1975
CrlLJ 169 (Guh.)].
62. The ingredients of an offence under Sc. 201 IPC are four-fold.
First, there must be some offence that had already been committed;
secondly, it must be proved that the accused knew or had reason to
believe the commission of that offence; thirdly, he gave information
relating to that offence which he then knew or believed to be false and
fourthly, it should be shown that he did so with the intention of screening
the offender from legal punishment. In a case, the husband with the
assistance of another person murdered the wife. The father of the husband
who lived in the same house with them despite belief and knowledge about
murder, lodged the report of suicide with the police with the intentions to
screen the offender. The father was held guilty of offence under Sec. 201

IPC [Brijkishore Vs. State of UP (1989) Crl LJ 616].
63. Apart from that, Section 201 IPC lays down that it must be
proved that an offence was committed. The accused must know or have
reasons to believe that the offence has been committed. With such
knowledgeor belief, he must either have caused any evidence of the
commission of the offence to disappear or give any information respecting
the offence which he knows or believes to be false. So also, the accused
must have acted with the intention of screening the offender from legal
punishment.
64. With the above observations, it has come on record to the
effect that both these accused knowing and/or having reason to believe
that an offence has been committed, caused the evidence of the
commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the
offender from legal punishment and/or with intention gave any information
respecting the offence knew or believed to be false.
65. From the above discussion and evidence of witnesses i.e.
PW-1; PW-4; PW-6 and PW-18 material on record, court came to the
conclusion that prosecution has able to bring home the guilt of both of
these accused persons for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC.
Accordingly, both accused persons namely – Sudhir Kumar and Munni

Devi – both – individualy -are held guilty of the offence punishable
under Sec. 201 IPC.
Qua for the offence punishable under Sec. 497 IPC:
66. Section 497 IPC says as – Whoever has sexual intercourse
with a person who is an and whom he knows or has reasons to believe to
be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man,
such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of
offence of adultery, and shall be punished xxxxx
67. The cognizance of this offence is limited to adultery committed
with a married woman, and the male offender alone has been made liable
to punishment. Thus, under the Code, adultery is an offence committed by
a third person against a husband in respect of his wife.
68. From the material on record and testimony of prosecution
witnesses, it is crystal clear that nothing has come on record which may
ever suggest that accused Sudhir Kumar while made sexual relations with
accused Munni Devi. As per the prosecution case, deceased was the only
eye witness of the illegal relationship of the accused persons. PW-2
Pramod Kumar, husband of accused Munni Devi, in his statement made
before the court on 14.05.2018 clearly stated as – It is wrong to suggest
that I had stated to police in my statement that I suspect about he

character of my wife xxxx It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to police
in my statement that I suspect the illicit relations between my wife and
Sudhir. No suggestion was put to this witness that he deposed these facts
before the court on that date under pressure or coercion. Apart from that, if
these are taken as gospel truth, even there there is only suspicion and no
evidence was there to that effect that whether Sudhir and Munni Devi ever
made any sexual relations. As such, ingredients of Section 497 IPC cannot
be fulfilled from the facts and circumstances of the present case. As such,
from the above discussion it is also clear that prosecution story on the
count of Sec. 497 IPC falls flat. It is undisputed fact that prosecution has to
prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequent to above,
accused Sudhir Kumar is acquitted for the offence punishable under
Sec. 497 IPC.
69. Sum up of the above discussion and material on record is
that;
(a) both accused persons namely Sudhir Kumar and Munni Devi are
are acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 364/34 IPC;
(b) Accused persons namely Sudhir Kumar and Munni Dev are
individually held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC;
(c) Accused Sudhir Kumar is acquitted for the offence punishable

under Sec. 497 IPC; while
(d) Both accused persons namely Sudhir Kumar and Munni Devi are
held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC read with Sec.
34 IPC.
Announced in the open Court

on 06th day of April, 2021
(Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam)
Additional Sessions Judge-03 (East) :
Karkardooma Courts: Delhi.

State Vs 1 Sudhir Kumar On 6 April 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Vs 1 Sudhir Kumar On 6 April 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Court Of

Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam: Additional Sessions Judge–03:

Sessions Case No. : 577 of 2018

State Versus 1. Sudhir Kumar

FIR No. : 456/2017

Chargesheet Filed On : 13.03.2018

SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 1 of 44

1. The brief facts, as germane from the prosecution story, are

that on 13.12.2017 at about 10.51 p.m. on receipt of DD No. 50-A

been residing at abovesaid house as tenant and is a rickshaw puller by

physical description of his daughter to the police and also raised a

suspicion on some unknown person who took his daughter away.

2. On the basis of said statement of complainant, a case under

SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 2 of 44

postmortem on the deadbody was got conducted. Statements of

witnesses were recorded. During investigation, CDR of mobile phone no.

8750793763 of mother of deceased Munni Devi was inspected in which it

period 05.12.2017 to 13.12.2017 and location of said mobile number was

possession. At the pointing out of accused Munni Devi, accused Sudhir

SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 3 of 44

mobile phones of both accused persons were obtained. On the basis of

entire investigation and statements of witnesses, Sections 302/201/34 IPC

were also added.

On conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed

trial for the offences punishable under Sections 363/302/201/34 IPC.

3. After compliance of provisions of Sec. 207 CrPC by the court

is exclusively triable by it.

4. Vide order dated 05.04.2018, Charge-I under Section 364/34

and claimed trial.

SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 4 of 44

in all whose testimony are as under :

PW-1 Ajeet Kumar, neighbour of complainant namely

Pramod (PW-2), stated that on 14.12.2017 at about 8/8.15 p.m., he was

searched Kajal in nearby area. He further stated that during search,

deadbody of Kajal was lying there. Thereafter, he immediately informed

said fact to the police.

PW-2 Pramod Kumar, complainant/father of deceased Kajal

Ex.PW2/A to the police regarding missing of his daughter Kajal on

13.12.2017. He stated that police started search of his daughter in his

SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 5 of 44

stained earth vide Ex.PW2/C & PW2/D, his statement regarding

identification of deadbody vide Ex.PW2/E, seizure memo of blood in gauge

Ex.PW2/F and seizure memo of earth control vide Ex.PW2/G.

PW-3 Dr. Sumit Dixit, CMO, identified the signatures of Dr.

Shalini, Junior Resident on MLC No. 17791 Ex.PW3/A and death

certificate of Kajal, aged seven years, vide Ex.PW3/B.

PW-4 Sh. Pratap Singh stated that accused Sudhir used to

work as labour/helper in godown at B-37, Gazipur Dairy Farm and accused

to his godown and arrested accused Sudhir in his presence.

PW-5 Dr. S. Lal, HOD & Specialist at Department of Forensic

Medicines, conducted the postmortem on the deadbody of deceased Kajal,

aged seven years, and proved the postmortem report Ex.PW5/A.

SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 6 of 44

Kumar in Police Station on 15.12.2014, he informed the police that he was

PW-7 Ram Avtar Singh Yadav, landlord of Property no. B-1,

stated that on the day of incident at about 10 p.m., he received a telephone

SC No. 577/2018 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar etc. Page No.: 7 of 44

thereafter, he again received another call on his mobile phone from

deadbody of deceased child was sent to hospital by the police. This

make LAVA of accused Sudhir vide Ex.PW7/C, blood stained clothes of

accused Sudhir vide Ex.PW7/D, sketch of knife Ex.PW7/E got recovered

memo Ex.PW7/F, seizure memo of mobile phone as recovered from the

custody of accused Munni Devi vide Ex.PW7/G, blood stained clothes of