Anita Saxena vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 3592 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                     Judgment Reserved On: 3rd September, 2009
                     Judgment Delivered On: 7th September, 2009

+                               CRL.A. 555/2001

       ANITA SAXENA                                 ..... Appellant
                Through:            Ms. Ritu Gauba, Advocate

                                    versus

       STATE                                        ..... Respondent
                     Through:       Mr. M.N.Dudeja, Advocate

                                CRL.A. 615/2002

       MUZAFFER KHAN @ MUNNA            ..... Appellant
               Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba, Advocate

                                    versus

       STATE                                        ..... Respondent
                     Through:       Mr. M.N.Dudeja, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
       see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?                     Yes

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the
       Digest?                                        Yes

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. At 7:45 Hrs. on 19.11.1995 i.e. in the early hours of

the morning, DD No.6, Ex.PW-20/1, was recorded at police post

Dhaula Kuan under jurisdiction of PS Delhi Cantt. that Havaldar

R.P.Singh has informed over the telephone that a dead body

was lying near Golf Club, Station Road. Copy of the said DD

entry was handed over to SI Dharampal Yadav PW-23 who left

for the spot in the company of Const.Ligimor and Const.Shanta

Ram. The dead body of a young male was found. On the right

arm of the dead body the names „Ashok Pal Singh‟ and „Anita

Saxena‟ were tattooed. There were stab injuries all over the

body. It was apparent that the deceased had been murdered.

2. Making an endorsement Ex.PW-23/1 beneath copy

of DD No.6, SI Dharam Pal Yadav sent the same through

Const.Shanta Ram for FIR to be registered. Photographer and

the crime team was summoned. The photographer

Const.Hans Raj PW-12 took photographs Ex.PW-12/2 to Ex.PW-

12/9, negatives whereof are Ex.PW-12/1 (collectively). A knife

Ex.P-1 was found near the body which was having blood on it.

It was seized by SI Dharampal vide memo Ex.PW-4/D and

sketch Ex.PW-4/C thereof was drawn. From the pockets of the

pant worn by the deceased, various articles were recovered,

recovery whereof has been noted by SI Dharampal in the

memo Ex.PW-4/A. Relevant for the purposes of the present

case is to note that a coloured photograph of a girl on the rear

side whereof numbers 5538 and 0532 were written; a visiting

card Ex.P-6 in the name of P.K.Jain, Partner World Wide Export

having telephone number 91-591-24554 and address Gujrati

Southern, 61/A/1 Civil Lines, Muradabad, on the back of which

the number 311837 was written and a packet of cavanders

cigarette, Ex.P-15 on which the name Satish Kumar and two

numbers 310370 and 316316 were written were recovered

from the purse Ex.P-5 found in the pocket of the pant of the

deceased. All these articles as also a few others, details

whereof have been noted in the seizure memo Ex.PW-4/A,

were seized by the investigating officer i.e. SI Dharampal. The

crime team could lift no clues. The dead body was seized and

sent to the mortuary of Safdarjung Hospital for post-mortem,

with a request Ex.PW-23/3 by SI Dharampal that as the body

was of an unknown person it should be preserved for 72 hours.

Negligently, inquest papers Ex.PW-23/2, as per performa

prescribed, were filled up and submitted along with the letter

of request Ex.PW-23/3. Blood stained earth and control earth

were lifted from the spot as recorded in the memo Ex.PW-4/B.

Site plan Ex.PW-19/D1 was prepared by him showing the spot

from where the body was recovered.

3. It is apparent that SI Dharampal had four leads

with him. The first lead were the names tattooed on the right

arm of the deceased which possibly could be the names of the

parents of the deceased or the name of the deceased and his

spouse. The second lead was Ex.P-6, the visiting card of

P.K.Jain. The third lead was the packet of cavanders cigarette

Ex.P-15 having two telephone numbers and the name of Satish

Kumar and the fourth was the photograph of the lady. Since

the visiting card Ex.P-6 had an address thereon, on

20.11.1995, SI Dharampal Yadav accompanied by Const.Shahi

Ram went to Muradabad. He proceeded straight to the office

of World Wide Export as printed in the visiting card Ex.P-6 and

met one Mr.Pourwal who could give no clue pertaining to the

dead body, but with reference to the name Satish Kumar

written on the packet of cavanders cigarette Ex.P-15, informed

that a man named Satish Kumar previously in the service of

World Wide Export was currently in the service of Kapoor & Co.

at Muradabad. SI Dharampal went to the office of Kapoor &

Co. and met Satish Kumar and showed him the photograph of

the woman recovered from the purse of the deceased. Satish

Kumar told SI Dharampal that the photograph was of his sister-

in-law named Anita Saxena who was married to his brother

Ashok Pal Singh and that he had handed over the visiting card

Ex.P-6 and the cigarette packet Ex.P-15 to his brother after

writing the telephone numbers thereon. With reference to the

photograph of the deceased, Satish identified the body as that

of his brother Ashok Kumar. Madan Pal Singh, brother of

Satish Kumar and the deceased also reached the office of

Kapoor and Co. Both brothers were brought to Delhi and taken

to the mortuary of Safdarjung Hospital where, as recorded in

the identification memo Ex.PW-23/5, Madan Pal Singh

identified the dead body in question as that of his brother

Ashok Kumar.

4. The go ahead signal was given by the investigating

officer for post-mortem to be conducted. We note at this stage

that in the inquest papers Ex.PW-23/2 which were furnished on

19.11.1995 the date 19.11.1995 has been recorded. The

name, the parentage and the address of the deceased as also

the fact that the dead body was identified by Satish and

Madan Pal Singh has been recorded. The reason why we have

used the expression „negligently‟ in para 2 above while

referring to the submission of the inquest papers is obvious.

Evidenced by the investigation conducted and as noted above,

by 19.11.1995 the brothers of the deceased had yet to surface

and thus on 19.11.1995, while submitting the inquest papers

the investigating officer could not have recorded that the dead

body was identified by the brothers of the deceased.

Obviously, pouncing upon the contents of the inquest papers

the defence can urge that the inquest papers are ante dated

thereby casting a doubt on the recovery of the dead body at

the time and the place as claimed by the prosecution. But,

fortunately, the investigating officer has made an

endorsement on Ex.PW-23/2 as under:-

"Note : Dead body identified on 20.11.1995 and names of witnesses and deceased entered after identification."

5. It is apparent that the investigating officer who had

requested vide Ex.PW-23/C the officials at the mortuary to

preserve the dead body for 72 hours as it had yet to be

identified, ought not to have submitted the inquest papers on

said day i.e. 19.11.1995. He ought to have done so when

formal request for post-mortem was made. What he did is

obvious, he filled up the inquest papers without filling in many

columns and in particular column No.4 pertaining to the

particulars of the person who identified the dead body. When

he found the brothers of the deceased who identified the dead

body in the mortuary on 20.11.1995, he filled up the remaining

particulars in column No.4 thereby giving rise to an argument

that how could the inquest papers filled up on 19.11.1995

contain the particulars of Satish Kumar and Madan Pal. Be

that as it may, on account of the endorsement, contents

whereof have been noted in the preceding para, the

controversy has survived for a moment and perished within a

moment.

6. Proceeding ahead with further events which

unfolded, the investigating officer gave the go ahead for post-

mortem of the dead body to be conducted and obtain the post-

mortem report as also to find out the whereabouts of Anita

Saxena, the wife of the deceased who was expected to throw

further light qua the movements of her husband.

7. On 21.11.1995 Dr.Chanderkant PW-5 conducted the

post-mortem on the deceased and prepared the post-mortem

report Ex.PW-5/A noting that there were sixteen stab and

incised injuries on the deceased. That the proximate time of

death was 2½ days prior. That the injuries were ante mortem

and were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary

course of nature. He further noted that the stomach of the

deceased contained undigested semi-liquid material from

which strong smell of alcohol was emitting. After the post-

mortem he handed over the clothes of the deceased as also a

blood sample on the gauze which were seized as recorded in

the memo Ex.PW-22/1. After the post-mortem the knife Ex.P-1

was sent to him for opinion on the issue whether the injuries

on the deceased could be inflicted by the knife. He gave his

opinion Ex.PW-5/C that injuries 1 to 11 and 13 to 16 were likely

to be caused by the knife.

8. Satish Kumar and Madan Pal told the investigating

officer that their brother Ashok Kumar and his wife Anita

Saxena used to reside somewhere in Shiv Vihar Phase-IV. The

investigating officer went to Shiv Vihar Phase-IV and

succeeded in locating Satender Kumar PW-10 who resided in

House No.226, Street No.7/8, Shiv Vihar, Phase-IV who

informed that Ashok Pal and Anita Saxena had taken a room

from him on rent and resided there for some time. They

retained the room under their tenancy but started residing at

Mohammed Pur. He received rent regularly. After two months

they started residing in the room. One Munna also started

residing with them. Anita told him that Munna was her

brother. He became suspicious of the relationship between

Munna and Anita. He requested that his room be vacated. On

Friday 17.11.1995 Ashok Pal, Anita and Munna removed some

luggage from the tenanted room and next day Munna and

Anita came and took the remaining luggage. Anita told him

that her husband had got employment and henceforth would

be residing at the house of an army officer near Sangam Vihar.

He learnt about Ashok Pal being murdered when he read a

news item on 20.11.1995.

9. The investigating officer SI Dharampal went to

Sangam Vihar and learnt that no serving army officer was

residing there. Being aware that serving army officers were

residing in Arjun Vihar, he went to Arjun Vihar and on inquiry

learnt that a man and a woman had taken up residence in a

servant quarter in Block-4 of Arjun Vihar. He proceeded to

said block in the afternoon of 24.11.1995 and saw appellant

Muzzaffar Khan in the company of appellant Anita Saxena,

whom he recognized as the lady whose photograph was

recovered from the purse of the deceased. Anita Saxena could

not give any satisfactory explanation of the whereabouts of

her husband. The investigating officer became suspicious of

her conduct and brought her as also Muzzaffar Khan to the

police station and interrogated them. Both were arrested.

Personal search of Muzzaffar Khan yielded various articles

entered in the memo Ex.PW-17/1 which inter alia included a

paper cutting of a news item published in the daily edition

dated 20.11.1995 of Punjab Kesri pertaining to the recovery of

a dead body of a male near Golf Club on Station Road and a

writing, Ex.P-X on the letterhead of Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu as

under:-

"Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu 4/38 Arjun Vihar Security Officer

DOERA Arjun Vihar

Mr.Muzzaffar Khan has shifted to my servant quarter on 18 Nov.95. He may be permitted to enter the Arjun Vihar Complex till his permanent security pass is made.

Thanks

Sd/-

(PS Sandhu)"

10. Personal search memo Ex.PW-16/1 records the

items recovered from the personal search of Anita, none of

which is relevant and hence contents are not being noted.

11. On being interrogated in the police station,

Muzzaffar Khan made a confessional-cum-disclosure statement

Ex.PW-17/3 in which he confessed to have murdered the

deceased and stated that he and Anita had purchased the

knife Ex.P-1 from a shop at Welcome Colony Phase-IV. That he

and Anita shifted to a servant quarter in Arjun Vihar in a flat

allotted to an army officer on the consideration that Anita

would do the domestic work in the house. They shifted to the

servant quarter on 17.11.1995. He disclosed that the

deceased was murdered on 17.11.1995 and that while

committing the murder the shirt and the pant worn by him got

stained with blood and were washed and that he could get the

same recovered. He further stated that he could point out the

shop from where the knife was purchased. In her confessional-

cum-disclosure statement Ex.PW-16/1 Anita confessed to be a

party to the crime and stated same facts as were disclosed by

Muzzaffar Khan. Even she volunteered to point out the shop

from where the knife Ex.P-1 was purchased.

12. Muzzaffar Khan and Anita led the police officers to

the servant quarter attached to the flat of Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu

and from within the flat Muzzaffar Khan got recovered a pant

Ex.P-A and a shirt Ex.P-3 which were seized in the presence of

Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu as entered in the seizure memo Ex.PW-

3/A.

13. Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu informed the investigating

officer that he was looking for a domestic help and the

domestic help of Wg.Cdr. Arvind brought the appellants i.e.

Muzzaffar Khan and Anita Saxena to him. They claimed to be

husband and wife. He agreed to employ Anita Saxena who

agreed to work as a domestic help in his house in

consideration of residential accommodation in the servant

quarter attached to his flat. He handed them the keys of the

servant quarter where they shifted in the evening of

17.11.1995. The next two days i.e. 18th and 19th November

1995 were consumed by them in bringing remaining

household articles of theirs‟. Thus, on said two days Anita did

not report for duty. She reported for duty on 20th and 21st

November 1995. She did not report to work on 22nd November

1995. He found that the door of the servant quarter was

locked. That he saw the appellants thereafter when they were

brought to the servant quarter by the police.

14. The appellants thereafter led the investigating

officer to a shop at Welcome Colony owned by Abdul Hakim

PW-8 and pointed out the same as the one from where they

had purchased the knife Ex.P-1. Abdul Hakim told the

investigating officer that the appellant had purchased the knife

in question from him in November 1995 stating that they had

opened a shop to sell chicken meat and needed a knife.

15. To complete the record of investigation, the blood

stained soil, the knife Ex.P-1, the clothes of the deceased, the

blood sample of the deceased as also the shirt and pant got

recovered by appellant Muzzaffar Khan were sent for

serological examination and as per the report of the serologist

the blood group of the deceased was „A‟. Human blood was

detected on the shirt and the pant got recovered by Muzzaffar

Khan, but group thereof could not be determined.

16. Needless to state, the case of the prosecution

hinged upon proof of the fact that the knife Ex.P-1 found near

the dead body of Ashok Kumar was sold by Abdul Hakim to the

appellants. The appellants being last seen in the company of

the deceased on 17.11.1995 when they shifted out along with

the deceased from the room taken on rent in the house of

Satender Kumar PW-10. The deceased being done to death in

the night of 17.11.1995. The effect of a blood stained pant

and shirt recovered at the instance of Muzzaffar Khan from the

servant quarter of the flat of Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu PW-3. Lastly,

the conduct of the appellants absconding and the conduct of

Anita Saxena in not reporting her husband being missing.

17. At the trial, SI Dharampal Yadav PW-23 proved the

investigation conducted by him as also the various seizures

effected by him during investigation. He proved the seizure

memos Ex.PW-4/A, Ex.PW-4/B, Ex.PW-4/D and the memo

pertaining to the sketch of the knife Ex.PW-4/C. He deposed

having submitted the letter of request Ex.PW-23/C and having

submitted the inquest papers Ex.PW-23/2. He deposed the

facts noted in paras 3, 8 to 11 above as to how he worked

upon the leads which led him up to the appellants. He

deposed that the dead body was seized by him near Golf Club

at Station Road in Delhi Cantt. area. He proved the arrest

memos of the appellants as also the recoveries effected during

their personal search. He proved having recorded the

disclosure statements Ex.PW-17/3 and Ex.PW-16/1. He proved

having drawn up the personal search memos Ex.PW-17/1 and

Ex.PW-16/1. He proved having recovered a pant Ex.PA and a

shirt Ex.P-3 from the servant quarter attached to the flat of

Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu as entered in the seizure memo Ex.PW-

3/A. He deposed that he recorded the statements of the

various witness who were examined by the prosecution. We

must note that the learned public prosecutor has remained

negligent in that Ex.PX, contents whereof have been noted in

para 9 above, was not put to the witness and no answer

elicited pertaining thereto. Thus, a vital evidence showing

appellant Muzzaffar Khan shifting to the servant quarter of

Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu has been nullified. Further, while putting

the incriminating circumstances to the accused, the recovery

of Ex.PX from appellant Muzzaffar Khan has been omitted,

thereby requiring us to exclude said evidence while

considering the incriminating circumstances against the

appellants.

18. SI Dharampal Yadav was extensively cross-

examined. Nothing of substance was pointed out to us to

discredit his testimony, save and except that the photograph

of a lady which stands recorded in the seizure memo Ex.PW-

4/A; being one of the many articles recovered from the pant

pocket of the deceased has been found to be missing from the

record.

19. Pouncing upon said photograph being missing,

learned counsel for the appellants was quick to argue that the

photograph being missing casts a serious doubt whether at all

any was recovered.

20. We give no credence to the argument for the

reason SI Dharampal Yadav has deposed that he had retained

the photograph with him as the same would have given him

leads. It was with reference to said photograph that Satish

Kumar whom he contacted in Muradabad was able to connect

the appellant Anita as the wife of the deceased. Dharampal

Yadav has deposed to said facts and his testimony has not

been challenged in said respect. Further, SI Dharampal Yadav

has deposed that he retained the photograph with him till he

located Anita. Even said testimony of his has not been

questioned.

21. It is apparent that SI Dharampal Yadav retained the

photograph for the purposes of further investigation. But, he

remained negligent in not depositing the photograph in the

maalkhana and producing the same during trial. It is settled

law that a lapse committed by the investigating officer cannot

be permitted to be used as an escape route for an accused, if

otherwise good and satisfactory evidence is brought on record

wherefrom purity of the case of the prosecution can be

filtered. It would be relevant to note that SI Dharampal Yadav

has not been questioned during cross-examination as to what

happened to the photograph. Had he been questioned, some

explanation would certainly have been rendered by him. It is

settled law that unless an omission/error is put to a witness

and an opportunity is granted to explain the same, the same

cannot be used to the disadvantage of the prosecution. (See

the decision reported as AIR 1975 SC 290 Rahim Khan vs.

Khurshid Ahmad.)

22. Satish Kumar PW-2 deposed that his brother Ashok

Pal was married to one Ruma Devi and after some time

appellant Anita started residing with his brother. On

20.11.1995 Delhi Police enquired from him about his brother.

He came to Delhi and identified the dead body in the mortuary

as that of his brother.

23. Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu PW-3 deposed facts as noted

by us in para 13 above. He was cross-examined at length. But

nothing has been brought out to discredit his testimony. Only

one point was urged pertaining to the cross-examination of

Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu. With reference to his statement during

cross-examination that the key of his servant quarter was with

the police who used the same to open the lock. Counsel urged

that the memo Ex.PW-3/A records that Muzzaffar Khan led the

police inside the servant quarter and got recovered the shirt

and the pant from within the servant quarter. Learned counsel

urged that even SI Dharampal Yadav PW-23 stated that

accused Muzzaffar Khan got recovered a jean/pant of blue

colour and a maroon coloured shirt from the servant quarter

attached to the flat of Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu.

24. The plea is nothing but clutching to the straws.

Mathematical precision is not required, much less is expected

by Courts in the testimony of witnesses other than those who

are linguistic experts.

25. PW-10 Shri Satender Kumar deposed facts noted by

us in para 8 above. He was cross-examined at length but

successfully withstood the test of cross-examination. Nothing

has been pointed out to us in the testimony of PW-10 which

discredits him.

26. Abdul Hakim PW-8, the person from whom the

appellants purchased the knife Ex.P-1 deposed that he sold the

knife to the appellants who wanted to purchase a knife as they

told him that they had opened a shop to sell chicken. Relevant

would it be to note that Abdul Hakim gave no proof of running

any shop. He gave no proof of having sold the knife in

question to the appellants. He admitted that the knife had no

distinct mark or design with reference whereto he could justify

his statement that this was the knife sold by him to the

appellants. When questioned whether he could identify the

knife if it was mixed with other similar knives, he gave a very

interesting answer as under:-

"If the chhuris of the same design prepared by me and also by other persons are mixed together, then I am not sure I shall be able to identify the chhuri prepared by me. (Vol. I have identified the chhuri in this case because the accused persons had not paid the entire price. I have also identified the accused persons for this reason alone.)"

27. Abdul Hakim deposed that he sold the chhuri for

Rs.35/- and received only Rs.15/- as sale consideration. The

appellants told him that they would pay him Rs.20/- later on

and he agreed to the same.

28. Testimony of Abdul Hakim has obviously to be

taken with a pinch of salt. He has not claimed that the

appellants were his regular customers. He has not claimed

that they were brought to his shop by a person known to him.

It is unbelievable that Abdul Hakim would have sold a knife

worth Rs.35/- on a credit of Rs.20/-.

29. The circumstances under which Abdul Hakim claims

to have remembered the appellants; the circumstances under

which he claimed to have sold the knife to the appellants; the

circumstances under which he justifies his power of

recollection to identify the knife, all render his testimony as

liable to be classified as tailor-made testimony more so for the

reason there is no proof of Abdul Hakim being a shopkeeper

engaged in the business of selling knives.

30. Thus, we hold that the learned Trial Judge, who has

ignored aforesaid features in the testimony of PW-8 has led

himself to wrong conclusions qua the acceptability of the

testimony of PW-8 and the link provided i.e. that the knife

Ex.P-1 recovered from near the dead body of the deceased

was sold by Abdul Hakim to the appellants.

31. When incriminating circumstances were put to the

appellants, appellant Munna Khan denied everything. He

denied having known Ashok Kumar. He denied having known

Anita Saxena. He denied having resided with them in the

room taken by the deceased and Anita Saxena in the building

owned by Satender Kumar PW-10. He denied having ever met

Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu. He denied that he and Anita Saxena

represented to Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu that they were husband

and wife. He denied having resided in the servant quarter of

Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu from 17th to 21st November 1995. He

denied having made any disclosure statement. He denied

having got recovered the shirt and the pant found to be

stained with human blood from the said servant quarter.

32. Appellant Anita Saxena admitted that she knew

Ashok Pal the deceased and stated that she was married to

him. She denied everything else. She denied that she and the

deceased took on rent a room from Satender Kumar PW-10

and resided there. She denied that Muzzaffar Khan also

resided with them in said room. She denied having shifted

from the said room to the servant quarter attached to the flat

of Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu. To the last question whether she had

anything to say, she stated that she read in the newspaper on

20.11.1995 that her husband had been murdered. She went

to PS Dhaula Kuan to inform the police but her complaint was

not taken and that she was falsely implicated.

33. Ignoring the evidence relating to the appellants

pointing out the shop of Abdul Hakim which has been held to

be evidence of the conduct of the appellants and hence

admissible and relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act by

the learned Trial Judge, as also the evidence that the knife

Ex.P-1 was sold by Abdul Hakim to the appellants, the

evidence which remains against the appellants is the

following:-

(i) Evidence through the testimony of PW-10 that the

deceased was seen by him in the company of the

appellants on 17.11.1995, which was the day when

the deceased was last seen alive.

(ii) The post-mortem report of the deceased and the

testimony of Dr.Chanderkant PW-5 which showed

that the deceased died in the night of 17.11.1995.

(iii) The evidence through the testimony of PW-10 that

Anita Saxena and Ashok Kumar i.e. the deceased

took a room from him on rent and after some

months Muzzaffar Khan also started residing with

them and he was suspicious of the relationship

between Muzzaffar Khan and Anita Saxena and

hence told Ashok Kumar, Muzzaffar Khan and Anita

Saxena to leave the room under their tenancy.

(iv) The testimony of PW-3 Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu that the

appellants represented themselves as husband and

wife and in consideration of appellant Anita working

as his domestic help he allowed them to reside in

the servant quarter attached to his flat and that the

two shifted their luggage in part in the said servant

quarter on 17.11.1995 and the next day brought

the remaining luggage; which facts have also been

deposed to by Satender Kumar PW-10. As also the

fact that Anita Saxena reported for duty in the flat

of Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu on 20th and 21st November

1995 and thereafter both the appellants absconded.

(v) The newspaper Punjab Kesri reported the discovery

of a dead body of a male near Golf Club on Station

Road, cutting whereof was found and hence

recovered from the personal search of Muzzaffar

Khan.

(vi) The post-mortem report Ex.PW-5/A noting strong

smell of alcohol emanating from the semi-digested

semi-liquid contents in the stomach of the

deceased.

(vii) Anita‟s admission that she was the wife of the

deceased and her false denial of residing as a

tenant under PW-10 without it being told as to

where she and the deceased were residing. The

false statement of Anita that she went to PS Dhaula

Kuan to give information that her husband was

missing. She has tacitly admitted that she was

residing in an area which fell within the jurisdiction

of PS Dhaula Kuan. Arjun Vihar, the colony in which

the flat was allotted to Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu falls

within the jurisdiction of PS Delhi Cantt. There is no

police station Dhaula Kuan. A police post exists at

Dhaula Kuan under jurisdiction of PS Delhi Cantt.

Similarly the false denials by the appellant

Muzzaffar Khan of residing with the deceased and

Anita in the tenanted room under PW-10 and

shifting to the servant quarter of the flat allotted to

Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu and representing himself and

Anita to be husband and wife.

34. The motive for the crime has been proved through

the testimony of PW-10. The motive being the illicit

relationship developed by the appellants and hence the

necessity to do away with Ashok Kumar. The circumstance of

the appellants last seen in the company of the deceased on

17.11.1995, the day on which the deceased died and the

circumstance of the appellants prior thereto holding

themselves out as husband and wife to Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu

PW-3 and the circumstance of the appellants absconding on

22.11.1995 read with the circumstance that the newspapers

reported on 20.11.1995 that a dead body of a male was found

near the Golf Club, Station Road, Delhi Cantt. and the recovery

of blood-stained pant and coat; the blood stain being of human

origin are circumstances wherefrom the unerring finger of guilt

can safely be pointed against the appellants and their

innocence ruled out. The conduct of Anita Saxena is not the

conduct of a normal wife whose husband does not return home

on 17.11.1995. The obvious inference is that she was a party

to the crime and has taken a false plea that when the

newspaper reported the death of her husband, she went to the

police station. From the post-mortem report of the deceased it

is apparent that he was led into excessive drinking. The

excessive drinking obviously impaired the senses and reflexes

of the deceased who was brutally stabbed and sent to the

world of the dead. That the group could not be detected on

the blood which was of human origin on the shirt and the pant

got recovered by Muzzaffar Khan from the servant quarter

attached to the flat of Wg.Cdr. P.S.Sandhu is for the reason the

same were washed as per the disclosure statement of

Muzzaffar Khan i.e. the residual blood on the same was so less

that on reaction by the serologist to determine the group

thereof, none could be detected.

35. We find no merit in the two appeals. The appeals

are dismissed.

36. The appellants are on bail. The bail bond and

surety bonds furnished by the appellants are cancelled. The

appellants are directed to surrender and suffer the remaining

sentence.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE September 07, 2009 mm / Dharmender