Kausial Babloo v. State

3. Manoj Sahu (PW-2), Monika (PW-5), Janaki (PW-30) and Ram Kumar (PW-1) have substantiated that the house was robbed and various articles, including jewellery, were missing. The police officers Tnspt. Niranjan Singh (PW 28) and others confirm that the belongings were scattered around, when they reached the crime spot.

4. The core 1ssu, in the present case, is whether the two appellants had committed th said murder, injuries on Radha and the robbery?

5. Appellant Sandeep Sahu is the son of the deceased Raj Sahu's widowed sister and Kaushal is an alleged accomplice, who joined Sandeep Sahu, on 14th June, 2000, to commit the said offences. CRLA. Nos. 251201 1 & 201/2011 Page 3 oI40

6. in order to appreciate the prosecution version and the submissions made by the two appellants, it would be first appropriate to briefly note the statements made by Manoj Sahu (PW-2), Monika (PW-5), Janki (PW-30), Ram Kumar (PW-l) and inspector Niraijafl Singh (PW-28), the Investigating Officer. Ram Kumar (PW-1) is the husband of the deceased and has averred that on 14 June, 2000 he was at his place of work at Noida with his younger son Sanjeev Kumar. 1-us other son Manoj Kumar (PW-2) had returned to the house at Vikas Marg, at about 1 2.30 noon, to take his wife to a private doctor as she was pregnant. At about 1.30 P.M.. PW-1 received a telephone call from Manoj (PW[2]) requiring him to rem home immediately. Soon -in-law asked him to come thereafter, Monika (PW-5) his daughter back quickly because his wife had been murdered. He rushed back with his son Sanj ccv and saw his wife lying dead on the bed. She was severely injured and her head was crushed. There were blood stams on the wall. Radlia, the maid servant was bleeding profusely and lying in the drawing rcom. They thought Radha was dead but the SHO, who reached the spot within 2-3 minutes of their arrival, noticed some life in her and moved her to the hospital. His wife Raj Rani, the deceased was also taken to the hospital but declared as brought dead. The almirahs were open and articles were scattered. He was in a state of Page 4 ol 4() CRL.A. No. 2512O[1] & 74312011 shock and could notmmutely observe what was missing. Finger prints and other incriminating material/evidence were lifted and photographs were taken. At about 8.00 P.M., Monika her daughter-in-law verified and made a list of missing items which included gold chain, one top and bangles worn by the deceased. Some silver items like key chain, artificial jeweliery, tikka and mangal sutra were also missing. Rs.25,000/- in cash, which was kept after the jagran, had been stolen. I'hree-four days after the occurrence, appellant-Kaushal had pointed out the place at Yamuna Pusta where he had concealed his clothes. These clothes consisting of one pant, shirt and shoes were taken into possession. Thereafter, the appellant Kaushàl took them to Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh from where a pistol was recovered. He identified the stolen items which were recovered subsequently and were made subject matter of Test Identification Proceedings (TiP, for short). He identified the gold bangles, gold chain, mangal sutra, silver coins, tikka,' artificia jewcllery, silver key chain, pajeb and other miscellaneous items. Some currency notes were also recovered. He identified the r--covered jewellery which was also produced in the court. FTc also identified one helmet (Exhibit P-25) and stated that the said helmet was of appellant- Sandeep. He identified Sandeep, who was present in the court. in the cross-examination, he accepted that he CRL.A. Nos. 25/201 1 & 2113/2011 Page 5 o140 only knew Sandeep and had seen Kaushal for the first time. Earlier Kaushal was shown to him in muffled. face and then he saw his face in the court. His wife used to always wear mangal sutr, chain and bangles which were missing. The helmet of Sandeep was identified by his brother Deepak and his son Sanjeev and was taken into possession next day, i.e., on 15th June, 2000 in the morning around 9.00 A.M. In the cross-examination, he accepted the position that when he reached back home he doubted Janki's involvement. Janki had been working in their house for about I V[2] years but her sister Radha had joined only 15-20 days prior to the occurrence. Janki was taken to the police 1*.. station for interrogation. There, Janki for the first time had revealed Sandeep's involvement and had stated that Sandeep was accompanied by another person. As far as he remembered, Janki remained in the police station through the night. He had told the police that Janki should he interrogated as he had suspected her involvement in the occurrence. He could not recollect when Janki returned from the police station but stated that Janki had told them about Sandeep's involvement with another person. Sandeep was like his own son but he had no intent of taking him in his own business. He used to frequently visit their house and even used to spend the night there. Sandecp had sufficient knowledge about their business and financial ('RiA. Nos 25/2011 & 243/2011 Rage 6 o140 position and used to visit their factory. Normally they used to keep about Rs.20,000-40,000/- at the home. The house in question had entrance from the front and back, but the back entrance was always kept locked. He denied that his son had illicit relations with Janki.

7. M.anoj Sahu (PW-2) has deposed on identical lines and has also averred that they had initially suspected Janki. PW-2 has averred that he came back from the work at about 12.15 P.M. and, thereafter, had taken his wife to a doctor. He returned hack at about L' 0 P.M. and rang the bell as he could not open the main door with his key. Janki opened the door after some time. She was crying and had stated that I3ibiji, i.e., mother of Manoj Sahu and Bahan, i.e., Radha had been killed. When he entered the house with his wife he saw that the back door of the house, which normally remained shut, was open. On the first floor he saw Radha smeared with blood in the drawing room. in the bed room his mother was lying. She too was smeared with blood. He informed his father and also made a call at No. 1.00. SHO, on his arrival, noticed some life in Radha and she was taken to the hospital in an ambulance. Incriminating evidence/material, i.e., open bottle, knife, hammer etc. were seized and scaled. He noticed that the gold chain worn by his mc.thcr was missing but he being in shock did not notice about other ornaments on her body. On the basis of his statement COlA. Nos. 25/201 I & 2/13/20 11 Pane 7 o14() = Exhibit PW-2/A, FiR was registered After they came back from cremation, Janki had disclosed and claimed that Sandeep and his friend were involved, in the cross-examination, PW-2 had stated as under:-

8. PW-2 averred that after they came back from the cremation Jaiiki was interrogated in the house by the police and then they. came to know that appellant Sandeep Sahu and his associates were involved. Janki had told them that she Was.given threats and because of fear she had not disclosed Sandeep Sahu's name earlier.. He further deposed ( that Sandeep was like his younger brother and used to visit them frequently. However, after the incident Sandeep did not visit the house. So they became suspicious about his involvement. Sandeep's brother.l)eeak and his mother had come to the house and had pointed CRI...A. Nos. 25/2011 & 2/13/2011 Page 8 of4() e^^ 011 out towards the helmet lying in the hail on the ground floor. Next day on 15"'June, 200.0, he along with the police and Jailki, went to search Sandeep in a police jeep. Sandeep was found standing in the corner of his gali and was apprehended. On his personal search Rs.2,000/- were found in his pocket. He was interrogated and on the basis of his disclosure statement one pant and shirt of black colour, which Sandeep was wearing at the time of the incident, was seized from parchatti of his house. Rs.3,500/- or R.s.4,000/- were also seized from the pillow. Sandeep had disclosed that his two associates Sitaram and Kaushal were involved. Janki had also given the name of Kaushal but Kaushal had never visited their house before and he did not know him. In further cross-examination he accepted that Sandeep used to come in their house every second or third day till two months prior to the occurrence. On being questioned, Sandeep had then stated that he was then busy due to some business matters. However, he had not given any financial help to Sandeep because Sandeep's mother was a working lady. As Sandeep was considered to be a member of the lmily, they had told him if he required any help, it would be made available. The entry to the house was only froth the front side and the rear gate of the house was locked. PW-2 pointed out that the grill of the boundary wall on the back side was found to be broken and was (ALA Nos. 25/)0! 1 &-2113/2011 CN) seized. He identified the said broken grill which was marked Exhibit 11-12. The list of missing articles was prepared at about 8.00-9.00 P.M. on 14"' Junc. 2000 by his father Ram Kumar (PW-1) and his wife Monika (PW-5). On the date of occurrence Janki was taken to the police station and he saw Janki next day in the afternoon after they came back from cremation. He accepted that the first doubt of the entire family was on Janki and to his knowledge he had not named or expressed any suspicion on any third person or Sandeep initially. The maid servants were not residing in the house and used to come at 9.00 AM. and go back at 6.00-7.00 P.M. Police had taken away Janki on the first day and he saw her, thereafter, on the second day and at that time Janki had informed them about involvement of Sandeep. Both Radha and Jank, 2-3 months after the occurrence, had left work and gone to the native place Nepal. He denied that he had any relations with Radha or Janki or he had strained relations with his mother.

9. Monika (PW-5) wife of PW-2 had averred that She was taken to medical check up by her husband at about 12.15 P.M. on 14 June,

2000. She was taken to Nirman Vihar for medical check-up by her husband. At that time her mother-in-law, the deceased Raj Rani, maid servant Radha and her sister Janki were present in the house. They returned at 1.30 P.M. but her husband was not able to open the door CRL.A. Nos. 2 5/201 & 243/2011 Page 10 0140 with his key. He rang the bell and after about 15-20 minutes the maid servant Janki opened the door. She was crying and was perplexed. Janki told them that her mother-in-law and her sister had been killed. They went inside the house and saw the back door of the house open. They went upstairs and saw Radha lying in injured condition with blood in the drawing room. In the bed room her mother-in-law was lying, smeared with blood. She noticed that gold bangles and gold chain wcrc missing. Household things Were lying scattered. A knife and hammer was lying near the bed. She was taken to a nearby show room and made to sit there. Janki was also with her in the show room. In the cross-examination she accepted the position that she did not make any enquiries from Janki as to who had murdered her mother-inlaw and how the incident happened. She had not seen her husband also making enquiries from Janki about the occurrence. She denied knowledge that her husband was having illicit relations with Janki. She averred that her family was very cordial with Sandeep, who was like her younger brother. She denied that Sandeep had bad habits. 'There were family discussions as Sandeep wanted to go to America for studies.

10. Janli (PW-30) was produced as a witness towards the end of the trial. Her statement in chief was recorded on 141h October, 2039 and CRLA. Nos. 25/2011 & 1,13/2011 Page I I of' '10 -7 she was cross-examined on the same day and on 15"' October, 2009. On the date of her examination in chief her age was recorded as 21 years. On the basis of the said age, she would be about 12/13 years old on the date of the occurrence. She admitted that she had worked 9 years back at Shankar Vihar in the house of Ram Kumar Sahu for about 6-7 months. On the said date about 12 noon she had gone to the roof to wash clothes and at about 1.30 P.M. came down the stairs. She saw the appellant Sandeep in the room of Raj Rani. Sandeep was changing clothes. She enquired what Sandeep was doing there as Sandeep used to come to the house, being a nephew of ftaj Rani. She identified the other appellant Kaushal, as he was present in the court, as the second peron who was present with Sandeep. Raj Rani was lying on the floor soaked in blood. Sandeep asked Kaushal to finish her and they were going to kill her when the door bell rang. Sandeep asked Kaushal to tie her hands and legs and throw her in the street. Jan.ki was pushed and thrown on the floor by Kaushal. She was threatened that she will be killed if she disclosed anything to anyone. 11'he two appellants ran away from the back door of the house. When Kaushal left the house he had a polythene bag with him in which there was some stuff. She opened the main door and Mari oj and his wife came in. Her younger sister Radha who used to work as a domestic CRL.A. Nos. 25/201 & 2/13/2011 Page 12 o140 help in the same house was found lying unconscious, bleeding, in the room below the room where Raj Rani was lying. On seeing this, Janki (PW-30) claims she became unconscious.. Later, after she disclosed about Sandeep, he was arrested on identification made by her at Ram Nagar. At that time Manoj (PW-2) was with her along with the police officers. Rs.1,900/- in cash was recovered on personal search of Sandeep. In the cross-examination she accepted that Sandeep used to regularly come to the house and she would serve him with tea and snacks. She came to know that PW-2 and PW-4 had 'rung the bell when she opened the door. The keys of the house used to remain with * Raj Rani. She further deposed, in the cross-examination, that she had seen nothing but the appellants, changing their clothes. She volunteered that she did not know whether there was anything like knife in their hands. In her presence nothing was put in the polythene bag. After opening the door she told Manoj (PW-2) and (PW-4) about the incident as witnessed by her verbatim. '_Fhe back doàr was normally bolted and locked. She denied that the police had made inquiries from her on the fateful day but subsequently averred that she did not remember anything what happened after the incident and who had come and inquired from her, as she was disturbed. She denied that she had illicit relations with Manoj and the appellant Sandeep was (TRLA. 1'os. 25/2011 & 243/2011 Palc 13 oi'!() aware of this. In cross-examination, by the counsel for Kaushal, she accepted the position that Kaushal did not come to their house and she had seen him for the first time on the day of the incident. She came to know about the name Kaushal as Sandeep had called him by his name and asked him to kill her. PW-30 has stated that she regained consciousness next day at about 2.00-3.00 P.M. She has further averred that she did not remember if she had told the entire incident to PW-2 and PW-4 after opening the door, as she was scared. She admitted that Radha had gone to Nepal and she died there after about 10 days because of injuries sustained by her in the incident. In the cross-examination she admitted that she, had come to the court after One Pratap had come to Nepal from Delhi and had asked her to depose. She was told that R.K. Sahi wanted her to depose in the court. After the incident Radha had stayed in the house of PW-1 till they left for Nepal but after coming to Nepal they never contacted PW-1 or his famil y members. V ii. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to dwell into and examine the contention of the appellants. It is pointed out by.the appellants that there is a contradiction between what PW-2 has stated in his examination-in-chief and the cross-examination, viz., the statement made by Janki when she opened the door at 1.30 P.M. it has been CRLA. Nos. 25/2011 & 243/20 Page 4 01,40 C): highlighted that Sandeep Sahu and Kaushal WCITC not named by PW-2 in his initial statement Exhibit PW-2/A (rukka) which formed the basis of the FIR. It is contended that statement of Janki (PW-30) was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. only on the next day, I.e., 15L11 June, 2000. She was the prime suspect and, therefore, her statement that she was an eye witness or had seen Sandeep and Kaushal in the house has to be elided and dis-believed.

12. Statement by PW-2, Rukka (Exhibit PW-2/A) was recorded by the Investigating Officer at about 5.00 P.M. on 14 June, 2000. English translation of the relevant portion of the said statement reads as under:- "At about 1.30 P.M. I returned home but could not open the main door with my key. I pressed the door bell. Janki opened the door shouting and stated that her sister and Bibiji (Raj Sahu) had been killed. Manoj Sahu PW-2 noticed that the back door on the ground floor was open and on the first floor in the drawing room Radha sister of Janki Was lying drenched in blood. In the bed room her mother was lying on the bed again smeared in blood. Broken glass were lying all over. Manoj Sahu made a telephone call on number 100 and the PCR van took his mother to Anand Hospital; Radha was taken in an ambulance to hospital. It was learnt that Manoj's mother had died. Gold chain which used to be worn by Manoj Sahus mother was missing. Household articles were lying scattered all over but Manoj Sahu was not fully aware and had knowledge about household articles and the details of the missing articles will be made available later on. Manoj Sahu's mother and household articles/assets have been stolen and Janki's sister Radha had suffered injuries." CRL.i\. Nos. 25/2011 & 743/2011 Page I 5 o!'40

13. The afoiesaid statenent does not specifically refer to Sandeep or Kaushal or to Janki's statemeilt, when she opened the door, that - Sandeep and Kaushal were the culprits. Mario] (PW-2) in the said statement did not claim that Janki had given names of Sandeep or K.aushal when she opened the door. PW-2's claim, in the examination in chief, that Janki had named the appellants when she opened the door but this as noticed is not factually correct. However this cannot be a ground to relect and discard his entire testimony as unworthy of credence and devoid of truth. PW-2, on the said aspect, contradicted himself in the cross examination. We have also quoted the statement of PW-2, in his cross-examination, in which PW-2 has not averred that Janki after opening the door had named Sandeep or Kaushal. Similarly, Janki (PW-30) in her cross-examination has averred that when she opened the door she was perplexed and shaken and did not name Sandeep or Kaushal as the culprits. The aforesaid position appçars to be correct, in view of the fact that Ram Kumar (PW- 1) and Manoj Sahu (PW-2) have categorically stated that they suspected and believed that Jariki was behind or was involved in the said crime. The fact that Janki had remained quiet and did not name the third person and their involvement fortifies the said belief and suspicion. PW-i and 2 have also averred and stated that Janki (PW-30) was thoroughly Pa CRL.A. Nos. 25/2011 & 243/2011 ge lb o14() interrogated and questioned by the police on 14t" and 15th• This is correct and gets confirmed from the statement of Inspector Niranlan Singh (PW-28). The statement made by Jànki (PW-30) that she became unconscious and regained consciousness on the next day, i.e., 1 June, 2000 at 2.00-3.00 P.M. is not correct. Unconsciousness for the said long period is implausible and contrary to the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-28. Possibly Janki (PW-30) did not want to state that she was a prime suspect and interrogated and kept in police detention. This contradiction by PW-30 does not merit rejection of her I entire testimony. Thus we disbelieve this part of PW-30 statement but do not find any reason to discard or ignore the material and relevant averments made by her. Her statement in the trial Court was recorded more than nine years after the occurrence on 14t" October, 2009. Minor discrepancies do not doubt or dent her entire statement. PW-30 may not have recalled when and what time police officers had made inqufties for the first time from her. For the same reasons, the contentions that PW[3].0 in the cross-examination had stated that it was winter season when the occurrence had taken place and she and her sister had taken employment together, cast doubt on veracity of the deposition of PW3O, is without m Her erit. cr averment, that it was winter, does not early any weight as the occurrence had taken on 1401 (ALA. Nos. 25/2011 & 243/201 _0 June, 2000, and her presence cannot be doubted We accept the testimony of PW[1], PW[2] and PW[5], who have categorically deposed that Radha was taken in employment and she started working 15-20 days before the occurrence. PW30, in her examination-in-chief had stated that she had worked for 6-7 months as a maid in the house of Ram Kumar Sahu. PW30 in her examination in chief had stated that she had seen Sandeep changing his shirt but had not attributed any such act to Kaushal. However, in the cross-examination, she had claimed that she had seen both of them changing their clothes/shirts. I This ambiguity in the statement of PW-30 again does not create any dent or doubt about her core testimony that both Sandeep and Kaushal were there and had threatened her and ran away from the back door.

14. Before, we examine other contentions of the appellants, it will he appropriate to refer to the statement of the investigating Officer. Inspector Niranjan Singh (PW-28) has stated that DD No. 9A was marked to him for investigation and when he visited the spot of occurrence, i.e., House No. 6, Shanker \Jihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi, he saw that blood in the drawing room and in the bed room. Blood stain was there on the curtains, walls etc. He has further averred that no witness was present when he reached the spot on the first occasion. Radha had been taken to RML Hospital and there she was declared CRL.A. Nos. 25/2011 & 243/201 Page 18 Ot 40 0,[9] unfit for statement. He reached A.nand Hospital and came to know that Raj Rani Sahu was declared brought dead. He went back and then spoke to Manoj Kumar Sahu and recorded his statement (Exhibit PW- 2/A). We do not think there was extra ordinary delay in recording the said statement al 5.00 P.M. As noticed above, Monika (PW-4) was pregnant and she was shifted from the spot to a nearby show room. First and foremost duty of the police officers was to try and provide medical aid and treatment to the injured, i.e., Raj Rani and Radha. They both were taken to the hospital in the PCR van and in the ambulance. The Investigating Officer followed them and had gone to RML Hospital, where Radha was admitted, and then returned to the spot. Thereafter he collected evidence/material including the broken iron grill, on the ground floor at the back side boundary wall (seized vide Exhibit PW-2/0). PW28 had thereafter interrogated Monika (PW-4) and Jànki (PW-30). The dead body of Raj Sahu was then sent to the mortuary at Subzi Mañdi. He again went to RML Hospital to record statement of Radha and, after permission was granted by the doctor, her statement was recorded. PW-28 has stated that on 15th June, 2000 at 9 A.M. duty officer had informed him that he had received a telephone message from Ram Kumar Sahu that a helmet was found on the ground floor of the house and the said helmet did not CRI.A. Nos.[2] 5/20! I & 243/2011 Page 19of40 belong to him. Thereafter he went to the spot in question, i.e., the house, and reached Subzi Mandi mortuary where post mortem was conducted and the dead body was handed over to PW-1 and PW-2. The family members of the deceased were busy in making arrangement for performing last rites of Raj Sahu. Between 12.45 to 2.45 P.M. PW- 28 interrogated Janki the maid servant in the house of Ram Kumar Sahu (PW-1). PW-28 has averred that then Janki disclosed that she had seen Sandeep and his associate Kaushal committing murder. Manoj Kumar Sahu also made enquiries. Thereupon, PW-28 along with Manoj Sahu and Janki went to Chander Nagar area and accused Sandeep was identified by Janki and Manoj Sahu. On his personal search Rs. 1.900/- was found in hTh nicker and was seized. He was interrogated. Thereafter, Janki was asked to leave the place and allowed, to meet her injured sister Radha. On the basis of disclosure made by Sandeep, the police team searched the room on the ground Poor of his house and, from the rni'ani, Sandeep took out the pant and f, shirt which he was wearing at 'the time of offence. Sandeep was also taken for medical examination and MLC marked Exhibit PW-28/A was recorded. Two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DEL 1733 belonging to Nand Kishore Sahu, maternal grandfather (nana of Sandeep) was seized Search was made to find and interrogate CRL.A. Nos. 25/2011I & 243/20 Page 20 o14() Kaushal and Sitaram but without success Sitaram was ultimately arrested on 81 June, 2000 near Karol Bagh and was interrogated. He disclosed the address and location of Kaushal, his cousin. Kaushal could not be located at his residential house. Police remand of Sitaram was allowed and on 1911[1] June, 2000 they went to village l3azakhurampUr@PUrVa and, in the intervening night of 2011,121st June, 2000 appellant Kaushal was arrested from his house in the said village vide memo Exhibit PW-8/13.. His disclosure statement (Exhibit PW- 19/C) was recorded. Appellant Kaushal produced his uncle's bag from his room which contained pant, shirt, towel, etc. Kaushal disclosed that the looted property was lying in the house of his uncle Baijnath, in village Rasoolpur On the basis of disclosure, they reached village Rasoolpur in the early morning of 21 51 June, 2000 and, from the I chapper of the house, appellant Kaushal produced a bag containing jewellery made of gold, silver, etc. R.s.6,490/- were also seized vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-13/E. The said jewellery items in question were 14 in number and collectively marked Exhibit PW-281P-3. Rs.6,490/- were also included and marked Exhibit PW-28/P-3. In his cross-examination PW-28 had stated as under:- ".[1] had come to know after recording statement of the complainant that he is not the eye-witness but the complainant had told that when he reached to the house in question Ms..Janki, the maidservant had CKL.A. Nos. 25/2011 &243/201 I opened the door and she was crying that somebody had killed Mrs. Raj Sahu. The complainant entered into the house and saw that one maidservant Kurnari Radha is in injured condition and his mother Mrs. Raj Sahu is also badly injured therefore he made call to PC R. The complainant had told me that he had tried to know from both the injured PCfSOflS as to who and how injuries have been received to them but the injured persons were not able to tell the same. I had not recorded the same in the statement of complainant Sb. Manoj Sahu. After that 1 had made enquiries for about 40-45 minutes from other family members and Ms. Janld, the maidservant also but none told me about any person who has seen the incident." Re had furtherstated:- "...[1] had enquired from Ms. ianki as to why she has not gone with her injured sister in the hospital. She was perplexed and was not able to give her statement oil day. She was not aware in which hospital her sister was taken. She could not have taken her sister to hospital because she was not well known with the area. • On 14.06.2000, 1 had made inquiries from Janki but did not record her statement. Vol. It was recorded by 15.06.2000. Oil Janki did not disclose the name of any of the culprits as she was nervous. Janki did not disclosed that murder was committed in her presence and that she was witness to murder. Janki had told me oil that at about 1200pm she was working oil floor of the house. Janki had told me oil that after washing of the clothes as she came down to the bedroom of the deceased she witnessed that "Biwi ji was killed on 14° and her sister namely Radha was also injured and was lying Unconscious. I had inquired from Janki as to the identity of the culprits who had committed the murder.. Janki told me that she did not see as to who has committed the murder oil Janki was nervous and she was not in a position to answer my queries. Nothing else was disclosed by.Janki at that time about the incident. Neither Ram Kumar Saki nor Manoj Sahu expressed any suspicion about the identity of the murderers oil did CRL.A. Nos. 25/2011 & 243/2011 not disclose me if she had also sustained injuries in the incident nor she was injured at that time..[1] had recorded the 1st statement of Janki at Chander Nagar where she had led the police party to identify the culprit Sandeep Kr. Sahu oil I had gone to the house of Manoj Sahu to make inquiries in this case where Janki had met me and she was thoroughly interrogated upon which she disc losed the identity of culprits.'

15. PW-28 had stated that there was no evidence of forced entry to the house. This statement was made in the cross-examination and it is not the case of any party that there was forced trespass into the house. Thus it transpires from the statement of PW-28 that PW-30, in the initial stage oil June, 2000, had remained quiet and did not implicate anyone. However, we do not agree that the appellants are entitled to acquittal for the said reason. The delay in recording her statement and her naming the appellants has been explained and should be accepted for several reasons elucidated hereafter. 16..PW-30 is a truthful, credible and honest witness. She had been working as a domestic help at Sahu residence. Her presence, in the house, at the said time is natural and normal and has been proved from the statements of Ram Kumar (PW[1]), M.anoj Sahu (PW-2) and M.. onika (PW-5). She has very transparently stated the actual occurrence as what she had seen. She had not seen Sandeep Sahu and Kaushal actually killing or giving injuries to Radha or the deceased Ra.j Rani. When she came down from the terrace, she saw Sandeep Sahu and C RI..A. Nos 25/201 1 & 243/201 1I Pagc 23 o11() M Kaushal. Sandeep Sahu was changing his shirt. She saw that Raj Rani was lying injured and smeared in blood. The door bell rang and PW- 30 some how was saved. She was warned and threatened by the appellants before they escaped. Subsequently, when interrogated, she gave the names of the perpetrators, including the name of accomplish of Sandeep as Kaushal which she came to know because Sandeep had addressed the second person as Kaushal.

17. PW-30 was a small girl, at that time, aged between 12-14 years. Apprehension, trepidation and timorousness felt by her in the said 4 situation can be easily understood and should be accepted. She had -. seen the horrific incident in which her sister Radha was injured and her employer Raj Rani was murdered, in a brutal manner. She was shaken up, nervous and gripped by fear as she was treated as a prime suspect by the employers, who were well off,. rich and powerful. She was a villager from Nepal who had moved to the big city of Delhi, only 5-6 months back, and had taken employment in the house. The prime V culprit was a close relative of the employers and was treated by them as a family member: He was young, city bread, aggressive and worldly wise. Her word and allegations against the appellant Sandeep Sahu I possibly would not have merited approval and acceptance. She was threatened by the culprits/perpetrators and was being blamed and CRL.A. Nos. 25/2011 & 243/2011 Page 24 o140 suspected by the employers, who would have displayed their angst and anger. He silence, fright and hopelessness, keeping in view her social and economic background, her tender age of 12-14 years and other factors should be respected and given due cognizance. The possibility that she would be an easy target and could be framed for murder despite her innocence must have troubled her. The difficulty in naming a family member as the perpetrator concerned and that she would be disbelieved, was a real possibility to her. We. cannot discount the threats which had been given by the appellants Sandeep I and Kaushal. Injuries caused to Raj Rani and Radha were in her knowledge. It was only after thorough interrogation that she spoke out but it appears that neither the Investigating Officer nor the deceased's family were initially ready and willing to accept the said statement. PW-30 was taken to the house of Sandeep, who was found in the gall, and he was interrogated. Money was found, after personal search of the appellant, and only then PW-30 was permitted to see her sister. V The fact that she and her sister Radha left Delhi and India and went back to the village in Nepal, in spite of the fact that her sister Radha was still under treatment and subsequently died, shows the trauma and the loss they suffered. CRLA. Nos. 25/2011 & 2/13/201 1