Page No.# 1/76

GAHC010212392019

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Crl.A./350/2019

GOBIND SINGHAL

S/O- SHRI RADHESHYAM SINGHAL, R/O- 119, J.P. AGARWALA ROAD,

KAMRUP, GUWAHATI. (PRESENTLY LODGED AT GUWAHATI CENTRAL

JAIL).

VERSUS

STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM.

2:JAGDISH AGARWAL

S/O- SHRI B.P. AGARWAL

R/O- KAMALDEEP BUILDING

BIJULEE MILL

MANIPUR BASTI

KAMRUP

GUWAHATI

Advocate for the Petitioner : DR Y M CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : A BHATTACHARJEE,SPECIAL PP ASSAM

Linked Case : Death Sentence Ref./3/2019

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REP. BY P.P.

ASSAM.

VERSUS Page No.# 1/76

GAHC010212392019

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Crl.A./350/2019

GOBIND SINGHAL

S/O- SHRI RADHESHYAM SINGHAL, R/O- 119, J.P. AGARWALA ROAD,

KAMRUP, GUWAHATI. (PRESENTLY LODGED AT GUWAHATI CENTRAL

JAIL).

VERSUS

STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM.

2:JAGDISH AGARWAL

S/O- SHRI B.P. AGARWAL

R/O- KAMALDEEP BUILDING

BIJULEE MILL

MANIPUR BASTI

KAMRUP

GUWAHATI

Advocate for the Petitioner : DR Y M CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : A BHATTACHARJEE,SPECIAL PP ASSAM

Linked Case : Death Sentence Ref./3/2019

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REP. BY P.P.

ASSAM.

VERSUS

Page No.# 2/76

SRI GOBIND SINGHAL

KAMRUP (METRO)

GUWAHATI.

------------

Advocate for : MR. A BHATTACHARJEE

SPL. PP

ASSAM

Advocate for : MR D K BHATTACHARYYA appearing for SRI GOBIND SINGHAL

Linked Case : Crl.A./396/2019

KAMALA DEVI SINGHAL AND ANR

W/O- SHRI RADHESHYAM SINGHAL

R/O- 119

J.P. AGARWALA ROAD

KAMRUP

GUWAHATI.

2: BHABANI SINGHAL

D/O- SHRI RADHESHYAM SINGHAL

R/O- 119

J.P. AGARWALA ROAD

KAMRUP

GUWAHATI.

VERSUS

STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

GAUHATI HIGH COURT.

2:JAGDISH AGARWAL

S/O- SHRI B. P. AGARWAL

R/O- KAMALDEEP BUILDING

BUJILEE MILL

MANIPURI BASTI

KAMRUP

GUWAHATI.

------------

Advocate for : MR D K BHATTACHARYYA

Advocate for : SPECIAL PP ASSAM appearing for STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

Page No.# 3/76

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

Dates of hearing : 14.03.2022, 15.03.2022, 21.03.2022 & 22.03.2022.

Date of judgment : 08.04.2022

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

(Suman Shyam, J)

Heard Dr. Y. M. Choudhury assisted by Mr. D. K. Bhattacharyya and Ms. R.

Gonsalvez, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M. Phukan,

learned Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State. Ms. R. D. Mazumdar,

learned Legal Aid Counsel is present on behalf of the informant.

1. By the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Sessions Case No.69/2018 the three appellants viz.,

Gobind Singhal (A-1), Kamali Devi Singhal (A-2) and Bhabani Singhal (A-3) were

convicted under Sections 120(B)/201/302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing

the murder of deceased Sweta Agarwal based on a conspiracy hatched by them

and also for destroying evidence. The A-1 Gobind Singhal, who is the appellant in Crl.

Appeal No.350/2019, was awarded death sentence for committing the offence

under section 302 IPC and also to pay fine of Rs 10,000/-. Death Sentence Reference

No.3/2019 has been preferred by the State for confirmation of the death sentence.

The A-1 has also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of

Page No.# 4/76

Rs 5000/-for committing the offence under section 120-B of the IPC and also to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs 5000/- for

committing offence under section 201 of IPC.

2. The A-2 and A-3 were awarded imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs

10,000/- each for committing the offence under section 302 IPC ; for committing the

offence under section 120-B IPC, A-2 and A-3 were sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs 10,000/- each. For the offence

committed under section 201 of IPC, A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs 5,000/- each with default

stipulations. Assailing the impugned judgment, A-2 and A-3 have jointly preferred

Criminal Appeal No.396/2019.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 14.12.2017 the A-1 had criminally

conspired with his mother A-2 and sister A-3 and called the victim over phone asking

her to wait after finishing her examination. Accordingly, A-1 went to K. C. Das

Commerce College, Guwahati, picked up the victim in his motorcycle and returned

to their house located at J. P. Agarwal Road at Bharalumukh. The accused persons

then brutally stabbed the victim inside the house and thereafter, burnt her by pouring

kerosene thereby committing a gruesome act of murder of the deceased Sweta

Agarwal.

4. On 04.12.2017 Sri Jagdish Agarwal i.e. the uncle of deceased Sweta Agarwal

lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Bharalumukh Police Station

reporting that his niece Sweta Agarwal had gone to K.C. Das Commerce College to

Page No.# 5/76

write her exam at around 8:30 a.m. Her exam was over at around 12:30 p.m.

Although she usually returns home at around 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m, yet, on that day

Sweta did not come back home till about 2:00 p.m. There was also no response to

calls made in her mobile phone. At around 3:30 p.m. the mobile was found switched

off. Around 5:50 to 6:00 p.m. he had received a call from No.9401829797 whereby a

lady had informed him that his niece was lying dead in a naked and burnt condition.

The unknown lady had also given him her address. On reaching the address, the lady

took him to her bathroom were he found his niece was lying dead in a naked and

burnt condition. At that time, the mother of the accused Gobind was present along

with a girl. He suspected that the A-1 had raped his niece and brutally murdered her

with the help of his mother (A-2) and sister (A-3). Based on the aforesaid ejahar, BMK

P.S. Case No.805/2017 was registered under Sections 302/376/120(B) of the IPC and

the matter was entrusted to S.I. Sudip Chaudhury to carry out the investigation. On

completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the three

accused persons.

5. On committal of the matter for trial before the Sessions Court formal charge

under Sections 120(B)/201/302 IPC was framed against all the three accused persons.

However, since the accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried,

the matter went up for trial.

6. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. During the course

of trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 20 witnesses including the doctors

who had conducted the post-mortem examinations viz., PWs-9, 10 and 11, the

Page No.# 6/76

Scientific Officer in the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) i.e. PW-17 and

the Investigating Officer (I.O.) PW-20. On conclusion of trial the accused persons

were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and their statements were recorded

by the learned court below. The accused persons had also adduced evidence by

examining three witnesses as DWs-1, 2 and 3. On conclusion of trial, the learned

Sessions Judge had passed the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2019 convicting all

the three accused persons and sentencing them in the manner indicated herein

above.

7. Dr. Y. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has

submitted that save and except PWs-1, 2, 5 and 6 all other witnesses examined by the

prosecution side are either seizure witnesses or official witnesses. Although the

prosecution has brought charges of criminal conspiracy and murder against the

accused persons, none of those charges could be proved by the prosecution side by

adducing circumstantial evidence. Mr. Choudhury has argued that, save and except

establishing that the victim had died a homicidal death and her dead body was

found in the bathroom of the house of the accused persons, the prosecution has not

been able to establish any other circumstances to complete the chain of

circumstances establishing the guilt of the accused persons. According to Mr.

Choudhury, the A-2 and A-3 had themselves informed the family members of the

victim, the police and also called for the ambulance soon after the incident and

therefore, the fact that the victim’s body was found in a critically injured condition

inside the bathroom of the house of the accused persons was automatically

established by their own showing. Requesting the court to draw serious adverse

Page No.# 7/76

presumption against the prosecution for their deliberate failure to exhibit the Call

Details Record (CDR) of the mobile phones of the accused persons and the victim as

well as the record of SMS and other electronic transactions that took place between

them, Dr. Choudhury has argued that had such materials been placed on record by

the prosecution the same would have totally exonerated the accused persons from

the charge of criminal conspiracy and murder. The learned counsel for the appellants

has also invited our attention to the serious lapses on the part of the learned Sessions

Judge in his failure not only to put all incriminating materials before the accused

persons while recording their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. but also by

pointing out that the learned Sessions Judge has practically interrogated the

accused persons and made serious accusations on the A-1 during his examination

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. thereby acting with a high degree of bias against the

accused even before the conclusion of trial. On such ground Mr. Choudhury submits

that serious prejudice has been caused to the accused and the same would

inevitably have a vitiating affect on the trial itself.

8. Responding to the above arguments, Mr. M. Phukan, learned Public

Prosecutor, Assam has submitted by referring to the post-mortem report (Ext-10) that

the fact that the victim had died homicidal death due to deep incised injuries found

in her body as well as the burnt condition is firmly established by the medical

evidence brought on record. That apart, it is also fully established that the body of

the victim was recovered inside the bathroom of the accused persons. Mr. Phukan

further submits that the fact that the A-1 was having a love affair with the victim girl

and he had threatened the girl of dire consequences if she did not maintain proper

Page No.# 8/76

relationship with him stood established from M. Exts- 20 and 21. Notwithstanding the

same, the accused persons have failed to discharge their burden cast under Section

106 of the Evidence Act by failing to offer proper and acceptable explanation as to

the circumstances under which the victim had sustained such grievous injuries inside

the house of the accused persons leading to her homicidal death. Viewed from that

angle, submits Mr. Phukan, the charges brought against the accused persons, more

particularly the A-1 and A-2, stood fully established based on circumstantial

evidence.

9. In so far as the several lapses on the part of the investigation as pointed out by

Mr. Choudhury as well as the failure on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to put

all the incriminating circumstances to the accused persons while examining them

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Mr. Phukan has fairly submitted that there are some lapses

in investigation which are noticeable on the face of the record. The learned Public

Prosecutor has, however, argued that considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and also the heinous nature of the crime involved in this case, where a young

lady with brilliant academic career has been brutally murdered, the benefit of such

lapses, if any, should not go to the accused persons. If necessary, the case can be

sent for re-trial from the stage of recording the statement of the accused persons

under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

10. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both

the sides and have gone through the materials available on record. There is no doubt

or dispute about the fact that there is no direct evidence and the prosecution case is

Page No.# 9/76

entirely based on circumstantial evidence. Pursuant to his conviction the A-1 has

been awarded death sentence whereas the A-2 and A-3 have been awarded life

imprisonment by the learned court below. Therefore, it would be necessary to

meticulously examine the evidence available on record so as to arrive at a

conclusion as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge

brought against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

11. Sri Jagdish Agarwal, who is the uncle of the deceased and the informant in this

case, was examined as PW-1. This witness has stated that on 04.12.2017, he was

working at the I-Tech Plaza, Raymond Showroom situated near Rajib Bhawan, ABC,

G.S. Road. Deceased Sweta Agarwal was his niece. On the day of the incident, at

about 8:30 a.m., Sweta went out of the house for going to K.C. Das Commerce

College so as to appear in her examination. After that, they also went out for their

job. Sweta Agarwal used to return back home at about 1:00/1:30 p.m. Her exam

used to finish at around 12:30 p.m. But on 04.12.2017 when Sweta did not come

back home even till 2:00 p.m., his sister-in-law Sunita Agarwal called up and informed

him about the same. He then came back home and talked to his sister-in-law. She

also tried to establish contact with his niece over phone but her mobile was ringing

out and no one picked up. At that, his sister-in-law become anxious but to console

her he had said that Sweta must be with her friends with the mobile inside the bag. At

first he did not take it seriously. Since Sweta was doing her C.A. internship she used to

regularly go to the chamber of Sri O.P. Chandak. As such, he thought that Sweta

might have gone to the chamber of the C.A. and accordingly, he tried to contact

the chamber over phone but came to know that she had not gone there. At about

Page No.# 10/76

3:00/3:30 p.m. he once again tried to contact Sweta but at that time her phone was

found to be switched off. Then they started looking for Sweta on the probable

locations. He also went in search of his niece in the nearby areas of K.C. Das

Commerce College but did not find her. Again he tried to contact her over phone

but all the time the phone was found to be switched off. At around 5:00/5:30 p.m. he

had received a call from a lady who had asked him whether he was a relation of

Sweta Agarwal and he replied in the positive. Then she informed him that his niece

Sweta had died by burning in her house. He asked the lady as to how she had gone

to her house and where the house was situated. At that the lady gave the address of

her house as House No.119 at J. P. Agarwala Path, near Bharalu Sluice Gate. After

hearing the same he was puzzled and therefore, without informing the members of his

family he had directly rushed to the given address. On his way, he had received

another call from his niece Payal Bedia informing him that a similar phone call was

received by his sister-in-law Sunita Agarwal regarding the death of Sweta. Then he

informed his elder brother Om Prakash Agarwal about the information received from

the unknown lady and asked him also to proceed to House No.119. As soon as he

turned towards J.P. Agarwala Path, he had seen a gathering in front of the house. On

reaching there he had asked the people as to what had happened and then one

lady came out and took him inside the house. As soon as he had entered the room,

the lady had shown him the dead body of Sweta Agarwal in a toilet. At that time,

there was one boy, one lady and one girl inside the house. By that time, his elder

brother Om Prakash Agarwal arrived there. When he went near Sweta he could see

that by the side of her neck there was cut injury and blood was oozing out. He had

Page No.# 11/76

also seen injury marks in the forehead near her eyes. There was no cloth in her lower

portion. The lady, the girl and the man he had seen were present in the dock and he

could easily identify them. He again questioned the lady as to how Sweta who had

come out for appearing in the exam had reached their house and as to who had

killed her. In reply, the lady told him that they had killed her and also told him that

they had already called an ambulance and directed him to remove the body from

there. She had also indicated that the father of the boy was outside. In the

meantime, the ambulance arrived and the police patrol van also came. The police

personnel had instructed him to lodge an F.I.R. at the Police Station. Ext-1 is the F.I.R.

lodged by him and Ext-1(1) was his signature. PW-1 has further stated that the dead

body was taken to Bharalumukh Police Station by the ambulance and he had

accompanied the dead body. After lodging the ejahar he was informed that the

dead body would be sent to Guwahati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH) morgue

for post-mortem examination in the next morning and accordingly he was instructed

to go to GMCH on the next morning at about 9:00/9:30 a.m. PW-1 has further stated

that his niece stood 1

st

in HSLC exam and also in her H.S. 2

nd

year. She was a brilliant

student and was never interested in anything else except studies.

12. During his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that on 04.12.2017 he saw the A-

1 for the first time. He also stated that he did not ask the lady as to how she could

come to know about his phone number because he was not in a mood to ask all

these things at that moment. The witness, however, admitted that he had not stated

in the F.I.R. that the lady had told him that they had killed his niece.

Page No.# 12/76

13. Sri Om Prakash Agarwal is the father of the deceased Sweta and he was

examined as PW-2. This witness has also stated that on 04.12.2017, at about 8:30 a.m.

his daughter Sweta went to K. C. Das Commerce College for appearing in her 5

th

Semester B. Com. Examination. After that, at about 10:00 a.m., he went out for his job.

Usually he used to come back home for taking lunch at about 2:00/2:30 p.m. and

that day also he came home around the same time. On returning home he came to

know that his daughter Sweta had not reached home till then. After completing his

lunch he again went back to his office but before that he tried to contact his

daughter over phone but did not get any response. After reaching the office he tried

to contact the chamber of O.P. Chandak, Chartered Accountant, where his

daughter used to go for article-ship but on his enquiry he came to know that Sweta

did not go to the chamber on that day. When he tried to contact her again at

around 3:30 p.m. he found her mobile switched off. At around 5:00/5:30, a phone

call came to his wife from a lady who had intimated that her daughter had died due

to burning and was lying there at Sluice Gate in J. P. Agarwala Road. In the

meantime, another phone call came from his brother who had also intimated him

about the phone call he had received from that lady informing the death of his

daughter due to burning. His brother asked him to rush to House No.119, J. P.

Agarwala Road, Bharalumukh. After reaching Bharalumukh he enquired from the

local people about the house and they showed him a crowd and asked him to go

there. He had seen that an ambulance was also going there and the local people

told him to follow the ambulance. Accordingly, he went to that place and as he

entered the house, his brother PW-1 was already there. He had seen that his daughter

Page No.# 13/76

was lying dead in the toilet and she had no cloth on the lower portion. She had long

cut injury in her neck which appeared to be caused by sharp object and there was

also injury marks on her forehead. PW-2 has further stated that there was indication

that her legs were kept tied and he could guess that she was first tied and thereafter

burnt. There were blood stains on the entire floor of the toilet and there were also

marks of dragging the body from one place to another. Seeing that he was totally

puzzled. His brother (PW-1) started enquiring from the two ladies and one young man

present in the house. When they asked the lady as to who killed his daughter, the lady

replied that they had killed her. She had also asked them to remove the dead body

immediately by informing them that she had already called the ambulance. In a

threatening tone the lady also told them that they did not know the father of the boy

and that they would not be able to do anything to them. The lady also told them that

the father of the boy was not at home and hence asked them to leave immediately.

After that, the police arrived. In the meantime, he had called his wife to come there

and see the dead body. His wife came and started crying and almost collapsed.

Thereafter, they went to the Police Station and his brother accompanied the dead

body. At the Police Station they submitted the F.I.R. PW-2 has deposed that Mat. Ext-

4 is the ladies handbag of his daughter Sweta. Inside the bag there was one admit

card. Mat. Ext-4(1) is the admit card and Mat. Ext-4(2) is the examination board of his

daughter Sweta. Mat. Ext-4(3) is her calculator and Mat. Ext-4(4) is her water bottle.

Mat. Ext-4(5) is the plastic scale used by his daughter and Mat. Ext-4(6) is the

handkerchief of his daughter. Mat. Ext-4(7) is the key ring and the key of his daughter

and Mat. Ext-4(8) is her wrist watch. This witness has further identified that Mat. Ext-7 is

Page No.# 14/76

the pair of lady shoes belonging to his daughter and Mat. Ext-24 is her churni. On the

day of the incident Sweta went out wearing the same. Mat. Ext-25 is the long exercise

book of his daughter Sweta with her handwriting. Before the dead body of his

daughter was removed from the house his wife had enquired as to where were the

clothes below her waist and he had shown the kerosene bottle and the match box

and told that they had burnt all these. Mat. Ext-22 is the kerosene bottle and Mat. Ext-

23 is the match box which were there in the toilet by the side of the dead body. PW-2

has further deposed that his daughter was a brilliant student and she stood 1

st

in H.S.

Commerce and done exceedingly well in the H.S.L.C. exam as well. Sweta was doing

well in C.A. and she had received awards from the Chief Minister and the Governor

of Assam.

14. During his cross-examination, PW-2 had remained firm in his testimony and has

stated that his wife received the phone call from an unknown lady in between

5:30/6:00 p.m. The witness has stated that he had reached the place of occurrence

at around 6:15 p.m. and when he reached there he did not see any police but there

was a large gathering. After going inside the house, he had seen his brother standing

by the side of the door and the three accused persons were inside the house. His

brother took him to the toilet where the dead body of his daughter was lying with

injuries. The PW-2 has further stated that his statement was recorded by the police

after 4/5 days of the incident but as he was busy with the shraddha ceremony of his

daughter he cannot remember what he told to the police. PW-2 had maintained

that he did not know whether the A-1 was also taking tuition in the same place as his

Page No.# 15/76

daughter as he never saw him there. On his query the lady had told that they had

killed his daughter. The witness has denied that his daughter had informed him that

she had a love affair with the accused A-1 and she would like to marry him. He has

stated that he did not know the family of the accused prior to the incident and that it

is not a fact that Sweta had committed suicide but despite being aware of the same

it was given the colour of murder. PW-2 has also denied the suggestion that he had

falsely implicated the A-1.

15. PW-3, Sri Dhananjay Roy is a seizure witness. He is also an independent witness.

PW-3 has stated that he has a shop of electronic goods at Lakhtokia. On 08.12.2017,

at about 12:00/12:30 p.m. he had received a call from the Bharalumukh Police

Station asking him to go to the Police Station. Accordingly, he had reached the

Bharalumukh P.S. within 10/15 minutes being accompanied by Sri Hemen Sarma, who

is the Secretary of Old Ward No.12. In the Police Station he had met another person

called Gostu Biswas. From the Police Station, they were taken to the residence of

Gobind Singhal (A-1). The house was under lock and key. Police had opened the

same in their presence. Accused Gobind Singhal had accompanied the police and

on being led by him police recovered one folding knife which was light green in

colour. Police had also recovered the ladies chappal of Sweta Agarwal as well as a

pair of hand gloves, one nylon rope and one cloth for clearing the floor. It had blood

stains. The police had seized those articles vide seizure-list Ext-3 which contains his

signature Ext-3(1). PW-3 has also stated that Mat. Ext-1 corresponding to MR

No.298/17 is the folding knife; Mat. Ext-2 is the black jeans pant corresponding to MR

No.298/17; Mat. Ext-3 is the pair of hand gloves corresponding to MR No.298/17; Mat.

Page No.# 16/76

Ext-4 is the ladies handbag containing the admit card of Sweta Agarwal, one

calculator, one ladies watch, a key and one plastic water bottle which was half filled

with water. PW-3 has also deposed that Mat. Ext-4 corresponding to MR No.298/17 is

the seized hand bag. On the next day i.e. on 09.12.2017, he was again summoned

by the police to the Police Station. On that day, at about 11:00 a.m., again they were

taken to the house of Gobind Singhal who had also accompanied the police. On

that day, on being led by Gobind Singhal, police had recovered another knife with

aluminium handle. Police had also recovered one Hero Honda Splender, one nylon

rope and ladies shoes belonging to the victim Sweta Agarwal. Ext-4 was the seizure-

list by means of which police had seized 5 nos. of articles from the house of Gobind

Singhal. Ext-4 seizure-list bears his signature. Mat. Ext-5 corresponding to MR No.299/17

is the knife, Mat. Ext-6 is the yellow colour nylon rope corresponding to MR No.299/17;

Mat. Ext-7 is the ladies shoe corresponding to MR No.299/17 and Mat. Ext-8 is the floor

cleaning cloth corresponding to MR No.299/17. On 10.12.2017, he was again asked

to visit Bharalumukh Police Station. On that day also police had visited the house of

accused Gobind Singhal on being accompanied by the accused at about

11:00/11:30 a.m. He was asked by the police to accompany them. On that day,

police had seized 10 articles vide seizure-list Ext-5 which contains his signature. The

witness has stated that Mat. Ext-9 is the pen drive; Mat. Ext-10 is the Lenovo Laptop;

Mat. Ext-10 is the compact disc; Mat. Ext-12 is the Levis money bag; Mat. Ext-13 is the

cash amount of Rs.1,02,500/-; Mat. Ext-14 is the long exercise book bearing Roll

No.0063; Mat. Ext-15 is the non-judicial stamp paper executed by Radhe Shyam

Singhal regarding application for trade mark; Mat. Ext-16 is the packet of rat killer

Page No.# 17/76

medicine; Mat. Exts-17, 18 and 19 are the three mobile handsets seized on 08.12.2017;

Mat. Ext-20 and Mat. Ext-21 are the hand-written notes which were recovered and

seized in his presence from the house of Gobind Singhal on 08.12.2017; Mat. Ext-22 is

the plastic bottle containing kerosene oil and Mat. Ext-23 is the match box. PW-3 has

deposed that Mat. Exts-9 to 23 had been seized by the police corresponding to MR

No.300/17. During his cross-examination, the testimony of this witness could not be

shaken.

16. PW-4, Hemen Sarma is another seizure witness. He is not related to the victim or

the accused person. PW-4 has stated that he is a businessman by profession. He has

confirmed that he had accompanied the police to the house of Gobind Singhal on

08.12.2017 at about 2:00 p.m. Accused Gobind Singhal had also accompanied the

police party. Upon entering the house they were taken to the toilet. In the toilet there

were blood stains everywhere in the ceramic tiles. He learnt that Sweta Agarwal was

killed. Police had recovered some articles from inside the house on being shown by

the accuse Gobind Singhal. Such articles were seized vide seizure-list Ext-3 which

contains his signature Ext-3(2). This witness has further stated that Mat. Ext-17, 18 and

19 were seized by the police in his presence. Police also seized Mat. Exts-20 and 21 in

his presence which had hand-written notes on a napkin of Cafe Coffee Day. On the

next day i.e. on 09.12.2017 at around 10:00/10:30 a.m. they were again asked to

accompany the police to the house of Gobind Singhal. Accused Gobind Singhal had

also accompanied the police party. Dhananjay (PW-3) was also there. There were

one or two other persons also whose name he could not recollect. On that day, the

police had seized about 5 articles from the house of the accused vide seizure-list Ext-4

Page No.# 18/76

which bears his signature Ext-4(2). This witness has stated that on that day, police had

seized one motorcycle with blood stains near the rear seat. Police had also seized

one knife from inside the house. Mat. Ext-5 is the said knife. The nylon rope was also

seized by the police. PW-4 has further deposed that according to accused Gobind

Singhal, the dead body was tied with the motorcycle with that rope. So far he could

recollect, the rope was found inside the house. Mat. Ext-6 is the said nylon rope. The

witness has stated that police also recovered and seized one pair of lady shoes vide

Mat. Ext-7 and also seized floor cleaning cloth with blood stains. Accused Gobind

Singhal told the police that on that day the victim girl had accompanied him to the

house and there she was offered tea. During the consumption of tea, a quarrel broke

out between them and then, being enraged, he pushed the girl towards the wall. The

victim girl received injury at the back of her head and she became unconscious.

Blood was oozing out and seeing the same he became nervous and put her inside a

bag and thereafter tied the same with his motorcycle. He then took the body near

the R.G. Baruah College at Fatashil Ambari and dumped the same in the dustbin. But

subsequently he again brought back the body to his house. After bringing the body

to the house had had cleared the body, removed the blood stains. According to PW-

4, accused Gobind Singhal had also said that he threw the bag over the boundary

fencing into Bharalu river. However, the accused had told that he did not set the

body on fire and the body was set on fire near R.G.Baruah College near the dustbin.

He in fact told that the dustbin was set on fire by someone but on being led by

Gobind Singhal when they went there they did not find any signs of burning of

garbage at that place.

Page No.# 19/76

17. During his cross-examination, this witness had remained firm that the seizures

were made in his presence and that on 08.12.2017 accused Gobind Sighal had led

them near R. G. Baruah College at around 6:00 p.m. to the place where he had first

dumped the dead body. When they went near the R.G. Baruah College, the Officer-

in-Charge, Bharalumukh P.S. was there along with other police personnel and one Mr.

Pradeep Khandelwal was also there. Gobind Singhal told them that he took the dead

body inside a bag and carried it in his motorcycle near R.G. Baruah College,

dumped the body in the dustbin and again he brought the same back in the bag to

his house. Thereafter, he threw the bag to Bharalu river which was flowing by the side

of his house.

18. PW-5, Sri Pankaj Kumar is a barbar by profession and has a saloon at the J. P.

Agarwala Road where the house of the accused persons are situated. PW-5 has

deposed that on 04.02.2017, at about 3:00 p.m. when he was coming back to his

saloon after taking lunch, he saw accused Gobind tying up a big bag to his

motorcycle. He had seen blood was oozing out from the bag and brought it to the

notice of accused Gobind and asked him as to why blood was coming out from the

bag. In reply, Gobind told him that it was not blood but some colour. PW-5 has further

stated that accused Gobind used to reside in that house along with his mother, father

and sister. By identifying accused Gobind Singhal in the dock PW-5 has also stated

that the mother and sister of the accused were also present in the court. In his cross-

examination, the testimony of this witness could not be shaken. PW-5 had, however,

stated that the bag was tied in a horizontal position and since he saw from a distance

he could not say the exact measurement but it appeared to him to be about 1 ½ /2

Page No.# 20/76

ft.

19. PW-6, Sri Pradeep Khandelwal is a transporter by profession. He has deposed

that on 04.12.2017, at around 5:00/5:30 p.m. in the evening, he was going to a nearby

PG to meet the daughter of his friend. At that time, he saw crowd in front of House

No.119 of J.P. Agarwala Road. On seeing the crowd he stopped there and asked the

people as to what had happened. He had heard them only saying that someone has

been killed by burning. By that time police came and took the names of people

gathered there and asked others to leave. So he had left the place. Police noted his

mobile number. On 09.12.2017 he had received a phone call from the Bharalumukh

P.S. at about 8:30/9:00 a.m. The police asked him to go to the Police Station and he

reached there at about 9:30 a.m. On reaching there he saw one boy present who

was accused Gobind Singhal and he was present in court. The police said that they

would go to the house of the boy and asked him to accompany them. He had also

seen Dhananjay and Hemen Sarma who he had met on the road. Thereafter, they

accompanied the police to the house of Gobind Singhal. This witness has

corroborated the evidence adduced by PWs-3 and 4 regarding the seizure made by

the police vide seizure-list Ext-4 and has further stated that on the previous day also

the police took him to Fatashil Ambari near a College and took his assistance to

speak to the accused Gobind Singhal in his own language. Accused Gobind Singhal

had also accompanied the police team. Upon reaching there accused Gobind

Singhal had told him that he thought that the victim was dead and accordingly he

had brought the dead body in his motorcycle and dumped it in the dustbin near the

College but later on, on a rethinking he took it back to his house. The testimony of this

Page No.# 21/76

witness also could not be shaken during his cross-examination.

20. PW-7, Smti Sunita Agarwal is the mother of the victim. She has also deposed

that on 04.12.2017 her daughter had gone to K.C. Das Commerce College to appear

on the 1

st

day of her 5

th

Semester B. Com. Examination. She went out at around 8:30

a.m. Sweta used to come back around 1:00/1:30 p.m. but on that day she did not

return. She had tried to contact her husband but since his phone was not responding

she contacted her brother-in-law PW-1 and told him that Sweta did not return home

in the usual time. This witness has also corroborated the version given by PWs-1 and 2

by saying that her husband had tried to contact Sweta and searched for her in the

C.A. Firm of O. P. Chandak but could not find her. She was also continuously trying to

contact her daughter over phone but nobody responded to her phone call. After

some time, her husband came back to the house and told her that Sweta’s mobile

was found in switched off mode. While they were searching for Sweta, one phone

call came from a lady and she informed her that her daughter was lying dead

completely burnt near the Sluice Gate, at J.P. Agarwala Road, House No.119. She

intimated the same to her husband over phone and her brother-in-law, Jagdish

Agarwal (PW-1) had also called her husband over phone giving him the same

information asking him to proceed to J. P. Agarwala Road. On reaching the house

she saw that the dead body of her daughter was being brought out from the house.

She had seen that the lower garments of her daughter was not there. In the forehead

above the eyes, there were injury mark and injury mark was also there in her neck.

There were injury marks in her legs also. Both the legs carried burn injuries and there

Page No.# 22/76

were some scratches. Burn injuries were there even on the face and the side of the

body. She came to know from her husband that the dead body of her daughter was

lying in the toilet above the Comode. Her husband (PW-2) told her that the three

accused persons viz., Kamala Devi Singhal, Bhavani Singhal and Gobind Singhal had

killed her daughter. Her husband told her to go back home as he would go to the

Police Station. PW-7 has also stated that as told by her husband, the accused persons

had told him that they would not be able to do anything to them. Thereafter, she

returned home in an auto rickshaw. In her cross-examination, PW-7 has replied that

she did not know accused Gobind Singhal from before and she did not know if the

application for her PAN Card was filled up by Gobind Singhal. As a matter of fact, this

witness had denied any knowledge either about accused Gobind Singhal or the

alleged love affair between Gobind Singhal and Sweta Agarwal. She has also denied

the suggestion that Gobind Singhal was not ready to marry her daughter and that is

the reason why her daughter had committed suicide.

21. PW-8, Vijay Kumar Agarwal is another uncle of the victim. He is the cousin of

PW-2. This witness has deposed that on 27.12.2017 at about 7:00/7:30 p.m. when he

was sitting in the house of his cousin at Manipuri Basti at that time the I.O. of the case

along with one Rosy Kalita, Addl. DCP, Crime Branch and one more junior Officer

came to their house. They collected and seized one College Exercise Book of

deceased Sweta Agarwal and her resume for conducting investigation vide seizure-

list Ext-7 which contains his signature. Mat. Ext-25 is the exercise book seized by the

police.

Page No.# 23/76

22. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was

conducted on 05.12.2017 in the Department of Forensic Medicine, GMCH at around

2:20 p.m. During the post-mortem examination, three doctors viz., Dr. Raktim Pratim

Tamuli, Dr. Himangshu Das and Dr. Mrinal Haloi were present. These three doctors had

been examined by the prosecution as PWs-9, 10 and 11 respectively. The doctors

have proved the post-mortem report Ext-10. According to the post-mortem report,

the following injuries were found in the dead body :-

“1. Burn injury of dermo epidermal depth were present at places over the

body. Burnt areas were separated from normal healthy tissues by a line of

redness at places and at places it was absent. (mixed ante-mortem and post-

mortem injuries). Burn injuries were present over following parts –

(a) Right side of the face.

(b) Front of neck.

(c) Front of chest and abdomen.

(d) Perinium.

(e) Back of abdomen.

(f) Front of right arm.

(g) Back of right forearm.

(h) Front of both things and both legs.

2. A ligature mark of size 28cm x 2cm was present just below the level of

thyroid cartilage which was continuous and horizontal. On dissection, neck

tissues underneath the ligature mark were pale.

3. A fresh laceration of size 2.3cm x 0.4cm x bone deep was present at the

lateral end of left eye brow which lies 7cm left of midline. Margins were found

contused.

Page No.# 24/76

4. Red coloured contusion of size 10cm x 4cm was present around left eye

and also at lateral end of left eye over left cheek; multiple scratch abrasions

were present over the contusion.

5. Incised wound of size 4cm x 0.5cm x skin deep was present over right

side of front or neck which lies 10cm below the level of right ear and 5.5cm

right of midline.

6. Incised wound of size 2.3cm x 0.8cm x skin and subcutaneous tissue

deep was present at the medial end of Injury No.5 which lies 9cm below the

level of right ear and 3cm right of midline. Direction of the wound was right to

left, above to downward and front to back.

7. Incised wound of size 7.5cm x 4.5cm x vertebrae deep was present over

right side of front of neck which lies 1.2 cm below the level of injury No.6 and

3cm above suprasternal notch. Underneath, neck muscles, jugular vessels, part

of thyroid cartilage were cut. C5 vertebral body was also partially cut.

8. Red coloured abraded contusion of size 4cm x 2cm was present over

front of left thigh which lies 13cm above the level of left knee.

9. Graze abrasion of size 3cm x 2cm was present over front of right knee

(fresh).

10. Scalp on dissection, showed that contusion over left parital eminence.

NB-

1. Two numbers of vaginal smears were prepared on glass

slides, examination of which did not show presence of any

spermatozoa and gonococci.

2. Uterus was put in 10% formal saline and sent to the

department of Pathology, GMCH to rule out pregnancy.

3. Blood, viscera and relevant paper documents were sealed,

packed, labeled and handed over to escorting police for

Page No.# 25/76

chemical analysis at Directorate of Forensic Science, Kahilipara.

4. Videograhy of the post mortem examination was done as

per request of the IO by Mr. Biki Basak, memory card of which was

handed over to the escorting police in a sealed envelope.”

The PW-9 had opined as follows :-

“Opinion-

Death was due to haemorrhage and shock following incised injury

sustained over the neck which was caused by sharp cutting weapon and was

homicidal in nature. Injury No.2, 4, 8 and 9 as mentioned herein above, scalp

contusion described were caused by blunt force impact. Injury No.5, 6 and 7 as

aforesaid were caused by sharp cutting weapon during life and were

homicidal in nature.

1. There was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse detected on

her person at the time of examination.

2. No evidence of violation of sexual offence.

3. Total area of body surface burnt approximately 40% - 50% and both

ante mortem and post mortem.

4. No evidence of pregnancy detected at the time of autopsy

examination, however, uterus was preserved and sent for

histopathological examination.

5. Injuries as described in the text and time since death was 12-24 hrs

approximately.

6. Kerosene like smell was present over the wearing garment and

body.

The injuries, especially incised injury No.7 and the ligature mark described over

the neck, the burn injury described can also cause death even if proper

treatment was provided.”

Page No.# 26/76

The opinion of the other two doctors viz., PWs-10 and 11 are also on similar lines.

23. PW-12, Sanjay Kumar Kabra is the seizure witness of Mat. Ext-25. PW-13,

Damodar Barman is one of the inquest witnesses. PW-14, Ponjit Dowarah is the ACP of

Jalukbari Police Station in whose presence specimen signature of accused Gobind

Singhal was obtained vide Ext-11 which contains his signature. PW-14 has proved Ext-

12 which is the specimen signature of Gobind Singhal.

24. PW-15, Sri Sankar Chandra Rabha was the Junior Scientific Officer on duty at

the Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam on 20.12.2017 when he had received a

parcel sent through the Director, DFS, Kahilipara for serological examination. PW-15

has stated that the parcel was in a sealed carton box covered with cloth and on

opening the box he had found four separate packets consisting six exhibits, the

description of which are as follows :-

“Description of articles –

1. 2 ml blood sample of victim girl in a EDTA vial marked as Ext.A(1).

My examination no.Sero 3904/A.

2. Blood collection from the motor cycle in cotton gauge bearing

registration No.AS01 BT 6977 of accused Gobind Singhal, marked as Ext.B.

My examination No.Sero 3904/B.

3. Blood collection from Place of Occurrence, the toilet of the

accused person, in a cotton gauge, marked as Ext.C. My examination

No.Sero 3904/C.

4. One yellow colour plastic rope contained stain of suspected blood,

marked as Ext.D. My examination No.Sero 3904/D.

5. One torn and half burnt cloth contains stain of suspected blood.

Page No.# 27/76

The exhibit was found in wet condition and growth of fungus, marked as

Ext.E. My examination No.Sero 3904/E.

6. One black colour jeans long pant contains stain of suspected

blood, marked as Ext.F. My examination No.Sero 3904/F.”

25. PW-15 has stated that he had also visited the scene of crime and during his

visit he had collected blood stains from the motor cycle and handed over the same

to the I.O. After careful examination of the specimen he found the following results :-

“1. Ext.No.Sero 3904/A, Sero 3904/C, Sero 3904/D and Sero 3904/F gave positive

test for human blood of group B.

1. Ext.No. Sero 3904/B gave positive test for human blood only. But its group

could not be determined due to insufficient test material.

2. Ext. No.Sero 3904/E gave negative test for blood.”

26. PW-16, Sri Umesh Chandra Medhi is a resident of J. P. Agarwala Road and is

one of the seizure witnesses. PW-16 has stated that on 07.12.2017 when he was

returning home from Chandmari he saw a number of vehicles were parked in front of

the house of P. C. Mazumder where Gobind Singhal reside. His house is just after the

house of P.C. Mazumder. Two police persons came to him and requested him to go

there and as he went to the house of P.C. Mazumder the senior police officer told him

that they would open the lock of the house in presence of local persons and

requested him to be a witness. Thereafter, in his presence, police had opened the

lock and entered the room but he did not enter the room and waited outside. After

sometime the police had seized some articles vide Ext-19 which contains his signature

Ext-19(1). During his cross-examination, PW-16 has stated that about 15/20 persons

including the 8/9 police personnel and media persons had entered the room along

Page No.# 28/76

with general public but he could not remember who those persons were.

27. PW-17, Dr. Rupali Bhattcharya was another Scientific Officer on duty at the

Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory (DFSL), Kahilipara and she has deposed

that she had received a plastic bottle with liquid for examination in connection with

Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.805/2017. She had received one sealed carton box with

clothed cover containing one plastic bottle having 70 ml blue colour liquid marked

as Ext-B. In the laboratory they had marked it as Ext.C-92/17 which gave positive test

for kerosene oil which is inflammable. Mat. Ext-22 is the said bottle which contained

liquid; Mat. Ext-22(1) is the Forensic tag and Ext-22(2) is her initials and seal. During her

cross-examination, PW-17 has stated that she had received 70 ml of kerosene and on

the date of her deposition about 50 ml was left in the bottle. The rest was used by her

for examination.

28. Mr. Atang Singson is another Scientific Officer posted at the DFSL, Kahilipara,

who was examined as PW-18. PW-18 has stated that he had received a parcel

consisting of one exhibit enclosed in a sealed paper envelope. The parcel was

received from a messenger in the office of the Director of Forensic Science on

21.12.2017. According to PW-18, the description of the articles are as follows :-

“One sealed envelope containing hair strands, suspected to belong to

human, marked as Ext.A and we marked it in our laboratory as Bio.3166. After

physical, ultra structure and histological examination, it was revealed that the

hair under Ext.Bio.3166 is scalp hair of human being. I submitted the report on

03.01.2018. Ext.22 is my report and Ext.22(1) is my signature with seal. The report

was forwarded to DCP, Crime vide forwarding letter dated 04.01.2018. Ext.23 is

the forwarding letter and Ext.23(1) is the signature of Sri G. N. Deka, Joint

Page No.# 29/76

Director, DFS, Khilipara.”

29. PW-19, Sri Bapukan Choudhury is a also a Scientific Assistant posted at the

DFSL, Kahilipara, who has deposed that on 21.12.2017 the office of the DFS, Kahilipara

had received a parcel for examination and opinion. The parcel was in sealed

envelope and was received in connection with Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.805/17.

After opening the sealed envelope, he had found one long note book (Mat. Ext-14),

two laminated sheets (Mat. Exts-20 and 21) and one sheet containing specimen

hand-writing and signature of accused Gobind Singhal (Ext-11). After going through

the Material exhibits he went through the forwarding letter to know about the queries

made by the police. The queries made by the police and the opinion of PW-19, as

deposed by him before the Court, are extracted herein below for ready reference :-

“The queries were :

i. Whether the handwriting of Ext.A, B and C match with each other

or not?

ii. Any other point which can help in the investigation?

In Material Ext.14 (long exercise book), I marked Ext.A1 to A15 as the

admitted handwriting of accused Gobind Singhal. I compared those admitted

handwriting with Ext.11 and Material Ext.20 and 21.

Opinion

1. The document in connection with Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.805/17 u/s

120(B)/302/376 IPC have been carefully and thoroughly examined and

comparing disputed writings with the supplied standard writings and

signatures in all aspects of handwriting identification and detection of

forgery with necessary scientific aids like stereozoom microscope,

Docucenter 3000 and VSC 6000 available in this Directorate.

Page No.# 30/76

2. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped

and marked S1 to S8 and A1 to A15 also wrote the red enclosed writings

similarly stamped and marked as Q1 to Q3”

This witness has proved his report Ext-24 by identifying his signature and has also

confirmed that Ext-25 is the forwarding letter. Mat. Ext-Q2 and Q3 were marked Mat.

Ext-20(1) and Mat. Ext-Q1 was marked as Mat. Ext-21(1).

30. PW-20, Sri Sudip Choudhury had conducted the investigation in connection

with Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.805/2017. This witness has deposed before the court

the steps taken by him during investigation of the case. He has also deposed the

manner in which the seizure of various articles and the material exhibits as earlier

deposed by PWs-3 and 4 were made. The I.O. has further deposed that on 15.12.2017

the seized mobile phones were sent to DFS, Kahilipara for examination. He had also

sent the extracts of the whatsapp message and deleted whatsapp message but

nothing incriminating was found. During investigation he had collected specimen

handwriting and signature of accused Gobind Singhal in presence of ACP, Jalukbari

Division viz., Sri Pranjit Duwarah. Mat. Exts-20 and 21 were those seized articles. PW-20

has also deposed that in Mat. Ext-20 it was written in English alphabet but in Hindi

language as follows :-

Ï) rehna hai ya nahin? For the final time soch lo. Baad mei ye nahi hai kit um

bono ….. ii) if you don’t want me…. Say it now. Iii) if you don’t want me to get

close to you, clear it now. I don’t want you to get any other thoughts after

getting close cause otherwise you will regret later … that’s it.”

The I.O. has further stated that in Mat. Ext-21 it was written that “I will surrender myself

to you on bed.”

Page No.# 31/76

31. PW-20 has further deposed that in order to verify the handwriting, he had sent

Mat. Exts-20 and 21 along with long exercise book of accused Gobind Singhal (Mat.

Ext-14) and his specimen handwriting and signature to the FSL, Kahilipara and the FSL

report dated 05.01.2018 indicated that the results were positive and match the

handwriting of Gobind Singhal. PW-20 has also deposed that he had investigated the

case from 04.12.2017 till the filing of the charge-sheet and during investigation he had

found that it was not a sudden occurrence but a case of pre-planned murder. All the

three accused persons viz., Gobind Singhal, Kamala Devi Singhal and Bhavani Singhal

had conspired with each other to commit the murder of Sweta Agarwal. On the date

of occurrence Gobind Singhal himself had brought Sweta Agarwal to his house from

her College i.e. K. C. Das Commerce College in his motor cycle. At around 1:00 p.m.

they reached the house of Gobind Singhal and thereafter, Gobind Singhal killed

Sweta Agarwal with the help of the other two accused persons, he packed the dead

body in a sack and took the same in his motor cycle to the R. G. Baruah College at

Fatashil. Earlier the plan was to dump the body there but subsequently the mother of

the accused viz., Kamala Devi told him over phone not to dump the body as

otherwise it would become a clear case of murder. As per her instruction, Gobind

Singhal brought back the dead body to the house of the accused to show that it was

a case of suicide. The I.O. has further stated that all the three accused persons had

sprinkled kerosene over the dead body of the victim and set her on fire. Not only that,

the mother of accused Gobind had also informed the mother of Sweta Agarwal that

her daughter had committed suicide. However, according to PW-20, it cannot be a

case of suicide since the dead body had as many as 13 injuries as per the post-

Page No.# 32/76

mortem report. He has stated that when he first saw the dead body in the toilet it was

not in normal shape but the body was quizzed. There was also attempt to destroy the

evidence after commission of murder. The accused persons first tried to remove the

dead body and thereafter put the same on fire; they washed the toilet and poured

water on the floor so as to wash the blood stains. However, the belongings of the

deceased were found in the house of the accused persons. After completion of

investigation, he had found sufficient materials against all the three accused persons

and submitted charge-sheet against them under Sections 120(B)/302/201 of the IPC.

Ext-28 is the charge-sheet which bears his signature.

32. During cross-examination of the I.O. his testimony could not be shaken.

However, PW-20 had admitted that he did not visit the campus of K.C. Das

Commerce College wherefrom accused Gobind Singhal had reportedly lifted

deceased Sweta Agarwal in his motor bike. He also did not get any witness who had

heard Kamala Devi Singhal speaking to Gobind Singhal asking him to come back as

otherwise it would turn into a case of murder. PW-20 had also admitted that he had

collected the Call Detail Record (CDR) but did not exhibit the same in this case nor

did he examine the friends of Sweta Agarwal to find out whether she consumes tea

or not. The I.O. has further admitted that he did not seize any glass as mentioned in

paragraph 4 of the charge-sheet. He did not find any material to show that the dead

body of Sweta Agarwal was first dumped into the dustbin and again it was brought

back. PW-20 had stated that they had made searches in the bank of river Bharalu but

did not make any search inside the river nor did they call the NDRF. They also did not

use sniffer dog during investigation.

Page No.# 33/76

33. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution side it is apparent that PWs-1,

2, 5, 6 and 7 are the material witnesses in this case. The remaining witnesses are either

seizure/inquest witnesses or the official witnesses who had taken part in investigation,

scientific examination of the specimen and in conducting post-mortem examination

on the dead body. Taking note of the evidence brought on record by the

prosecution side, the learned trial court had convicted the accused persons under

Sections 120(B)/302/201 of the IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid.

34. In so far as the charge of criminal conspiracy brought against the A-2 and A-3

u/s 120-B of IPC is concerned, we find that there is not even an iota of evidence

available on record to implicate the accused A-2 and A-3 in the occurrence. The

only evidence available against A-2 and A-3 was to the effect that they were present

inside the house along with A-1 when the PW-1 and PW-2 had reached the house

and had seen the body of the deceased lying inside the toilet of their house in a half

burnt condition without any clothes in the lower part of the body. In so far as A-2 Smt.

Kamala Devi Singhal is concerned, PW-1 and PW-7 have stated that it was A-2 who

had called them up and informed about the death of the deceased and by

providing them the residential address of the accused, she had called them to come

there. Although the PWs-1 and 2 had deposed that the lady A-2 had told them that

all the three of them had killed the deceased, yet, the said fact is neither mentioned

in the ejahar nor was any such statement made by the PWs-1 and 2 before the I.O.

Therefore, these are material improvements in the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and

hence, such statement of these witnesses is not found to be believable.

Page No.# 34/76

35. What would also be significant to note here-in that it has come out from the

evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses that it was A-2 who had not only

informed the family members of the victim about the incident and had given them

her residential address asking them to come there but she was the one who, along

with the A-3 had called the police and the ambulance. If the A-2 and A-3 had any

role to play in the incident, then in all likelihood they would have tried to remove the

body of the victim rather than calling the police. Under the circumstance, it would be

difficult to believe that A-2 would make an extra-judicial confession, that too, before

the family members of the victim, admitting her guilt. As a matter of fact, if the A-2

was really keen on making a confession, she could have either said so before the

police or before any other independent witness instead of making such a statement

before the family members of the victim. Therefore, the alleged extra-judicial

confession of A-2 brought on record by the PWs-1 and 2 is not found to be credible

enough for being relied upon by this court. There is clear improvement in the version

of PWs-1 and 2 in far as the extrajudicial confession of A-2 is concerned and

therefore, the same is not found to be believable.

36. It is no doubt correct that the accused persons have admitted the relationship

of A-1 with the victim Sweta Agarwal and the fact that the body of the victim was

found inside the toilet of the accused persons with burn and other injuries is also not in

dispute. An attempt has been made by the A-2 and A-3 to project that it was a case

of suicide. However, the post-mortem report and the ocular evidence of PWs-1, 2, 7

and 20 belies such a projection and clearly establishes the fact that the victim Sweta

Agarwal had suffered homicidal death. The question is whether the evidence on

Page No.# 35/76

record is sufficient to establish the charge brought against A-1, A-2 and A-3 beyond

reasonable doubt. However, from a careful analysis of the evidence on record, we

find that there is nothing to show that the accused persons had hatched a criminal

conspiracy to murder the deceased Sweta Agarwal in pre-planned manner.

Therefore, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to

establish the charge brought against the accused persons under section 120-B of the

IPC.

37. In so far as the charge brought under sections 302/ 201 of the IPC is concerned,

here also, there is no evidence to establish that the accused A-2 and A-3 had any

direct role to play in committing the murder of Sweta Agarwal. There is also no

material brought on record by the prosecution to indicate that the A-2 and A-3 had

destroyed any evidence to screen the actual offender. There is also nothing to show

that the accused persons had acted with a common intention to murder the

deceased and that there was meeting of mind between the accused persons to

commit any offence chargeable under sections 302/201 IPC so as to convict them

with the assistance of section 34 IPC. The learned trial court has also not individually

convicted the A-2 and A-3 under Section 302/ 201 of the IPC by ascribing specific

roles to them in commissioning offence under the said penal provisions. Therefore, we

are, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge

brought against A-2 and A-3 under sections 302 / 201 of IPC by adducing

circumstantial evidence. The mere fact that the A-2 and A-3 were present inside the

house when the body of the victim was seen by the PWs-1 and 2 cannot be the sole

basis to convict them under section 302/201 of IPC. The above observations may not,

Page No.# 36/76

however, be true in case of the other accused i.e. A-1.

38. Evidence brought on record prima facie goes to show that the accused A-1

and the victim were known to each other and had a love affair between them. There

is also evidence available on record to indicate that on the day of the occurrence,

around the time when the incident took place, the A-1 and the victim were together.

PW-4 is an independent witness and he has brought on record the extra-judicial

confession of A-1. From the testimony of A-1, it is seen that the victim had

accompanied the A-1 to his house and later on, there was a quarrel between them

which had led to the unfortunate incident resulting in the death of the victim. Her

homicidal death has been established by the medical evidence. PW-5 had seen the

A-1 tie a sack to his motor cycle from which, blood like substance was seen to be

dripping. The evidence of PW-5 apparently matches the testimony of PW-4 in so far as

the extrajudicial confession of the accused A-1 is concerned. There is evidence to

show that the body of the victim was found in the house of the A-1 and he was also

present in his house on the day of the occurrence. The IO (PW-20) has deposed

about the seizure of several incriminating materials from the house of the victim and

the seizure witness have also been examined to prove the seizure lists. There is

credible forensic evidence available on record, which connects the A-1 with some of

the incriminating materials seized by the I.O. Therefore, there are sufficient materials

available on record which prima facie goes to show that the accused A-1 had a role

to play in the incident. However, what actually happened inside the house of the

accused on the day of the incident and how the victim had reached there, are

facts, which are within the special knowledge of the accused (A-1) and therefore,

Page No.# 37/76

the prosecution cannot be expected to lead evidence to prove those facts.

Notwithstanding the same, in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, the A-

1 has failed to offer any plausible explanation as to the circumstances under which

the victim had reached his house or how her body was found in his house in an

injured condition. The failure on the part of the A-1 to offer plausible explanation,

viewed in the light of the evidence available on record, is capable of being viewed

as an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against the accused.

39. During the course of hearing the appeals and the Death Sentence Reference

Case, Dr. Choudhury has vociferously argued that the prosecution has failed prove

the charges brought against the A-1 by adducing circumstantial evidence. However,

submits Dr. Choudhury, even if it is held otherwise, even then, proper opportunity was

not given to the A-1 to explain his stand during his examination under section 313

Cr.P.C. causing serious prejudice to the interest of his client. According to the learned

counsel for the appellants, unless the accused is afforded a proper opportunity to

offer explanation, it cannot be said that A-1 has failed to discharge his burden under

section 106 of the Evidence Act.

40. The above argument of the learned counsel for the A-1 has been premised on

the grounds that the learned Sessions Judge has not only failed to put all the

incriminating circumstances before the accused person during his examination under

section 313 Cr.P.C but the questions were even put to the accused in the form of

interrogatories, which were very long and arduous and therefore, beyond the

comprehension of his client so as to elicit a proper response.

Page No.# 38/76

41. In order to examine the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for

the appellants, we have gone through the statement of the accused (A-1) recorded

by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and are surprised to note

that not only long and bulky questions, running into several hundreds of words, were

put to the accused A-1 during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C but even the evidence

adduced by PW-12 was not at all put to the accused although, it appears that the

learned Sessions Judge had relied upon the evidence adduced by PW-12 for

convicting the A-1. It also appears that the replies of the accused elicited while

examining him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also not properly dealt with by the

learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment. Ordinarily, we would not burden this

judgment by quoting the questions put by the learned trial Judge and the reply of the

accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, in order to evaluate the

question of prejudice, if any, caused to the accused and if so, to assess the degree of

such prejudice, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the statement of accused A-1

recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. herein under :-

“Form of Recording Examination of Accused

Examination of Accused person

(Section 313 Cr.P.C.)

Examination of accused Shri Govind Singhal, aged about 22 years, of

Sessions Case No. 69 of 2018, recorded by Shri A. Chakrabarty, Sessions Judge,

Kamrup (M), Guwahati on this the 12

th

day of February, 2019, in the English

language.

My name Govind Singhal, Son of Shri Radheshyam Singhal, Occupation –

Student of Chartered Accountancy, resident of House No. 119, J.P. Agarwala

Page No.# 39/76

Road, Sluice Gate, Police Station- Bharalumukh, District: Kamrup (M),

Guwahati.

Question No. 1. - On 04.12.2017, in between 9:45 am and 5:30 pm, in the House

No. 119 at J.P. Agarwala Road, under Bharalumukh P.S., you entered into a

conspiracy with the co-accused Smt. Kamala Devi Singhal and Smt. Bhabani

Singhal, who happen to be your mother and sister respectively, to commit an

illegal act, that is, to murder Sweta Agarwal and pursuant to the said

conspiracy, intentionally caused the death of Sweta Agarwal by sharp cutting

weapon and set her on fire while she was still alive. What do you have to say

on the same?

Answer:- These are false and baseless allegations. I am innocent.

Question No. 2:- After committing the murder of Sweta Agarwal, you tried to

conceal the evidence of the crime. What do you have to say on the same?

Answer:- This is a false and baseless allegation. I am innocent.

Question No. 3:- PW-1 Jagdish Agarwal has identified you and the co-accused

Smt. Kamala Devi Singhal and Smt. Bhabani Singhal as the persons who had

committed the murder of Sweta Agarwal. He has deposed that you had

confessed before him that you and the co-accused Govind Singhal and Smt.

Bhavani Singhal had committed the murder of Sweta Agarwal. What do you

have to say on his said deposition?

Answer:- He has deposed falsely and tried to colour a suicidal case into a

murder case.

Question No. 4:- PW-1 Jagdish Agarwal has deposed that the deceased Sweta

Agarwal was his niece. On 04.12.2017, at around 8:30 am, Sweta Agarwal went

to K.C. Das Commerce College for appearing in an examination. Sweta

Agarwal used to return home at around 1:00/ 1:30 pm. But, on 04.12.2017,

when Sweta Agarwal did not return home till 2:00 pm, his sister-in-law Sunita

Agarwal called him over phone and informed him about the same. She also

Page No.# 40/76

tried to contact Sweta Agarwal over phone. Her mobile was ringing but no one

picked up the mobile. His sister-in-law was anxious and he consoled her by

saying that after the examination probably Sweta Agarwal was with her friends

and the mobile must be inside the bag. Sweta Agarwal was also doing CA

internship with O.P. Chandak. She used to go to his chamber regularly. He

thought that she might have gone to the chamber directly and tried to

contact the Chamber over phone. But, he received the reply that she had not

gone there also. At around 3:00/ 3:30 pm, when he again tried to contact

Sweta Agarwal on her phone, her phone was found switched off. Thereafter,

they started searching for her on probable locations. He also went to search

her in the nearby areas of K.C. Das Commerce College at Chatribari, near

Goshala. But, he did not find her. At around 5:00/ 5:30 pm, he received a

phone call from a lady. The lady asked him whether he is a relation of Sweta

Agarwal and when he replied in the affirmative, she told him that his niece

Sweta had died due to burning in her house. He asked the lady how she had

gone to her house and where her house was situated. The lady gave the

address of her house as House No. 119 at J.P. Agarwala Path, near Bharalu

Sluice Gate. Hearing the same, he became puzzled and could not think

anything properly and without informing the member of his family, rushed to

the given address. On his way, he received another call from his niece Payal

Bedia informing him that similar phone call was received by Sunita Agarwal

regarding the death of Sweta. Then he informed his elder brother Om Prakash

Agarwal about the information he received from the unknown lady and also

asked him to proceed to the house No. 119. As soon as he turned towards J.P.

Agarwala Path, he saw a gathering in front of a house. He asked the people

what had happened there and then a lady came out and took him inside the

house. As soon as he entered into the room, the lady showed him the dead

body of Sweta Agarwal in a toilet. At that time, one boy and one girl were also

present inside the house. He enquired from the lady how she had come to that

house and to whom the house belonged. By that time, his elder brother Om

Page No.# 41/76

Prakash Agarwal also arrived there. When he went near Sweta, he saw that by

the side of her neck, there was cut injuries and blood was oozing out. He also

saw injury marks at her forehead and near her eyes. In her lower portion, there

was no cloth. The lady, the girl and the man are present in the court in the

dock and he can easily identify them. Again he questioned that lady that

Sweta went out for appearing in the examination and how she had gone there

and who had killed her. In reply the lady told him that they had killed her and

also told him that they had already called an ambulance and directed him to

remove the body. She also indicated the body and in a threatening tune, told

him that the father of the boy was outside and he did not know him. As they

were questioning one after another, one person came from outside and asked

them why they were shouting and creating noise. In the meantime, a police

patrol van also arrived there. Police personnel instructed him to lodge an FIR at

the Police Station. Ext. 1 is the FIR and Ext. 1(1) is my signature. Ext. 2 is the

printed form of the FIR and Ext. 2(1) is his signature. The dead body was taken

to the Bharalumukh Police Station by the ambulance and he accompanied

the dead body. After lodging the FIR, he was told that the dead body would

be send to the GMCH Morgue and Postmortem examination would be done

on the next morning and accordingly, he was instructed to go to the GMCH on

the next morning at around 9:00/ 10:00 am. His niece stood 1

st

in the HSLC

examination and also in the H.S. 2

nd

year. She was a brilliant student and never

considered any other thing, save and except her study. What do you have to

say on his depositions?

Answer:- He has deposed falsely to make out a false case against me.

Question No. 5:- PW-2 Om Prakash Agarwal deposed that the deceased Sweta

Agarwal was his daughter. She was a student of K.C. Das Commerce College,

Guwahati and was studying in B.Com, 5

th

Semester. On 04.12.2017, at around

8:30 am, she went to the college for appearing in an examination. As she did

not return home after the examination, he tried to contact her over phone, but

Page No.# 42/76

did not get any response. He also tried to contact Mr. O.P. Chandak,

Chartered Accountant, in whose office/ chamber, she used to work for

Articleship of Chartered Accountant. But, he came to know that Sweta did not

go to the chamber on that day. When he tried to contact her again at around

3:30 pm, he found that her mobile phone was switched off. At around 5:30/

6:00 pm, a lady called his wife and told her that his daughter had died due to

burning and was lying near the Sluice Gate at J.P. Agarwal Road. In the

meantime, another phone call came from his brother and he also told him that

he had received a phone call from a lady that his daughter had died by

burning and asked him to go to House No. 119, J.P. Agarwal Road,

Bharalumukh. He then went to the J.P. Agarwal Road by his scooter. After

reaching Bharalumukh, he enquired from the local people about J.P. Agarwal

Road and they showed him a crowd and told him to go there. An ambulance

was also going that direction and the local people told him to follow the

ambulance. Accordingly, he went to the place. As he entered the house, he

saw his brother Jagdish Prasad Agarwal there and asked him what had

happened. He indicated towards the toilet and told him to see for himself. He

saw his daughter was lying dead in the toilet. She had no cloth on the lower

portion. She had a long cut injury on her neck, appeared to be caused by

sharp object and had injury mark on her forehead. There was indication that

her legs were kept tied and he could guess that she was first tied and

thereafter set on fire. There were blood stains on the entire floor of the toilet.

There were also marks of dragging the body from one place to another. He

was totally puzzled. His brother started to inquire from the two ladies and one

young man present there. He can still recognize the lady, the girl and the

young man and they are present in the dock. They asked the lady who had

killed his daughter and the lady replied that they had killed her. She also asked

us to remove the dead body immediately. She told that she had already

called the ambulance and further told them they did not know the father of

the boy and also told them that they would not be able to do anything to

Page No.# 43/76

them. She also told that the father of the boy was not in the home and as such,

asked them to leave early. After that, the police came. In the meantime he

also called his wife to come there to see the dead body. After arrival of his

wife, she started crying and was almost collapsed. Thereafter, they went to the

Police Station. His brother accompanied the dead body and he went there in

his bike. At the Police Station, they submitted an FIR. Earlier, he had deposed in

this court partly and his examination was not completed because the Exhibits

were not before the court. M.Ext. 4 is the hand bag of his daughter Sweta

Agarwal. Inside the bag, one admit card of his daughter is there. M.Ext. 4(1) is

the said Admit card. M.Ext. 4(2) is the board used by his daughter Sweta

Agarwal. M.Ext. 4(3) is the calculator of his daughter Sweta Agarwal. M.Ext. 4(4)

is the water bottle of his daughter Sweta Agarwal. M.Ext. 4(5) is the measuring

scale of his daughter. M.Ext. 4(6) is the handkerchief of his daughter. M.Ext. 4(7)

is the key ring with keys of his daughter. M.Ext. 4(8) is the wrist watch of his

daughter Sweta Agarwal. M.Ext. 7 is the shoes of his daughter, which she used

to wear often. M.Ext. 24 is the churni of his daughter Sweta Agarwal. She went

out on that day, wearing the same. M.Ext. 25 is the exercise book of his

daughter Sweta Agarwal with her handwriting. Before the dead body of his

daughter was removed from the house, his wife had arrived and she asked him

where her cloths below waist were. He had shown her the kerosene bottle and

the match box and told her that they had burnt the same. M.Ext. 22 is the said

kerosene bottle and M.Ext. 23 is the matchbox, which were there in the toilet by

the side of the dead body. His daughter was a brilliant student and she stood

first in the H.S. Commerce examination. She also passed HSLC examination with

brilliant result. She was doing well in CA. She received awards from the Chief

Minister and Governor of Assam. What do you have to say on his said

depositions?

Answer:- He has deposed falsely to make out a false case against me.

Question No. 6:- PW-3 Dhananjay Roy has deposed that on 08.12.2017, he

accompanied the Bharalumukh police to your house, which was under lock

Page No.# 44/76

and key. The Police opened the house and recovered one light green colour

folding knife. Police also recovered one pair of ladies chapel, one pair of hand

glove, a nylon rope and a piece of cloth used for cleaning the floor of the

house and blood stains and seized the same vide Ext. 3 seizure list. Ext. 3(1) is his

signature therein. Material Ext. 1 is the said seized folding knife. Material Ext. 2 is

the black jeans pant. Material Ext. 3 is the hand gloves and Material Ext. 4 is the

ladies handbag containing Admit Card of Sweta Agarwal, one call letter, a

ladies watch, one key and one half-full plastic water bottle. Next day, at

around 11:00 am, you led the police to your house. Sri Hemen Sarma, Secretary

Old Ward No. 12, also accompanied them. On that day also, as per your

disclosure, the police recovered another knife with aluminum handle. Police

also recovered one Hero Splendor motorcycle. Police also recovered the nylon

rope and ladies shoe of the victim Sweta Agarwal. Ext. 4 is the seizure list, by

which the police seized five articles from your house. Ext. 4(1) is his signature.

M.Ext. 5 corresponding to MR No. 299/17 is the knife. M.Ext. 6 is the yellow

coloured nylon rope, corresponding to MR No. 299/17. M.Ext. 7 is the ladies

shoes, corresponding to MR No. 299/17. M.Ext. 8 is the floor cleaning cloth,

corresponding to MR No. 299/17. On 10.12.2017, also he was asked to visit

Bharalumukh PS. On that day too, police visited your house, being led by you,

at around 11:00/ 11:30 am. He was asked by the police to accompany them.

The witness Gostu Biswas was also there. On that day, the police seized 10

articles in his presence. Ext. 5 is the seizure list and Ext. 5(1) is his signature. M.Ext.

9 is the pen drive corresponding to MR No. 300/17. M.Ext. 10 is the Lenovo

Laptop, seized by police, corresponding to MR No. 300/17. M.Ext. 11 is the

Compact Disk, corresponding to MR No. 300/17. M.Ext. 12 is the Levis money

bag, corresponding to MR No. 300/17. M.Ext. 13 is the cash amount of Rs.

1,02,500/- corresponding to MR No. 300/17. M.Ext. 14 is the Long exercise book

of Roll No. 0063, in your name, corresponding to MR No. 300/17. M.Ext. 15 is the

non-judicial stamp paper, executed by Radhe Shyam Sighal regarding

application for trade mark, corresponding to MR No. 300/17. M. Ext. 16 is the

Page No.# 45/76

packet of Rat Killer medicine, corresponding to MR No. 300/17. M.Ext. 17, M.Ext.

18 and M.Ext. 19 are three mobile handsets, seized on 08.12.2017,

corresponding to MR No. 298/17. M.Ext. 20 and M.Ext. 21 are the hand written

notes, recovered and seized in his presence, from your house on 08.12.2017,

corresponding to MR No. 298/17. M.Ext. 22 is the plastic bottle containing

kerosene oil. He saw the same in your house. One match box was also there

and M.Ext. 23 is the said match box. What do you have to say on his said

deposition?

Answer:- He has deposed falsely to make out a false case against me.

Question No. 7:- PW-4 Hemen Hazarika, Secretary of all the Nagarik Samity of

the Ward No. 12, has deposed that he is businessman. He is also the Secretary

of the Joint Committee of the five Nagarik Samities of five Wards under

Bharalumukh PS. Secretary of the Nagarik Samity, on 08.12.2017, at around

02:00 pm, he accompanied the police party to your house. You were also

accompanying the police party. After entering the house, you took them to

the toilet. There were blood stains everywhere in the toilet. He learnt that Sweta

Agarwal was killed there. Inside the house, you showed the police some articles

and the police seized the same vide Ext. 3 seizure list. Ext. 3(2) is his signature. In

my presence, M.Ext. 17. M.Ext. 18 and M.Ext. 19 mobile handsets were seized by

the police. The police also seized the M.Ext. 3 hand gloves in his presence. The

police also seized in his presence the M.Ext. 1 green colour folding knife. The

Police also recovered one jeans pant and M.Ext. 2 is the said jeans pant. M.Ext.

4 is the ladies handbag, which was recovered by police in his presence. Inside

the bag, there were one admit card, one plastic water bottle, scale etc., as far

as he can remember. Police also seized M.Ext. 20 and M.Ext. 21 in his presence,

which are hand written notes on napkin of Café Coffee Day. On the next day

also, i.e. on 09.12.2017, at around 10:00/ 10:30 am, he accompanied the police

party and you to your house. One Dhananjay was also present there. There

were 1/2 other persons whom, he cannot recollect. On that day, the police

seized about 5 articles from the said house and seized the same vide Ext. 4

Page No.# 46/76

seizure list. Ext. 4(2) is his signature. On that day, the police seized one

motorcycle with blood stains near the rear seat. The Police also seized one

knife from inside the house. M.Ext. 5 is the said knife. A nylon rope was also

seized by police. According to you, the dead body was tied with the

motorcycle by the said nylon rope. So far he recollect, it was found inside the

house. M.Ext. 6 is the said nylon rope. Police also recovered and seized one

pair of ladies shoe from inside the house. M.Ext. 7 is the said pair of shoe.

Further, the police seized one floor cleaning cloth with blood stains. M.Ext. 8 is

the said floor cleaning cloth. He has further deposed that you told the police

that on that day, the victim girl accompanied you to the house and there you

offered her tea. During the consumption of tea, a quarrel broke out in between

you and her and enraged at the same, your pushed her towards the wall. The

victim girl received injury on the back of her head and she became

unconscious. Blood was oozing out and seeing the same, you became afraid

and put her inside a bag and thereafter by tying the body in the motorcycle,

you took the body near the R.G. Baruah College at Fatashil Ambari. You

dumped the body near a dustbin. But, subsequently, you again brought back

the body to your house. After bringing the body to your house, first of all, you

cleaned the body and removed the blood stains. You also told the police that

you threw the bag over the boundary fencing in the river Bharalu. You also told

that you did not set the body on fire and the body was set to fire near R.G.

Baruah College near the dustbin. He told that the dustbin was set into fire by

somebody else. But on being led by you, when they went there, they did not

find any sign of burning of the garbage at that place. What do you have to

say on his said deposition?

Answer :- He has deposed falsely to make out a false case against me.

Question No. 8:- PW-5 Pankaj Kumar has deposed that he is a Barbar by

profession and I have a saloon at J.P. Agarwal Road. On 04.02.2017, at around

03:00 pm, while he was coming back to his salon after taking lunch, he saw

that you (the witness identified the accused Govind Singhal in the dock) were

Page No.# 47/76

tying a big stag in your motorcycle. He saw that blood was oozing out from the

bag and he brought it to your notice of and asked him why bold was coming

out from the bag. In reply, you told him that it was not blood, it was some

colour. Along with your mother, sister and father, you were residing in the said

house. Your mother and sister were also present in the Court on that day. Prior

to coming to the Court on that day, once he went to the Court in connection

with this case and his statement was recorded in the Court on oath. Ext. 6 is his

statement, recorded on oath before the Court. Ext. 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3) are his

signature. What do you have to say on his said depositions?

Answer:- He has deposed falsely at the instigation of informant side. On that

day during morning hours I was at my factory.

Question No. 9:- PW-6 Pradip Khandelwal has deposed that he is a transporter

by profession. On 04.12.2017, at around 5:00/ 5:30 pm, he was going to a

nearby PG to meet the daughter of his friend. The PG was at the JP Agarwal

Road. At that time, he saw a crowd in front of the house No. 119 of JP Agarwal

Road. On seeing the crowd, he stopped there and asked the people about

what had happened. They said that someone had been killed by burning. By

that time the police came out and took the names of the people assembled

there and asked them to leave. Accordingly, he left the place. Police noted his

name and mobile No. along with others. On 09.12.2017, he received a phone

call from Bharalumukh PS. It was around 8:30/9:00 am. He was in his residence

at that time. Police asked him to go to the police station a little bit early. He

reached there at around 09:30 am. In the police station he saw a boy. The

police told them that they would go to the house of that boy and asked them

to accompany. He saw on Dhananjay there and Hemant Sharma ji, whom he

met on the road. You were the said boy and he identified you in the court.

Thereafter, they accompanied the police to your. You also accompanied

them. We went to the house on foot by crossing the railway line. At that time of

entering into the house, they saw some blood stains on the floor. They also saw

a cloth with blood stains. After entering into the house they were taken straight

Page No.# 48/76

to the bathroom. In the entire bathroom, there were blood stains and also the

signs of burning. On that day, the police seized 5 articles in his presence. Ext. 4

is the seizure list. Ext. 4(3) is his signature. Ext. 5 is the sharp knife, which was

seized by the police on that day from the house. Police also seized one nylon

rope from nearby the bike. M.Ext. 6 is the said nylon rope. A pair of ladies shoe

was also seized by the police, which was shown by the accused as the shoes

of the deceased. M.Ext. 7 is the said pair of shoes. Police also seized the floor

cleaning cloth with blood stains. M.Ext. 8 is the said cleaning cloth. On the

previous day evening, the police took him to Fatashil Ambari, near a college.

On that day, the police took his assistance to speak to accused you in your

own language. You had accompanied the police team. There, you told him

that you had thought that the victim had expired and accordingly, you took

the dead body in your motorcycle and dumped it at the dustbin near the

college, but later, on re-thought, you brought back the dead body to your

house. What do you have to say on his said depositions?

Answer:- He has deposed falsely to make out a false case against me.

Question No. 10:- PW-7 Sunita Agarwal has deposed that the deceased Sweta

Agarwal was her daughter. On 04.12.2017, Sweta Agarwal went to appear in

the 5

th

Semester examination of B.Com at K.C. Das Commerce College. She

went there around 8:30 pm. She used to come back around 1:00/ 1:30 pm. On

that day she did not come by that time. As such, she felt anxious and tried to

contact her over phone repeatedly. The phone was ringing but she was not

picking up the phone. Thereafter, she tried to contact her husband, but his

phone was not responding and so she contacted her brother in law Jagdish

Agarwal over phone. She told him that Sweta did not return to house at her

usual time. Hearing the same, Jagdish went to their flat. In the meantime, her

brother in law also arrived there. It was around 2:00/ 2:30 pm. Her husband also

enquired about Sweta and she told him that she did not come back to the

house till that time. Her husband also tried to contact her over phone. The

Page No.# 49/76

phone was ringing, but no one picked up. Then her husband consoled her and

told her not to think because she might have gone to the Chamber of O.P.

Chandak, CA after the examination was over. Her husband took his lunch and

went back to his office, asking her not to take any tension. As she was feeling

tense, she requested her brother in law to stay there till her return. She was

continuously trying to contact her over phone and all the time it was ringing,

but nobody responded. After sometime, her husband came back to the house

and told her that Sweta’s mobile was found switched off mode. She again tried

to contact her, but she also found that it was switched off. She asked her

husband as to why he had come back. He told me that he had contacted the

Chamber of O.P. Chandak, but he was informed that Sweta did not go there.

After sometime, some of her friends also started to enquire about Sweta and

she told all of them that Sweta did not return. As we were tense about her, my

brother in law told us that he was going to enquire nearby K.C. Das Commerce

College. She and her husband stayed in the house and were worshiping before

the God. By that time, one phone call came from a lady. She informed her that

her daughter was lying dead completely burnt near Sluice Gate, J.P. Agarwal

Road, House No. 119. As she intimated her husband about the phone call,

Jagdish Agarwal also called her husband over phone giving the same

information and asked him to proceed to J.P. Agarwal Road. Her husband told

him to remain in the house and also told him that he was going to the place to

see what had happened. After sometime, her husband called her over phone

and told him to proceed to J.P. Agarwal Road, House No. 119 immediately, in

whatever condition she was. Hence, she proceeded by an Auto-rickshaw.

When she reached there, she saw that the dead body of her daughter was

being brought out from the house. She saw that the lower garments of my

daughter were not there. At her forehead above the eye, there was injury

marks and on her neck also there was a cloth stained with blood. At her leg

also, there was injury mark. On both the legs also, there was burn injuries. There

were also some scratches. In her face and side of the body also there were

Page No.# 50/76

burn injuries. She came to know from her husband that the dead body of her

daughter was lying in the toilet above the commode. Her husband told her

that the three accused persons, namely, Kamala Devi Singhal, Bhavani Singhal

and you, had killed Sweta Agarwal. Her husband told her to go back to the

house and he would go to the Police Station. That accused persons told her

husband that we would not be able to do anything to them. Thereafter, she

returned to her home in an Auto rickshaw. Her husband and brother in law

went to the Police Station and she returned to home. The blood group of her

daughter was B positive. What do you have to say on his depositions?

Answer:- Falsely deposed to cover a suicidal case and project it as a murder

case. My mother is a lunatic person who most of the time remain unstable.

Hence, it is a false story.

Question No. 11:- PW-8 Vijay Kumar Agarwal has deposed that the deceased

Sweta Agarwal was his related niece. Her father is his cousin. On 27.12.2017, at

around 7:00/ 7:30 pm, while he was sitting in the house of his cousin at Manipuri

Basti, the investigating officer of the case along with Rosy Kalita, Addl. DCP,

Crime Branch and one more Junior Officer came to the said house. They

collected and seized one College Exercise Book of the deceased Sweta

Agarwal and one Resume of Sweta Agarwal for the purpose of investigation.

At that time, one more gentleman was present in the house of Om Prakash

Agarwal and so far he recollect, his name was Sanjay Kabra. The investigating

officer obtained his signature as a seizure witness. Ext. 7 is the seizure memo

and Ext. 7(1) is his signature. By Ext. 7, M.Ext. 25 (Exercise Book) was seized by

the Police. It was seized from the room of Sweta Agarwal. What do you have to

say on his said depositions?

Answer:- He has deposed falsely by being an interested witness.

Question No. 12:- PW-9 Dr. Raktim Pratim Tamuli, who has performed the post-

mortem examination on the body of the deceased Sweta Agarwal has

deposed that the death was due to hemorrhage and shock following incised

Page No.# 51/76

injury sustained over the neck which was caused by sharp cutting weapon and

was homicidal in nature. Injury Nos. 2, 4, 8 and 9 as mentioned in the post-

mortem report, scalp contusion were caused by blunt force impact. Injury Nos.

5, 6 and 7 were caused by sharp cutting weapon during life and were

homicidal in nature. Total area of body surface burnt approximately was 40%-

50% and both ante-mortem and post-mortem. No evidence of pregnancy

detected at the time of autopsy examination, however, uterus was preserved

and sent for histopathological examination. Injuries as described in the text and

time since death was 12-24 hours, approximately. Kerosene like smell was

present over the wearing garment and body. The injuries, especially incised

injury No. 7 and the ligature mark described over the neck, the burn injury

described can also cause death even if proper treatment was provided. Ext.

10 is the post-mortem report and Ext. 10(1) is his signature with seal. Ext. 10(2) is

the signature of Dr. H. Das and Ext. 10(3) is the signature and seal of Dr. Mrinal

Haloi, which he can indentify. What do you have to say on his said depositions?

Answer:- In PM report different doctors said in different manner and they

contradicted inquest report as such cause of death can’t be ascertained

because the body of Sweta remained at P.S. for longer hours without any

authority/ permission.

Question No. 13:- PW-10 Dr. Himangshu Das deposed that on 05.12.2017, he

was working as an Associate Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine

at GMCH, conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased

Sweta Agarwal, a female of 20 years old, daughter of Sri Om Prakash Agarwal.

The post-mortem examination was done on the requisition in connection with

Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 805/17. Dr. Mrinal Haloi and he was the team of

doctors who assisted Dr. Raktim Pratim Tamuli in conducting the post-mortem

examination. Ext. 8 is the dead body challan and Ext. 8(2) is his signature with

seal. Ext. 9 is the inquest report and Ext. 9(2) is his signature with seal. Dr. Raktim

Pratim Tamuli prepared the post-mortem report and Ext. 10 is the said post-

mortem report. Ext. 10(2) is his signature with seal. The findings regarding the

Page No.# 52/76

injuries over the dead body of Sweta Agarwal, as stated in Ext. 10, are correct

and he concurred with the report. In his opinion, the death was due to

hemorrhage and shock following incised injury sustained over the neck which

was cause by sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature. Injury Nos. 1, 2, 6

and 7 as per post-mortem report, and scalp contusions were caused by blunt

force impact and injury Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as per post-mortem report were caused

by sharp cutting weapon during life and homicidal in nature. Total area of

body surface burnt was approximately 40% to 50% and both ante-mortem and

post-mortem burn. No evidence of pregnancy was detected at the time of

autopsy, however, we preserved the uterus and sent for histopathological

examination. Time since death was 12-24 hrs from the time of examination.

Kerosene like smell was present over the wearing garments and body. What do

you have to say on his depositions?

Answer:- On the said kerosene bottle, finger print of Sweta Agarwal was there

and police deliberately concealed the report and never submitted to court.

She might have died out of burn injuries.

Question No. 14:- PW-11 Dr. Mrinal Haloi has deposed that on 05.12.2017, he

was working as Demonstrator, Department of Forensic Medicine, GMCH. On

that day, Dr. Raktim Pratim Tamuli, Demonstrator, Department of Forensic

Medicine, GMCH conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of

a 20 years old female, namely, Sweta Agarwal, daughter of Shri Om Prakash

Agarwal. The post-mortem examination was done on the requisition in

connection with Bharalumukh PS Case No. 805/17. Dr. Himangshu Das and he

was also in the team of doctors who assisted Dr. Raktim Pratim Tamuli in

conducting the post-mortem examination. Ext. 8 is the dead body challan and

Ext. 8(3) is his signature with seal. Ext. 9 is the inquest report and Ext. 9(3) is his

signature with seal. Dr. Raktim Pratim Tamuli prepared the post-mortem report

and Ext. 10 is the said post-mortem report. Ext. 10(3) is his signature with seal.

The findings regarding the injuries over the dead body of Sweta Agarwal, as

stated in Ext. 10, are correct and he concur with the report. In his opinion, the

Page No.# 53/76

death was due to hemorrhage and shock following incised injury sustained

over the neck which was caused by sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in

nature. Injury Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 as per post-mortem report, and scalp contusions

were caused by blunt force impact and injury Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as per post-

mortem report were caused by sharp cutting weapon during life and

homicidal in nature. Total are of body surface burnt was approximately 40% to

50% and both of ante-mortem and post-mortem burn. No evidence of

pregnancy was detected at the time of autopsy, however, we preserved the

uterus and sent for histopathological examination. Time since death was 12-24

hours, from the time of examination. Kerosene like smell was present over the

wearing garments and body. What do you have to say on his said depositions?

Answer:- In PM report different doctors said in different manner and they

contradicted inquest report as such cause of death can’t be ascertained

because the body of Sweta remained at P.S. for longer hours without any

authority/ permission.

Question No. 16:- PW-13 Damodar Barman has deposed that on 05.12.2017, he

was working as the Circle Officer, Guwahati Sadar Circle and Executive

Magistrate, Guwahati. On that day, an inquest was done by him in connection

with Bharalumukh PS Case No. 805/17 u/s 302/376/120(B)/34 of the IPC. The

inquest was done at 10:30 am in the premises of Bharalumukh PS. One Police

Officer Mr. Choudhury was present at the time of inquest. The informant

Jagdish Prasad Agarwal identified the deceased. He found burn injuries

throughout the body of the deceased. There were also other injuries. He also

noticed injury at her right thigh and there were marks of bleeding. The injuries

were found at head and face and the burn injuries were found at chest and

stomach area. He noticed that burn injuries and the wounds were all over the

body of the deceased, which according to him might have been the cause of

death. Ext. 9 is the inquest report and Ext. 9(3) is his signature with official seal.

What do you have to say on his said depositions?

Page No.# 54/76

Answer:- There is no justification for causing inquest at P.S. The inquest report

was prepared by I.O. in his own handwriting. There is doubt as to when and

how IO called the executive magistrate for the inquest and there is doubt

where the inquest was done.

Question No. 17:- PW-14 Ponjit Dowarah has deposed that since 22.02.2017, he

has been serving as ACP Jalukbari. On 04.12.2017 and 05.12.2017, he was

working in the same capacity. In connection with Bharalumukh PS Case No.

805/17, your specimen signatures were collected in his presence. Ext. 11 is your

said specimen writing and signature of Ext. 11(1) is his signature with official

seal. Ext. 12 is also the same copy of your specimen writing and specimen

signature. Ext. 12(1) is his signature. He has identified you in the court. What do

you have to say on his depositions?

Answer:- No specimen signature/ handwriting was taken by any police officer

from me, and as such the deposition is false.

Question No. 18:- PW-15 Sankar Chandra Rabha has deposed that he has

been serving at the Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam since 1995. First of

all, he was a Junior Scientific Officer and since 2014, he has been serving as

Scientific Officer. From the beginning, he has been working in the Serology

Division. He visited the scene of crime in connection with Bharalumukh PS Case

No. 805/17. Thereafter, on 20.12.2017, he received a parcel through Director,

DFS, Kahilipara for serological examination. The parcel was in a sealed carton

box covered with cloth. After opening the box, he found 4 separate packets

containing sic exhibits. Description of article- 2 ml blood sample of victim girl in

an EDTA vial marked at Ext. A(1). His examination No. sero3904/A. Blood

collection from the motor cycle in cotton gauge bearing registration No. AS01

BT 6977 of accused Govind Singhal, marked as Ext. B. His examination No. Sero

3904/B. Blood collection from the place of occurrence, the toilet of the

accused person, in a cotton gauge, marked as Ext. C. His examination No. Sero

3904/C. One yellow colour plastic rope containing stain of suspected blood,

Page No.# 55/76

marked as Ext. D. his examination No. Sero 3904/D. One torn and half burn

cloth containing stain of suspected blood. The exhibit was found in wet

condition and growth of fungus, marked as Ext. E. his examination No. Sero

3904/E. One black colour jeans long pant contains stain of suspected blood,

marked as Ext. F. his examination No. Sero 3904/F. During his visit at the scene of

crime, blood stain was collected from the motor cycle in the cotton gauge

and thereafter, he handed over the same to the IO. After careful examination,

he found the following result- Ext. No. Sero 3904/A, Sero 3904/C, Sero 3904/D

and Sero 3904/F gave positive test for human blood of group B. Ext. No. Sero

3904/B gave positive test for human blood only. But its group could not be

determined due to insufficient test material. Ext. No. Sero 3904/E gave negative

test for blood. As per the ABO system, there are 4 groups of human blood and

those are- A, B, AB and O. Ext. 13 is his report, consisting of 2 pages and Ext.

13(1) is his signature with official seal. What do you have to say on his said

depositions?

Answer:- The FSL report contained different methods. However report doesn’t

indicate in support of prosecution.

Question No. 19:- PW-16 Utpal Medhi has deposed that he resides at

Bharalumukh J.P. Agarwal Road. On 07.12.2017, while he was coming back to

his house from Chandmari, he saw many vehicles in front of the house of P.C.

Mazumder, where you were residing. His house is just after the house of P.C.

Mazumder. As he was looking at the vehicles, the police persons and media

persons in front of his house, two police persons came to him and told him that

the Senior Police Officer requested him to go there. As he went to the house of

P.C. Mazumder, the Sr. Police Officer told him that they would open the lock in

the presence of local persons and requested him to witness the same. In his

presence, the police opened the lock and entered into the room. He did not

enter into the room and waited outside. Police were there for 20/25 mins. Once

he asked whether he could leave, but they requested him to stay and he

stayed there. After sometime the Police told him that they had seized some

Page No.# 56/76

articles from inside the room and then they read over and shown the articles to

him and obtained his signature in the seizure list. Ext. 19 is the seizure list and Ext.

19(1) is his signature therein. What do you have to say on his said deposition?

Answer:- He has deposed falsely to make out a false case against me.

Question No. 20:- PW-17 Dr. Rupali Bhattacharya, a Scientific Officer at the

Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory has deposed that she received a

plastic bottle with liquid contains for examination in connection with

Bharalumukh PS Case No. 805/17. She received one sealed carton box with

cloth cover containing one plastic bottle having 70 ml blue colour liquid,

marked as Ext. B. They marked it in the laboratory as Ext. C-92/17. Ext. C-92/17

gave positive tests for kerosene oil which is inflammable. Material Ext. 22 is the

said bottle with liquid contains and Material Ext. 22(1) is their forensic tag. Ext.

22(2) is her initial with seal. The test was conducted by her on 25.12.2017. Ext. 20

is her report. Ext. 20(1) is her signature. Ext. 21 is the forwarding letter and Ext.

21(1) is the signature of Sri G.N. Deka, Joint Director, DFS, Kahilipara which she

can identify. What do you have to say on her said depositions?

Answer:- At our residence we don’t use kerosene. The bottle might had been

brought by deceased wherein bottle had sot finger print of Sweta which police

deliberately didn’t submit in Court.

Question No. 21:- PW-18 Mr. Athang Singson, a Scientific Officer of the

Directorate of Forensic Science, Kahilipara, has deposed that he received a

parcel consisting of one exhibit enclosed in a sealed paper envelope which

was sealed with the impression of the seal corresponding with the seal

impression forwarded. The parcel was received from the messenger in the

office of the Directorate of Forensic Science on 21.12.2017, in connection with

Bharalumukh PS Case No. 805/17 u/s 120(B)/302/376 of the IPC. The descriptions

of the articles are as follows: One sealed envelope containing hair strands,

suspected to belong to human, marked as Ext. A and they marked the same in

their laboratory as Bio. 3166. After physical, ultra structure and histological

Page No.# 57/76

examination, it was revealed that the hair under Ext. Bio.3166 is scalp hair of

human being. He submitted the report on 03.01.2018. Ext. 22 is his report and

Ext. 22(1) is his signature with seal. The report was forwarded to DCP, Crime vide

forwarding letter dated 04.01.2018. Ext. 23 is the forwarding letter and Ext. 23(1)

is the signature of Sri G.N. Deka, Joint Director, DFS, Kahilipara. What do you

have to say on his said depositions?

Answer:- No comment.

Question No. 22:- PW-19 Bapukan Choudhury has deposed that he has been

working in the Questioned Document Division of DFS, Kahilipara as a Junior

Scientist Officer. On 21.12.2017, the officer of the DFS, Kahilipara received a

parcel for examination and opinion. It was received from DCP (Crime),

Guwahati, Assam. The parcel was in sealed envelope and it was received in

connection with Bharalumukh PS Case No. 805/17 u/s 120(B)/302/376 of the

IPC. After opening the sealed envelope, he found one long note book

(Material Ext. 14), two laminated sheets (Material Ext. 20 and 21) and one sheet

containing specimen handwriting and signature of the accused Gobind

Singhal (Ext. 11 is the said sheet). After going through the material exhibits, he

went through the forwarding letter to know about the queries made by the

police. The queries were: Whether the handwriting of Ext. A, B and C match

with each other or not? Any other point which can help in investigation? In

Material Ext. 14 (long exercise book), he marked Ext. A1 to A15 as the admitted

handwriting of the accused Gobind Singhal. He compared those admitted

handwriting with Ext. 11 and Material Ext. 20 and 21. The document in

connection with Bharalumukh PS Case No. 805/17 u/s 120(B)/302/376 IPC have

been carefully and thoroughly examined and comparing disputed writing with

the supplied standard writings and signatures in all aspects of handwriting

identification and detection of forgery with necessary scientific aids like stereo

zoom microscope, Documenter 3000 and VSC 6000 available in the

Directorate. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures

stamped and marked S1 to S8 and A1 to A15 also wrote the red enclosed

Page No.# 58/76

writings similarly stamped and marked as Q1 to Q3. Ext. 24 is his report. Ext. 24(1)

is his signature. His report was forwarded by the Joint Director, DFS, Kahilipara to

DCP Crime. Ext. 25 is the forwarding letter and Ext. 25(1) is the signature of Sri

G.N. Deka, Joint Director which he can identify. Material Ext. Q2 and Q3 is

marked in Material Ext. 20(1) and Material Ext. Q1 is marked in Material Ext. 21

(1). What do you have to say on his depositions?

Answer:- No specimen signature/ handwriting was taken by any police officer

from me, and as such the deposition is false.

Question No. 23:- PW-20 SI Sudip Choudhury has deposed that he has been

serving in the Assam Police since 2008. From May/ June 2016 till February, 2018

he was posted at Bharalumukh Police Station. On 04.12.2017, around 06:00 pm,

a telephone call was received by the O/C, Bharalumukh PS to effect that at

House No. 119, JP Agarwala Road, a girl had attempted to commit suicide by

setting her on fire pouring kerosene oil. Immediately, the O/C, Bharalumukh PS

instructed the Incharge PAPA 22, namely, Mahesh Baishya to go to the Place

of occurrence. At 06:10 pm, he was informed by O/C, Bharalumukh PS the

same fact which he had received and instructed him to rush to the P.O. along

with staffs. At around 06:15 pm, I proceeded to the said house No. 119 at JP

Agarwala Road. He reached there at around 6:25 pm and saw a large

gathering inside and outside house No. 119. He heard the people to saying

that you had killed Sweta Agarwal inside the house. He found you and the

members of your family inside the house. The family members of Sweta

Agarwal were also present there. An ambulance was also awaiting outside the

house. As he entered into the room, some people led him towards the toilet of

the house and there, he saw the dead body of a girl. He saw that the dead

body was naked below the waist and was half burnt below the waist. He also

noticed a red colour cloth covering the dead body from neck to waist. He saw

blood stain in the toilet where the dead body was lying. He saw a plastic bottle

there with a little bit of kerosene. He also noticed one plastic bucket, without

any water and one match box. The kerosene bottle was in open condition and

Page No.# 59/76

the cap/ lead was lying by its side. Then he took photographs of the entire

scene. He informed the dead body carrying van to come to the P.O. He

prepared the sketch map of the P.O. Ext. 26 is the sketch map prepared by

him. He also enclosed the photographs of the dead body, which he had

taken, with the sketch map. As there was a large crowd and there was

possibility of law and order situation, he did not wait for the dead body

carrying van and sent the dead body in the 108 Ambulance which was

already there. As the people were about to lynch you, he did not wait any

further and sent you with the incharge of PAPA 22 Mr. M. Baishya. As the

situation became worse, he talked to O/C Bharalumukh PS and reported him

about the incident and as per his instruction, he also took the accused Kamala

Devi Singhal and Bhabani Singhal in his custody and took them to the

Bharalumukh PS. Before going there, he locked the premises. The house was

kept under lock and key as of the inmates were taken into custody. After

reaching the PS, he came to know from the O/C Bharalumukh that on his

requisition, the personnel of the State Finger Print Bureau, CID, Assam were on

the way to the P.O. and O/C instructed him to accompany them. After their

arrival, he accompanied them to the P.O. He had shown the team the place

where the dead body was found and thereafter, they did the investigation

and tried to collect finger prints. After their investigation, again he locked the

room and came back to the PS with the team members. As Kamala Devi

Singhal and Bhabani Singhal were there, as per the instruction of the O/C,

Bharalumukh PS, he did their medical examination and took them to Women

Shelter Home, Gold, Noonmati for their night shelter. The dead body was kept

at the PS for night in the government dead body carrying van. At 09:45 pm on

that night, Jagadish Agawal lodged the FIR. Ext. 2 is the said FIR. The case was

registered as Bharalumukh PS Case No. 805/17 and after that, it was formally

endorsed to him for investigation. He recorded the statement of the informant

Jagadish Agarwal at the PS on that very day. He also recorded your statement

on that very night. The Circle Officer Damodar Barman was requested to come

Page No.# 60/76

to the PS for inquest over the dead body and accordingly, he came to the PS

at around 8:30 am on 05.12.2017. He did inquest in his presence. Ext. 9 is the

inquest report. Ext. 9(5) is his signature with seal. At around 8:40 am, the

accused Kamala Devi Singhal and Bhabani Singhal were brought to the PS

from Women Shelter, Gold, Noonmati. He recorded their statements too. After

recording their statements, he arrested them. At around 10 am, he forwarded

the dead body to the GMCH for post-mortem examination. The dead body

forwarding was signed by the O/C with his seal and signature. Ext. 8 is the said

dead body forwarding. Ext. 8(4) is the signature of the O/C Bharalumukh PS

along with his official seal. He made a prayer before the DCP, Crime, for

collecting the CDR analysis of the telephone number of deceased Sweta

Agarwal and the three accused persons. On that very day, he produced the

accused persons before the Ld. CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati with a prayer to

take them under police custody. He was granted five days police remand of

the three accused persons. After bringing them back to the PS, he interrogated

them thoroughly. After recording their statements, you were kept in the

custody of the Bharalumukh PS and the other two accused persons were sent

to All Women PS, Panbazar. On 07.12.2017, at around 9:10 am, he again

proceed to the PO with you to find out clues regarding the offence. He

reached there at around 9:20 am. On that day, at around 9:30 am, he seized

one plastic bottle with a little amount of kerosene, one match box, two burned

pieces of linen cloth with blood stains and one half-burned cloth with some

blood stains. He also collected sample of blood in two cottons by wiping the

blood from the floor, a few pieces of hair, which he suspected to be the hair of

the deceased victim and one locket. You were present at that time and two

other witnesses, namely, Utpal Medhi and Ashok Kr. Deka were also present at

that time. Ext. 19 is the said seizure list and Ext. 19(2) is his signature. Material Ext.

22 is the plastic bottle containing kerosene. Material Ext. 24 is the burned

pieces of linen cloth with blood stains. Material Ext. 23 is the match box. He

recorded the statements of the witnesses Utpal Medhi and Ashok Kr. Deka.

Page No.# 61/76

After that, he went to the PS keeping the door under lock and key. At around

11 am, he received the P.M. examination report. As per the PM report, the

death was due to hemorrhage and shock following incised injuries sustained

over the neck which was caused by sharp cutting weapon and the same was

homicidal in nature. The injuries were marked in the PM report and he noted

the injuries in the case diary. As per PM report, there were both ante-mortem

and post-mortem burn. On 08.12.2017, at around 10:15 am, he went to the

house of the complainant for recording the statement of the inmates of the

house of Sweta Agarwal. He came back to the PS at around 1 pm and then at

around 1:50 pm, along with you, he again went to the house No. 119 at JP

Agarwala Road. On that day, at around 2 pm, he seized one mobile phone (mi

CE1317) belonging to you, one Samsung mobile phone of the accused

Bhabani Singhal, one HTC mobile phone of accused Kamala Devi Singhal, one

gents new hand gloves of red and black colour, one green colour small knife

with suspected blood stains, one black jeans containing blood stains in the

lower portion, which was worn by you at the time of occurrence, one ladies

hand bag, grey in colour containing Admit card, spectacles, identity card,

water bottle and watch of the deceased Sweta Agarwal, two pieces of English

writings on two napkins of café coffee day were also seized. Ext. 3 is the said

seizure list and Ext. 3(3) is his signature. Material Ext. 17 is the mi CE1317 mobile

phone, Material Ext. 18 is the HTC mobile phone and Material Ext. 19 is the

Samsung mobile phone, that belongs to you and the accused Kamala Devi

Singhal and Bhabani Singhal, respectively. Material Ext. 3 are your hand gloves.

Material Ext. 2 is your black colour jeans. Material Ext. 4 is the ladies handbag of

Sweta Agarwal containing Admit card [Material Ext. 4(1)], ladies watch

[Material Ext. 498)]. Material Ext. 4(6) is the water bottle also found in the ladies

hand bag. Material Ext. 20 and 21 are the two pieces of English writings in tow

napkins of café coffee day. He recorded the statements of the seizure

witnesses, namely, Dhananjay Roy, Hemanta Sarma and Gosto Biswas. On that

afternoon, again the accused Bhabani Singhal was brought from the All

Page No.# 62/76

Women PS, Panbazar and once again, he recorded the statements of the

accused Govind Singhal and Bhabani Singhal. He recorded the statements of

the accused persons many a times and on every occasions, and they gave

different statements. On 09.12.2017, at around 9:40 am, again he proceeded

to the P.O. along with you and reached there at 9:50 am. Again, he made

certain seizure in the said house at around 10 am. On that day, he seized one

hero Super Splendor motorcycle, bearing registration No. AS01-BT-6977, one

sharp knife with suspected blood stains, 4 pieces of nylon yellow colour rope

having blood stains, one pair of ladies shoe of victim Sweta Agarwal as

indentified by you, one floor cleaning cloth with blood stains. Ext. 4 is the said

seizure list and Ext. 4(4) is his signature. Material Ext. 5 is the said sharp knife.

Material Ext. 6 is the envelope containing the pieces of nylon rope. Material Ext.

7 is the pair of ladies shoe. Material Ext. 8 is the floor cleaning cloth with blood

stains. He recorded the statements of the seizure witnesses, namely, Dhananjay

Roy, Hemanta Sarma and Pradip Kandelwal. The knife, floor cleaning cloth and

the pair of ladies shoe were seized from the drawing room. The motorcycle and

the piece of nylon rope were seized from outside the house, approximately two

meters away from the house. He made searches may a times for the mobile

handset of victim Sweta Agarwal, but could not trace it out. You told him that

you carried the dead body of Sweta Agarwal in a bag in your motorcycle and

again brought it back and thereafter you had thrown the bag at the

Bharalumukh River. He searched for the bag many a times, but could not find it

out. He could not find the uniform of Sweta Agarwal, although he tried to

search it out many a times. On 10.12.2017, at around 10:40 am, he again

proceeded to the P.O. along with staffs and two independent witnesses,

namely, Dhananjay Roy and Gosto Biswas. He called them to the PS. He

reached there at 10:50 am and seized certain things by 11 am. He seized 3 nos.

of pen drives (one HP, one Kingston and one Proxkey), one Lenovo laptop,

hard disk, one date cord, your driving license, your purse, cash amount of Rs.

1,02,500/-, one long exercise book belonging to you, one Indian Non-Judicial

Page No.# 63/76

Stamp paper of Radheshyam Singhal containing 3 pages, one rat killer

medicine packet. Ext. 5 is the said seizure list and Ext. 5(2) is his signature.

Material Ext. 10 is the said Lenovo laptop. Material Ext. 13 is the cash amount of

Rs. 1,02,500/-. Material Ext. 26 is the data cord. Material Ext. 27 is the external

hard disk. Material Ext. 14 is the long exercise book of Gobind Singhal. Material

Ext. 9 are the three pen drives. Material Ext. 16 is the rat killer. Material Ext. 12 is

your seized purse. Material Ext. 15 is the said stamp paper. He recorded the

statements of the seizure witnesses. On 12.12.2017, he recorded the statement

of one Pankaj Kumar. He also got his statement recorded through Court u/s 164

Cr.P.C. Ext. 16 is the said statement of Pankaj Kumar recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.

Said Pankaj Kumar is the resident of the said house of PC Mazumder where the

accused persons used to stay. On 04.12.2017, he came from his salon to take

his meal and after taking his meal when he was going back to his salon, he saw

Gobind Singhal tying one bag with his Splendor motorcycle and he also

noticed that the bag was partially red and red drops were pouring from the

said bag. On being asked by him, you told him it was paint. During

investigation, he collected your specimen handwriting and signature in

presence of ACP, Jalukbari division. Sri Pranjit Dewrah was the then ACP of

Jalukbari division. I noticed the contents of Material Ext. 20 and 21 is the case

diary. The material Ext. 20, in English letter it was written in hindi as follows:

“i) rehna hai ya nahin? For the final time soch lo. Baad mei ye nahi hai kit um

bono……ii)if you don’t want me …. say it now. iii) if you don’t want me to get

close to you, clear it now. I don’t want you to get any other thoughts after

getting close cause otherwise you will regret later… that’s it. In Material Ext. 21,

it is written that:- “I will surrender myself to you on bed.”

To know, as to whose handwriting are there on Material Exts. 20 and 21, he

sent those two material Exhibits along with your long exercise book (Material

Ext. 14) and your specimen handwriting and signature to FSL, Kahilipara. He

also sent the Material Ext. 20 and 21 to FSL to ascertain whether the

handwritings matched with each other. He received the report on 05.01.2018

Page No.# 64/76

and the report opined that all the handwritings were of one and the same

person that is you. What do you have to say on his said depositions?

Answer:- The I.O. didn’t follow the prescribed procedure of law and without

authority he send the victim on the day of alleged occurrence to PS instead of

sending her to hospital. For keeping her in the PS she died there.

Why victim was sent by ambulance to PS instead of govt. van and this in itself

create doubt. Alleged sketch map doesn’t have detailed specification for

identification of spot.

House was locked and key by police himself and the same remained in their

custody even after C.C.

In the PS dead body was shifted from ambulance to govt. dead body carrying

van.

Since the police official is his cross clearly stated actual fact who doesn’t even

know procedure and CRPC.

Entire episode of alleged investigation is nullity of law. The case of suicidal was

tried to be coloured as murder case which required to be discarded.

Question No. 24:- PW-20 S.I. Sudip Choudhury has further deposed at the time

of interrogation, you confessed that once he carried the dead body near R.G.

Baruah College, Fatashil for dumping the dead body. You also led them near

the R.G. Baruah College to show the place. He was accompanied us ACP

Jalukbari, one Pradip Khandelwal and other PS staffs. They did not get any

material there to show that there was any burning or like that. You also told

them that, later on, you took away the body to your house. You kept changing

your statement from time to time. He recorded your statement many times and

on every occasion, you gave different statements. All your recorded

statements are in the case diary. Along with you, he also arrested Kamala Devi

Singhal and Bhavani Singhal. On 12.02.2018, he seized the birth certificate and

a laboratory report of the deceased Sweta Agarwal. Ext. 26 is the seizure list

Page No.# 65/76

and Ext. 26(1) is his signature. The seizure were made from Shri Om Prakash

Agarwal, the father of the deceased Sweta Agarwal. Ext. 27 is the said

laboratory report. From the laboratory report it appeared that the blood group

of Sweta Agarwal was ‘B’ positive. On 12.12.2017, he collected the blood

sample from the motorcycle of Gobind Singhal, in presence of Shri Shankar

Chandra Rabha, Scientific Officer, Serology Division. On 15.12.2017, he

forwarded the blood sample to the FSL Kahilipara through DCP, Crime. He

received the report from the Serology Division of the FSL through DCP, Crime on

06.02.2018. The blood sample which was swept from the motorcycle, on

examination, was found to group ‘B’. Along with the said blood sample, he

also forwarded 2ml. blood sample of the deceased Sweta Agarwal, which had

been collected and preserved. Blood collected from the toilet of your house,

which was collected in cotton gauge, one yellow colour plastic rope

containing stain of suspected blood, one torn and half-burned cloth

containing stain of suspected blood, one black coloured jeans pant

containing stain of suspected blood. The report disclosed that the blood

collected from the PO, the 2ml. blood collected from deceased Sweta

Agarwal, the blood stain found in the yellow colour plastic rope and also the

blood stains found on the black colour jeans pant, all gave positive test for

human blood of the group ‘B’. During investigation, the jeans pant was found

of your and he seized the same. He investigated the case from 4.12.2017 till

filing of the charge sheet. During investigation, he found that it was not a

sudden accidental occurrence and was a pre-planned murder. All the three

accused, that is you, Kamala Devi Singhal and Bhavani Singhal conspired with

each other to commit the murder of Sweta Agarwal. On the date of

occurrence, you took Sweta Agarwal to your hourse from her college, i.e. K.C.

Das Commerce College. You took her in your motorcycle at around 12:40/

12:45 pm. You reached the house, you killed Sweta Agarwal and with the help

of the accused Kamala Devi Singhal and Bhavani Singhal, who happened to

be your mother and sister respectively, took the dead body in a sack and

Page No.# 66/76

thereafter the dead body was taken in a motorcycle to near R.G. Baruah

College, Fatashil. Earlier, the plan was to dump the dead body there. But,

subsequently, the accused, Kamala Devi told your over phone not to dump

the dead body there otherwise, it would be a clear case of murder. As per her

instruction, you took back the dead body to your house and to make it a case

of suicide, all of you poured kerosene all over the dead body and set the dead

body on fire. Your mother also informed the mother of Sweta Agarwal that,

Sweta Agarwal had committed suicide in her house. When he first saw the

dead body at the toilet, it was not in normal shape, but the body was

squeezed. There was also attempt to destroy the evidence after commission of

the murder. You first tried to remove the dead body from your house, but,

brought it back and set the same on fire. All of you had washed the toilet and

poured water on the floor to wash the blood stains from the floor. The

belongings of the deceased were found in your house. What do you have to

say on his said depositions?

Answer:- The I.O. didn’t follow the prescribed procedure of law and without

authority he send the victim on the day of alleged occurrence to PS instead of

sending her to hospital. For keeping her in PS she died there.

Why victim was sent by ambulance to PS instead of govt. van and this is itself

create doubt. Alleged sketch map doesn’t have detailed specification for

identification of spot.

House was locked and key by police himself and the same remained in their

custody even after C.C.

In the PS dead body was shifted from ambulance to govt. dead body carrying

van.

Since the police official in his cross clearly stated actual fact who doesn’t even

know procedure and CRPC.

Entire episode of alleged investigation is nullity of law. The case of suicidal was

tried to be coloured as murder case which required to be discarded.

Page No.# 67/76

Question No. 25:- The testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 proves beyond all

reasonable doubt that you led the Investigating Officer and witnesses to the

house where you had committed the murder of Sweta Agarwal and also

showed them the place where you had concealed the murder weapon and

also led to the discovery of the articles mentioned above and based on your

disclosure statement, the Investigating Officer discovered the same. What do

you have to say on the same?

Answer:- Falsely stated merely throwing stone in the dark can’t lead to a

logical conclusion and entire case failed and hence I am entitled to acquittal,

police didn’t even sphere my lunatic mother including us for false projection of

case.

Question No. 26:- What do you have to say about this case?

Answer:- It is totally a false case and I have been falsely implicated.

Question No. 27:- How Sweta Agarwal sustained the fatal cut wound on her

neck and burn injuries on her body in your house and succumbed to the injuries

in your house and died?

Answer:- I do not know how Sweta Agarwal sustained the cut wound on her

neck and burn injuries on her body. When she was found in my house, she was

alive. I also informed the Bharalumukh Police Station dialing the emergency

No. 100 and told them that Sweta Agarwal had sustained cut wound and burn

injuries and she should be shifted to the hospital. At that time, my mother Smt.

Kamala Devi Singhal and elder sister Smt. Bhavani Singhal were also present in

the house. Had Sweta Agarwal been provided with necessary treatment at

that time, she would have been alive today.

Question No. 28:- What is your education qualifications?

Answer:- I have passed B.Com examination and now studying Chartered

Accountancy in the Institute of Chartered Accountancy of India.

Question No. 29:- What do you have to say about the case?

Page No.# 68/76

Answer:- It is a totally false case and I have been falsely implicated.

Question No. 30:- You may adduce evidence?

Answer:- I want to adduce evidence on my behalf.

(Sd/- Gobind Singhal)

(signature of the accused)

The above examination was taken by me and contains a full and true account

of the statement made by the accused.

Sd/-

Sessions Judge

Kamrup (M), Guwahati.”

42. In the case of Paramjeet Singh vs. State Uttarakhand reported in (2010)10 SCC

439 the Supreme Court , while elaborating on the importance of the statement of

the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, has observed that section 313 CrPC is

based on the fundamental principle of fairness. The attention of the accused must be

specifically brought to the inculpatory piece of evidence so as to give him an

opportunity to offer an explanation if he chooses to do so. Therefore, the court would

be under a legal obligation to put the incriminating circumstances to the accused

and solicit his response. The provision is mandatory in nature and casts an imperative

duty upon the court and confers a corresponding right on the accused to have an

opportunity to offer an explanation for such incriminatory materials appearing

against him.

43. Taking note of the law declared in Paramjeet Singh (supra) and several

decisions governing the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nar Singh vs. State of

Page No.# 69/76

Haryana reported in (2015) 1 SCC 496, has re-examined the scope and ambit of

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and held that section 313 (1)(b) of CrPC aims at bringing

the substance of the accusation to the accused so as to enable him to explain every

circumstance appearing in the evidence against him and as such, the provision is

mandatory and casts a duty upon the court to offer an opportunity to the accused

to explain every incriminating evidence available against him. Having held as above,

it has also been clarified that, whether a trial has been vitiated or not due to non-

compliance of section 313 CrPC would depend on the degree of error or violation

and the accused must show that such non-compliance has materially prejudiced him

or is likely to cause prejudice to him. Having observed as above, the Apex Court, has

laid down the following guiding principles to be followed by the courts which are

reproduced herein below :-

“30. Whenever a plea of omission to put a question to the accused on vital

piece of evidence is raised in the appellate court, courses available to the

appellate court can be briefly summarised as under:-

30.1. Whenever a plea of non-compliance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is raised, it is

within the powers of the appellate court to examine and further examine the

convict or the counsel appearing for the accused and the said answers shall

be taken into consideration for deciding the matter. If the accused is unable to

offer the appellate court any reasonable explanation of such circumstance,

the court may assume that the accused has no acceptable explanation to

offer;

30.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the appellate court comes

to the conclusion that no prejudice was caused or no failure of justice was

occasioned, the appellate court will hear and decide the matter upon merits.

Page No.# 70/76

30.3. If the appellate court is of the opinion that noncompliance with the

provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has occasioned or is likely to have occasioned

prejudice to the accused, the appellate court may direct retrial from the stage

of recording the statements of the accused from the point where the

irregularity occurred, that is, from the stage of questioning the accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the trial Judge may be directed to examine the

accused afresh and defence witness if any and dispose of the matter afresh;

30.4. The appellate court may decline to remit the matter to the trial court for

retrial on account of long time already spent in the trial of the case and the

period of sentence already undergone by the convict and in the facts and

circumstances of the case, may decide the appeal on its own merits, keeping

in view the prejudice caused to the accused.”

44. In Nar Singh (supra) the Apex court had agreed with the stand of the

appellant/ accused on the issue of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of

section 313 CrPC and has held that omission to put every material circumstance to

the accused did not ipso facto vitiate the trial nor was the accused entitled to

acquittal on the ground of such non-compliance but the matter could be sent for

retrial. Accordingly, the case was remitted back to the trial court, after setting aside

the conviction of the accused, with a direction to proceed afresh from the stage of

recording the statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC. While examining the

accused, the trial court was also directed to marshal the evidence on record and put

specific and separate questions to the accused with regard to the incriminating

circumstances and also to offer him an opportunity to examine defense witnesses, if

so advised.

45. Similar view has been expressed by the Apex Court in another decision in the

Page No.# 71/76

case of Reena Hazarika vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 2018 SC 5361 wherein, the

following observations have been made in paragraph 16 which are quoted herein

below :-

“16. Section 313, Cr.P.C. cannot be seen simply as a part of audi alteram

partem. It confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence

and can well be considered beyond a statutory right as a constitutional right to

a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, even if it is not to be considered

as a piece of substantive evidence, nor being on oath under Section 313)2),

Cr.P.C. The importance of this right has been considered time and again by

this court, but it yet remains to be applied in practice as we shall seen presently

in the discussion to follow. If the accused takes a defence after the prosecution

evidence is closed, under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. the Court is duty bound

under Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. to consider the same. The mere use of the word

‘may’ cannot be held to confer a discretionary power on the court to consider

or not to consider such defence, since it constitutes a valuable right of an

accused for access to justice, and the likelihood of the prejudice that may be

caused thereby. Whether the defence is acceptable or not and whether it is

compatible or incompatible with the evidence available is an entirely different

matter. If there has been no consideration at all of the defence taken under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., in the given facts of a case, the conviction may well stand

vitiated. To our mind, a solemn duty is cast on the court in dispensation of

justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. and to either accept or reject the same for reasons

specified in writing.”

46. What crystallizes from the above decisions of the Apex Court is that the

provision of section 313 CrPC is mandatory in nature and the same also confers a

right upon the accused to offer explanation in respect of each of the incriminating

evidence available against him, if so desired. Therefore, the failure on the part of the

Page No.# 72/76

trial judge to comply with section 313 CrPC may vitiate the trial if prejudice can be

shown to have been caused or likely to be caused to the accused.

47. Following the principles laid down in the case of Nar Singh (supra), this court, in

a recent decision rendered in the case of Md. Sahid Khan vs State of Assam [2021 0

Supreme (Gau) 557] had taken note of the failure on the part of the trial court to put

all the incriminating materials to the accused which were relied upon so as to convict

him and on being satisfied that prejudice had been caused to the accused on

account of such non-compliance, set aside the conviction and remitted the matter

to the trial court for re-trial from the stage of recording the statement of the accused

under section 313 CrPC with a direction to the learned court below to frame specific

questions on each incriminating circumstances and to offer an opportunity to the

accused to explain his stand.

48. It is to be borne in mind that the purpose of section 313 CrPC is to afford a fair

opportunity to the accused so as to offer explanation with regard to each

incriminating evidence available against him. During examination of the accused

under section 313 CrPC, the questions are put to the accused orally. Therefore, the

trial court should avoid posing long and arduous queries to the accused and instead

bring to his notice, in a concise form only the incriminating evidence available on

record against him. If the questions put to accused turns out to be very long and

arduous, containing voluminous details or if the same is put in the form of

interrogatories, then the accused would naturally not be in a position to understand

the actual incriminating circumstances available against him and may even fail to

Page No.# 73/76

comprehend the questions in the proper perspective so as to offer an explanation, in

which event, the accused would undoubtedly suffer prejudice. Therefore, it would be

the duty of the trial court to put the substance of all the incriminating circumstances

to the accused by framing specific and separate question on each incriminating

evidence brought on record against him and give an opportunity to the accused to

offer explanation.

49. In the present case, having regard to the manner in which the incriminating

circumstances were brought to the notice of the accused (A-1) while recording his

statements under section 313 CrPC, we are convinced that the accused did not get

a proper opportunity to respond to all the incriminating evidence available against

him in a proper manner. The learned trail Judge was not correct in putting such long

and voluminous questions to the accused pertaining to the incriminating

circumstances. We also find that some of the incriminating evidences were put to the

accused in the form of interrogatories, hinting at some form of predisposition on the

part of the trial Judge against the accused. The learned court below had also failed

to put all the incriminating circumstances to the accused which were eventually

relied upon for his conviction. We are, therefore of the opinion that there was non-

compliance of the mandatory provision of section 313 CrPC. Going by the nature

and degree of non-compliance, as noticed above, there can hardly be any doubt

about the fact that prejudice to the accused was inherent, having a vitiating effect

on the trial. We, therefore, find sufficient force in the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant that a fair trial was denied to his client.

Page No.# 74/76

50. Law is well settled that the more serious the offence, the stricter is the degree

of proof required [ see Paramjeet Singh @Pamma vs State of Uttarkhand (2010) 10

SCC 439 ]. During trial involving heinous crimes, the accused must also be afforded a

fair opportunity to defend his interest. In the present case, the A-1 has been found

guilty by the learned trial court for committing the murder of the deceased Sweta

Agarwal and accordingly, he has been sentenced to death. The evidence brought

on record, in the ultimate analysis, may or may not be sufficient to establish the

charge brought against A-1 beyond reasonable doubt. If the murder charge is

proved as per law then the accused may also deserve stringent punishment.

However, the said aspect of the matter would be relevant only when the accused is

subjected to a fair trial. Regardless of the evidence brought on record by the

prosecution, unless this court is satisfied that the accused was afforded a fair trial and

was given every opportunity to defend himself, the question of affirming conviction

for murder and award of capital punishment would not arise.

51. During the course of hearing Dr. Choudhury has addressed elaborate

arguments ,not only touching upon various issues pertaining to the merit of the case

but also inviting the attention of the court to the lapses on the part of the IO in his

failure to carry out proper investigation in the case. According to Dr. Choudhury,

benefit of such lapses in investigation and trial must go to the accused. Bearing in

mind the recourse that we propose to adopt in this proceeding, we refrain from

expressing any opinion on the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the

appellant at this stage.

Page No.# 75/76

52. For the reasons mentioned here-in above, we set aside the conviction of the

accused Kamala Devi Singhal (A-2) and Ms Bhavani Singhal (A-3). Both the accused

persons are acquitted of the charges brought against them under Sections

120(B)/302/201 of the IPC.

Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.396/2019 stands allowed.

53. In so far as Criminal Appeal No.350/2019 preferred by accused Gobind Singhal

(A-1) is concerned, the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2019 is set aside and the

matter is remitted back to the learned trial court to conduct a re-trial of the case from

the stage of recording the statement of the accused person (A-1) under Section 313

Cr.P.C. In doing so, the learned Sessions Judge would reframe and put specific and

separate questions to the accused pertaining to each incriminating evidence

available against him and thereafter, proceed to decide the case on merit and in

accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this

order. Since the occurrence took place in the year 2017 and in order to ensure

speedy justice, an endeavor may be made by the trial court to conclude the trial as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the

records, if necessary by conducting day to day trial.

54. Dr. Choudhury has produced a copy of the orders passed earlier by this Court

granting bail to the appellant A-1 during trial and submits that in the event the

impugned judgment is interfered with and the case is remanded for re-trial, then the

appellant (A-1) be granted bail. We are not inclined to consider the bail prayer of the

A-1 at this stage. The A-1 is, however, granted liberty to approach the learned trial

Order downloaded on 24-12-2024 06:52:13 PMPage No.# 76/76

court seeking bail by filing appropriate application, if so advised. If such an

application is filed by the A-1, the same be considered on merit and decided in

accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made herein

above.

55. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.350/2019 stands partly allowed.

The Death Ref. No.3/2019 stands answered accordingly.

Both the appeals stand disposed of in terms of the observations and directions

as above.

Registry to transmit the LCR as expeditiously as possible.

JUDGE JUDGE

T U Choudhury, Sr. P.S.

Comparing Assistant