Delhi District Court
State vs Subhash Bera on 3 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-3, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 153/2023
CNR NO. DLSE01-003318-2023
State
Vs.
1) Subhash Bera
S/o. Shri Vishwanath Bera
R/o. 89, 1st Floor, Zamrudpur,
GK-1, New Delhi.
And Village Boro Khela Khali,
PS Ram Nagar, PO Khela Khali
District South 24 Paragana,
West Bengal
FIR No. 225/2022
PS: G.K.
U/s: 302 IPC
Instituted on : 10.02.2023
Committed on : 04.03.2023
Reserved on : 16.05.2026
Decided on : 03.07.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Subhash Bera has been sent to face trial for the offence
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.1 of 67
punishable under Section 302 IPC, on the allegations that between 7.30
PM on 13.11.2022 to 6.30 AM on 14.11.2022 at House No. 89, 1 st Floor,
Zamrudpur, GK-I, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Greater
Kailash-I, he committed murder of his wife namely Pallavi Bera by
strangulation and smothering.
2. Brief Facts: The case of the prosecution is that on 14.11.2022, the
accused, Subhash Bera, visited Police Station Greater Kailash and
informed the police that a quarrel had taken place between him and his
wife, Pallavi Bera, during which he had strangulated and murdered her.
2.1 Thereafter, upon the registration of DD No. 7A, SI Pooran Chand
Sharma, along with Ct. Yogesh and the accused Subhash Bera, proceeded
to the residence of the accused (the place of occurrence). Upon reaching
the spot, the wife of the accused was found lying on the floor in an
unresponsive condition. She was immediately shifted to AIIMS, where she
was declared “brought dead” by the attending doctors.
2.2 Subsequently, the matter was reported to the SHO, and the crime
team was summoned to the scene. After completing the necessary
investigation at the spot, and on the basis of the statement of the mother of
the deceased, medical documents, and other surrounding circumstances, SI
Pooran Chand Sharma prepared the rukka, on the basis of which the
present FIR was registered.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.2 of 67
3. The investigation culminated in the filing of a final report/
chargesheet under section 173 CrPC against the accused for the offence
punishable under section 302 IPC.
CHARGE
4. Upon completion of investigation and after necessary formalities,
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Vide order dated
20.03.2023, charge for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was
framed against the accused Subhash Bera to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
5. Record reveals that during course of trial, accused admitted
following documents of prosecution in terms of section 294 Cr.PC:-
i Photographs of deceased already exhibited as Ex. P1 (Colly).
ii Scene of Crime report prepared by SI Balwant Singh Ex. P2.
iii The subsequent opinion of the Doctor Vide Ex. PW30/P-4.
iv The subsequent opinion of the Doctor Vide Ex. PW30/P-5.
v The examination report of FSL Rohini dated 01.03.2025
pertaining to the footage Ex. MO-X, prepared by Dr. Bharti
Bhardwaj, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Rohini, Ex. P6.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
6. In support of its allegations, prosecution produced 30 witnesses. A
summary of the witnesses produced and their connection with the incident
is as follows :
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.3 of 67
Witness Witness Name Purpose
No.
PW1 Dr. Dheeraj Kumar He had medically examined the
accused vide MLC Ex. PW1/A.PW2 Dr. Ruchi Kumari He alongwith Dr. Jay Narayan had
conducted the autopsy/ post-
mortem examination upon the dead
body of deceased Pallavi Bera,
vide postmortem report Ex. PW2/B
and she opined that the antemortem
injuries, as mentioned in her report,
were caused due to strangulation
and smothering.
PW3 Dr. Virendra Singh He had medically examined the
Jadeja deceased vide MLC Ex.PW3/A.
PW4 Mr. Promila Manna She is the mother of deceased
Pallavi Bera and is a material
witness.
PW5 Ms. Parimal Manna She is the sister of PW4 Ms.
Pramila Manna (mausi of
deceased) who identified victim's
dead body.
PW6 Mr. Chatar Pal He is a material witness.
PW7 Ms. Suman She was one of the tenants of the
building, where accused alongwith
his wife and daughter was living.
She is also a material witness.
PW8 Mr. Sunny Yadav He was another tenant in the
building where accused alongwith
his wife and daughter was living.
He is also a material witness.
PW9 Mr. Madhav Sahis He is also a material witness.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.4 of 67
PW10 HC Jitender He deposed that on 14.11.2022,
accused along with his daughter
visited at PS and told that "maine
apni patni ko gala dabakar mar
diya hain aur patni ki dead body
ghar per hi hai".
PW11 ASI Surender Rathi He was the duty officer, who made
endorsement on rukka Ex. PW11/B
and thereafter got registered the
present FIR Ex. PW11/A.
PW12 ACP Mukesh Kumar He alongwith Insp. Prem Singh and
Jain, Draftsman SI Pooran Chand visited the scene
of crime and took measurement
and thereafter prepared the scaled
site plan Ex. PW12/A.
PW13 ASI Jasram He deposed that in the intervening
night of 13/14.11.2022 accused
alongwith her daughter had visited
the PS and told that 'he had killed
his wife namely Pallavi by
strangulation and her dead body
was lying at the house'.
PW14 Ct. Manipal On 14.11.2022, he reached at the
spot and thereafter took the dead
body to AIIMS Hospital and
handed over the MLC of the
deceased to Ct. Yogesh.
PW15 Ct. Sandeep He alongwith SI Pooran Chand, Ct.
Yogesh and Tehsildar went to
AIIMS Mortuary and that
Tehsildar had inspected the dead
body and thereafter the postmortem
of the dead body was got
conducted.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.5 of 67
PW16 SI Devi Charan He was Incharge on E-29 PCR Van
and he alongwith Ct. Manipal took
the dead body of Pallabi Bera to
AIIMS Hospital.
PW17 Mr. Damandeep Singh, On the direction of SDM, he
Section Officer, DM visited the Police Station and
Office recorded the statement of mother
of the deceased Ex. PW4/A;
prepared the death report Ex.
PW17/B; recorded the statement of
brother of the deceased Parimal Ex.
PW17/C; prepared a request for
postmortem Ex. PW17/E.
PW18 Mr. Parveen Kumar, He proved the documents in
Nodal Officer, Reliance respect of the mobile phone nos.
Jio. 743xxxx561 and 8860497208 i.e.
CAF, copy of Aadhar Card,
certificate u/s. 65B IEA and CDR.
PW19 ASI Braham Prakash, He had taken the photographs of
Mobile Crime Team the scene of crime Ex. PH1 (Colly)
and Ex. PH2 (Colly).
PW20 Ct. Jitender He visited the office of Nodal
Officer and collected the CDR of
mobile no. 908xxxx789 and also
deposited the sealed exhibit to
FSL, Rohini.
PW21 Mr. Saurabh Pathak, He had conducted the biological
Chemical Examiner, examination of the exhibits and
RFSL proved FSL report Ex. PW21/P1.
PW22 Dr. Biswajit Santra, He had conducted the chemical
Chemical Examiner examination of the exhibits vide
his report Ex. PW22/P1.
PW23 ASI H.P. Tiwari He alongwith HC Jagdish took the
accused to AIIMS Hospital and gotSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.6 of 67
conducted his medical examination
and handed over the exhibits to IO
SI P.C. Sharma, who seized the
same Ex. PW23/P1.
PW24 Dr. Zahid Ali He proved the postmortem report
Ex. PW2/B, prepared by Dr. Jai
Narayan.
PW25 Mr. Shashant Tyagi, He proved the documents in
Nodal Officer respect of the mobile phone no.
9083302789 i.e. CAF, CDR and
certificate u/s. 65B IEA.
PW26 SI Balwant He inspected the spot and proved
the crime scene report prepared by
him Ex. P2.
PW27 W/Ct. Alka She reached at the spot, where IO
SI Pooran Chand handed over her
his seal bearing impression PCS
vide handing over memo Ex.
PW27/P1.
PW28 HC Krishan He removed the DVR from Duty
officer room and copied two sets of
CCTV footage dated 14.11.2022,
which were seized by the IO vide
seizure memo Ex. PW28/P1.
PW29 SI Pooran Chand Sharma He is the first Investigating Officer
(IO).
PW30 IO / Inspector Prem He is the second IO of the present
Singh case and deposed about the
investigation conducted by him.
7. MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD: The testimony of material
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.7 of 67
witnesses is being discussed hereinunder (with suitable grammatical
corrections) whereas brief of remaining testimonies has already been given
in the preceding paragraph.
8. PW4 Ms. Promila Manna, is the mother of the deceased and her
testimony reads as under:
“I am native of above said permanent address and was residing
at house No. B-252, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi at the time of
incident.
The name of my deceased daughter was Pallavi Bera. She was
married with Subhash Bera prior to four years of the present incident.
She was residing at Khola Khali PS Ram Nagar Distt. South 24
Pargana, West Bengal alongwith her husband and in-laws after her
marriage. My daughter was blessed with a daughter which was of
about two years at the time of incident whose name is Soniya Bera.
After marriage of my daughter, her husband Subhash Bera was
having suspicion upon her due to which quarrel used to take place by
Subhash Bera with her. The husband of my daughter was not having
any work due to which I called him to Delhi prior to two months of
the incident. My daughter and her daughter also came with him. I got
arranged a room on rent for an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month for
them at Jamrudhpur. I got arranged a job of security guard at S Block,
GK-1 for Subhash Bera for a salary of Rs. 11,000/- per month.
Subhash Bera used to send his salary amount to his village as he had
to pay the loan amount. He asked me to bear his household expenses
for six months as he had to send his salary amount to his village for
paying the loan. I was working in a kothi and due to paucity of time, ISC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.8 of 67
occasionally used to visit my daughter room and I asked one of my
friend Madhav to arrange some house hold articles to my daughter
and her husband. Whenever any need is required to them, I told
Subhash Bera to contact Madhav for their requirement.
On 13.11.2022 at about 7 – 7:30 p.m., my daughter had called
me on my mobile phone and told that she had gone with her husband
at Fish market yesterday. The shopkeeper had asked my daughter
“beti kaisi ho” on which my daughter told that she was well. On
hearing the same, Subhash Bera had suspicion upon her and told my
daughter that if she used to continue to talk to the shopkeeper and then
he will kill my daughter. After hearing the same, my daughter came
into fear and asked me to come at her room and take her from there. I
told my daughter that I will come in the morning hours and will
discuss the matter with her husband Subhash Bera and if required, I
will send them to native village.
On 14.11.2022 at about 6:30 a.m., I had received a phone call
from police officials of PS GK-1 on my mobile phone and he asked
me to come at PS GK-1. Thereafter, I reached at PS GK-1. After
sometime, my brother Parimal also reached at PS GK-1. At the PS I
came to know that my son in law accused Subhash Bera had murdered
my daughter after strangulating her. SI Puran Chand had handed over
custody of my grand daughter Soniya to me. My statement was
recorded by the Tehsildar, which is Ex.PW4/A which bears my
signature at point A, B and C.I had gone at the mortuary of AIIMS, New Delhi where I had
identified dead body of my daughter vide identification statement
Ex.PW4/B which bears my signature at point A. After postmortem,
the dead body of my deceased daughter was handed over to us vide
handing over memo Ex.PW4/C which bears my signature at point ASC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.9 of 67
for last rituals.
I used to call by the name of Promila and Lali in the house,
however, as per documents, my name is Pramila. I was knowing
Madhav who resides at S Block, GK-I as I also used to work in the
kothi at S Block GK-I as such I was knowing him for the last 5 / 6
years. I asked him to arrange some job for accused Subhash Bera.
Madhav and accused Subhash Bera had exchanged their mobile
number with each other. After getting the job, accused Subhash Bera
used to be in touch with Madhav who was also working in the same
vicinity where Subhash Bera was doing his job. Madhav treat my
daughter as his sister, due to which accused Subhash Bera was having
suspicion about her relation with Madhav and accused had threatened
my daughter not to talk with him otherwise he will kill her.
On 13.12.2022, I had handed over the photographs of marriage
of my daughter Pallavi Bera and accused Subhash Bera to police,
which were taken into possession by police vide seizure memo
Ex.PW4/D which bears my signature at point A. The photographs are
Ex.P-1 (colly) which bears my signature at point A on the backside of
the photographs.
My statements were recorded by the police. Accused Subhash
Bera is present in Court today and correctly identified by witness.
At this stage, the photographs already exhibited as
Ex.PH-1(colly) shown to the witness who identified the photographs
of her daughter Pallavi Bera and the room wherein my daughter was
residing with her husband.
At this PEN drive, attached with file is played on the system
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.10 of 67
of Court. The CCTV camera installed at PS GK-I. The date on the
CCTV footage is 01.11.2022 at 14:19:16 hrs., which is played and
witness had identified the accused carrying his daughter Soniya in his
lap near the DO room of PS GK-1.
During her cross-examination, she inter alia deposed as under:-
Neither me nor deceased made any complaint against the
accused regarding allegations of illicit relationship or harassment
caused by him.
Pallavi has told me that accused would kill her if she would
not mend her character, I did not make any call in this regard. I told
Pallavi that since I would not be able to take leave from my employer,
I would come to her next morning. Since there was party in the kothi
where I was working.
It is wrong to suggest that the deceased had illicit relations
with Madhav. It is wrong to suggest that when the accused objected
the same and desired to take his wife back to Bengal, I objected and
said to the accused that I myself would kill her. It is wrong to suggest
that since Madhav had illicit relations with the deceased and it is for
that reason, he used to send money and other items / eatable and
clothes to her.
It is wrong to suggest that when accused came to know about
illicit relation of the deceased, he wanted to take her back to Bengal. It
is wrong to suggest that on that account, an altercation had taken place
between them one day prior to the incident. It is wrong to suggest that
due to said quarrel, accused consumed liquor and went away
somewhere and in her absence, myself and Madhav killed theSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.11 of 67
deceased. It is wrong to suggest that when accused returned to home,
Pallavi had already died and accused went to police station for giving
information in that regard. It is wrong to suggest that accused has
been falsely implicated in the present case or that I am deposing
falsely.
(emphasis supplied)
9. PW6 is Chatar Pal and his testimony is reads as under:
“I am a driver by profession. The above mentioned house is my
ancestral house. This is a four storey house including ground floor.
We live on the second floor and the rest of the floors have been let out
to the tenants.
Accused Subhash Bera, present in the Court, correctly
identified, had been my tenant on the first floor of the said premises.
He had started living as a tenant from the month of October, 2022. I
do not remember the exact date. He had vacated the tenanted premises
after the present incident. Accused had been living in the said
premises along with his wife and his two year old daughter. He was
paying Rs. 4,000/- as a tenant. No written agreement was executed
between me and the accused Subhash Bera. However, I had got the
police/ tenant verification of the accused conducted. Copy of the
same is Ex. PW6/A bearing my signature at point A. The photograph
pasted on the said verification form Ex. PW6/A are the photographs
of the accused/tenant.
I handed over copy of the said verification form to the police
and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.
PW6/B, bearing my signature at point A.SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.12 of 67
During the stay of the accused as a tenant at my premises once
accused had asked the telephone number of the daughter of one of our
tenant Smt. Suman stating that whenever she notice somebody
coming to the tenanted premises of the accused, she should inform
him. The said Smt. Suman is still my tenant. Accused used to suspect
his wife to have illicit relation with one Madhav.
On 13.11.2022, at about 11 pm while I was present at my
second floor residence, I had heard a noise of quarrel at first floor. I
came down there. In the meantime, one of our tenants, Sh. Sunny
Yadav also came up there, who was also residing at the first floor.
There are five rooms on the first floor occupied by different tenants
including the accused. When I came down on the first floor and saw
that a quarrel was going between the accused and his wife, Smt.
Pallavi Bera. When I asked the accused why he was quarreling with
his wife, he said to me that “Pallavi Ka Ek Aadmi Madhav Ke Saath
Chakkar Hai Aur Ye Agar Chakkar Khatam Nahi Karegi Toh Mei
Isey Maar Dunga.” Pallavi did not say anything at that time. We
pacified both the accused and his wife and thereafter I went to my
second floor residence.
Next day i.e. 14.11.2022 at about about 03:00 am when I got up
to fill water and had gone to the first floor of my house to see, if some
water tap is opened in a tenanted room, I suddenly saw the accused
coming out of his room along with his said daughter and he was also
carrying a polythene bag. After coming out of the room, he bolted the
room from outside. When I asked the accused where he was going, he
said to me that he was taking his daughter to hospital as he was not
feeling well. Accused went away with his daughter and I also went to
my residence on second floor.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.13 of 67
At about 4:30 am, accused along with his daughter and two
police officials came to my said house. At that time, I was present on
the ground floor of my house. Accused took the said police officials
to his rented room on the first floor and I also followed him. After
reaching them, accused opened his room from outside which he had
already bolted and, “Police Walo Ko Ishara Kiya Apni Wife Ko
Dikhane Ke Liye”. During that course, I also saw the wife of the
accused lying on the floor of the room and there was no movement in
her body.
At that time, I had also asked the accused, what happened to his
wife. He said to me, “Maine Apni Patni Pallavi Ko Maar Diya.” I
went to my second floor residence and at that time, police conducted
its proceedings.
On 15.11.2022, Inspector Prem Singh and SI Puran Chand
Sharma came to my house and made inquiry from me about the
incident and tenant verification form qua the tenancy of the accused. I
handed them over the said tenant verification form Ex. PW6/A, which
was seized by them vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/B.During the course of investigation, I was also shown the CCTV
footage by the police wherein I had identified the accused Subhash
Bera to be my tenant and his daughter being carried by him at that
time.
At this stage, a pen drive is taken out from judicial file and
played on the computer system of the Court. Same is shown to the
witness and he is asked to identify the accused, if he is visible in the
footage. After seeing the footage, witness identified the accused to be
his tenant, Subhash Bera. It is further stated that accused is visible inSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.14 of 67
the said video is wearing the same cloths, which he was wearing at the
time he left the house stating to me that he was taking his daughter to
hospital on the pretext of she being ill.
The pendrive containing CCTV footage is now marked as Ex.
MO-1.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP for the State seeks permission with
regard to the date of commencement of tenancy of the accused.
Heard. Allowed.
Q. I put to you that you have forgotten the date of commencement
of tenancy of the accused and stated that it commenced from the
month of October 2022 whereas the correct date of the
commencement of tenancy is 23.09.2022. What do you have to say ?
A. The correct date of commencement of tenancy is 23.09.2022.
During his cross-examination, he inter alia deposed as under:-
“Before 13.11.2022, I did not see the accused quarreling or
arguing with his wife. I was about to sleep when I heard the noise
coming from the first floor. Only I came down to the second floor,
my other family members were still there on the second floor.
It is wrong to suggest that I did not see the accused going out
of the room along with his daughter on the pretext of taking her to
hospital as stated by me. It is wrong to suggest that never had any
conversation with the accused either on 13.11.2022 or 14.11.2022. It
is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the behest of the
police officials/IO, being landlord of the accused.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. PW7 is Smt. Suman and her testimony reads as under:
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.15 of 67
“Originally we belong to District-Badayu, U.P. I along with my
family am living at the above said address for the last seven years.
The said premises belongs to Sh. Chatar Pal. We are paying Rs.
5,000/- per month as a tenant. There are five rooms built on each
floor of the said building including the first floor where we were
residing. Accused Subhash Bera, present in the Court, correctly
identified, was also residing as a tenant along with his wife and his
two year old daughter in a room on the same floor of the building.
There was a gap two rooms between the room of the accused and my
room.
On 13.11.2022, at about 7 pm, the accused came to my room
and asked my 20 year old daughter to provide him her number stating
that if someone visits his room at his back, she should inform him that
he would also call her to confirm the said fact. I said to him that
“Mei Apni Jawan Beti Ka Number Nahi Dungi.” Thereafter, accused
went away and I went to my room. At about 9 pm on the same day, I
along with my family went to attend the marriage of daughter of my
maternal uncle and that when we returned next morning at about 6
am, we saw that 4/5 police officials present at the room of the accused
and came to know that accused had committed murder of his wife. At
that time, the body of wife of the accused was still lying in the room.
Police made inquiry regarding the said incident from me and
recorded my statement on 15.11.2022.
Accused remained tenant at the building in question for about
one and a half month prior to the present incident.
During his stay at the said room, I did not hear any quarrel
between accused and his wife.
(emphasis supplied)
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.16 of 67
11. PW8 is Mr. Sunny Yadav and his testimony reads as under:
“I had been a tenant at a room on the first floor premises no.
89, First Floor, Jamrud Pur, Greater kailash-I, New Delhi-110048,
belonging to Chatar Pal for about 4 year. Now I have left the
premises in the month of March 2023 and shifted to the above given
address.
Accused Subhash Bera present in the Court, correctly identified,
along with his wife and his two years daughter, was also residing as a
tenant in a room adjoining to my room on the first floor of the said
building. He lived there for about one and a half month. I was
residing in the said room along with my mother.
On 13.11.2022 at about 11 pm, when I was present at my said
room, I saw the accused was quarreling with his wife. Accused used
to suspect his wife to have illicit relation with somebody. I further
saw that landlord of the building Sh. Chatar Pal coming there. He
pacified the accused not to quarrel with his wife, namely Pallavi. I
heard the accused saying that his wife has illicit relation with
somebody. Even prior to 13.11.2022, accused had made inquired
from me, if somebody visits his room at his back. I said to him that I
never saw anybody visiting his room behind his back.
Next morning at about 4:45 am, when I was sleeping, I heard a
sound as if somebody present outside the room and moving around, I
woke up and saw that two police officials standing outside the room
of the accused. Accused was also standing there along with his
daughter. I further saw, my landlord Chatar Pal present there. When
I peeped into the room of the accused, I further saw that the wife ofSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.17 of 67
the accused was lying on the floor of the room and appeared to be
dead. Since the said police officials were doing their work, I went to
my room.
Next morning police made inquiry from me regarding the
present case and recorded my statement.
(emphasis supplied)
12. PW9 is Madhav Sahis and his testimony is reads as under:
“I never attended school. I cannot read in the language but I put
my signature in Hindi. I am working as cook-cum-driver at their of
given address. I belong to District Purulia West Bengal. I am working
as given address for the last 23 years.
The mother-in-law (saas) of the accused present in the court
(correctly identified) namely Ms. Parmila Manna @ Lali was known
to me for the last 7/8 years as she was also working as made in the
same block where I was working. One and half month prior to the
incident, Lali said to me to get the accused employed and he had
come to Delhi from the native place for the purpose. I assured her that
I would let her know if I would find some work for him. I also asked
her to give my mobile number to her son-in-law/damad/accused
Subhash Bera.
By the time, accused made me call on my mobile number given
to him by her mother-in-law, he had already got employment at some
house in S-Block, GK-I. Thereafter, he started talking to me and I also
started to go to her rental room at Zamrudpur, New Delhi. Wife of the
accused (Ms. Pallavi) also started talking to me and I used to consider
her as my sister.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.18 of 67
The mother-in-law of the accused had also requested to take
care of her daughter/ wife of the accused and also to provide financial
assist if she needed the same. I had also transferred Rs. 2,000/- from
the PayTM in the account of wife of the accused. Later, accused
started raising suspicious in regard to relation with his my wife.
On 11.11.2022, I again transferred Rs. 25,000/- in the account
of wife of the accused from my Paytm account. I made call to the
accused to ensure that if the said amount had credited in the said
account of his wife. Thereafter, accused grew grudge against me and
said to me “Meri bibi se dur ho jau nahi to mai tujhe ya meri bibi ko
mar daluga.”
On 12.11.2022, the mother-in-law of the accused visited his
room and she also called me there to return the said Rs. 25,00/- which
I had given to her daughter/wife of the accused. I reached there at
about 04:00 PM. Mother-in-law of the accused return the said money
to me and I came back to my room. At about 07:00 pm, on the same
day, While I was going to Airport to pick my employer, wife of the
accused, his daughter and his mother-in-law(Pallavi) met me on the
way and she asked me to drop his daughter/wife of the accused on the
way leading to her room. Accordingly, she boarded the Honda City
Car and I dropped her near Zamrudpur Chauk and proceeded for
Airport.
On 13.11.2022, at about 01:00 PM, while I had gone to M-
Block, GK-I, to drop my employer at restaurant, accused made me
call on my mobile phone. I told him that I was driving vehicle and
would talked to him later. I returned my room. I made call to the wife
of the accused and inquired from her that accused had call to me and
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.19 of 67
was there some urgent work. She feigned ignorance about any such
work. On the same day, at about 07:00 Pm I made call to the accused,
he was quite angry at that time and that “ulti palti baat kar rha that aur
kah rha that meri bibi se mila hai aur tum dono ko mar dunga aur tum
dur ho jao.” I cut the conversation. At about 07:45 pm, when I was
going to fetch bread from the market, accused met me there near the
gate S-Block. I tried to made him understand and to clear all the
suspicious doubt about the relation with his wife. I said to him “mera
aisa koi relation nahi hai tumhe galatfahami hai.” Thereafter, I
returned to my room and accused also went away his room.
On 14.11.2022, at about 07:15 am, I made call to mother-in-law
of the accused to apprise her that “accused mera sath batmiji kar rha
tha”, however, at the moment she picked the car, she started weeping.
When I inquired about the weeping, she replied to me “vah (accused)
meri beti ko gala dabakar mar diya.” On the same day, at about 07:30
pm, mother-in-law of the accused telephone me to inquire that if I
would be able to attend the cremation of wife of the accused/her
daughter. I expressed my inability to attend the same as I was
preoccupied and I had not much time to proceed there.
On 15.11.2022, I was called by the police at PS GK-I where I
disclosed the said fact to Insp. Prem Singh who also recorded my
statement.
(emphasis supplied)
13. PW13 is ASI Jasram and his testimony reads as under:
On 13.11.2022, I was posted as ASI at PS GK I and was
working as duty officer in the intervening night 13/14.11.2022 from
12 mid night to 08:00 AM. During my duty hours at about 03:55 AM,SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.20 of 67
one person came to my room with a minor girl of 02 years old and he
told his name as Subhash Bera. He further told me that he had killed
his wife namely Pallabi by strangulation and her dead body was lying
at the house. At that time, HC Jitender was also sitting with me. In
this regard I recorded DD No. 7A at 04:10 AM. I have brought the
true copy of the said DD and placed on record. The DD No. 7A is
now Ex. PW13/A which bears my signature at point A.In pursuance of the said DD the inquiry was entrusted upon SI
Pooran Chand Sharma who went to the house of Subhash Bera with
Ct. Yogesh and lady Ct. Alka who was sent by me later on. The above
person namely Subhash Bera is now accused present in court today.
(Correctly identified by the witness). IO recorded my statement in this
regard.
Q. Did you inform the SHO about the information given by
accused to you?
Ans. Yes, I had informed the SHO.
Q. Whether the SHO had asked you to register the FIR or not?
Ans. No. He did not asked me to register the FIR, however he
directed me to send some IO to the spot for inquiry.
(emphasis supplied)
13.1 During his cross-examination on behalf of defence, he
denied the suggestion that accused had told that his wife was killed by
some unknown person and did not tell him (witness) that he committed
murder of his wife.
14. PW27 is W/Ct. Alka and her testimony reads as under:
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.21 of 67
On 14.11.2022 I was posted at PS GK I. On that day I was
directed by ASI Jasram Duty officer to report SI Pooran Chand at the
spot i.e. H. NO. 89, First Floor, Jamrudpur. Upon reaching there, IO
SI Pooran chand met along with the staff. On the direction of the IO I
entered in a room at first floor where I saw one lady was lying. I
checked the body of the said lady and she was not responding. I had
noticed the sign of injuries on the left side of her face and on the neck.
I had told the same to the IO at the spot. The name of the said lady
was revealed as Pallavi Bera. Thereafter I was led to go to PS. In the
PS SI Pooran Chand gave me sealed bearing impression PCS and the
IO prepared handing over memo of the same which is Ex.PW27/P1
which bears my signature at point A. IO recorded my statement in this
regard.
(emphasis supplied)
15. PW28 is HC Krishan and his testimony reads as under:
“On 19.12.2022 I was posted at PS Greater Kailash. The CCTV
Cameras and the DVR thereof were installed in the Duty Officer room
were in my control / supervision. On that day, on the asking of the IO
I removed the DVR i.e. from the Duty officer room and copied the
two sets of CCTV Footage pertaining to date 14.11.2022 from 03:57
AM to 04:00 AM in two pendrives made Sandisk.
I had told the IO that due to some fault wrong date and time
were showing in the cameras and the said footage was showing as to
pertaining to 01.11.2022 between 14:17:00 hours to 14:20:00 hours
whereas the actual date of the footage was pertaining to date
14.11.2022 between 03:57 AM to 04:00 AM. That is how the CCTV
Footage was showing later date i.e. 12 days 13 hours 40 minutes.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.22 of 67
The IO had checked the CCTV Footage in the computer. The IO
kept one pendrive in a one transparent container and sealed it with the
seal of PS. The another pendrive kept in file for investigation
purposes. The IO seized both the pendrive through seizure memo Ex.
PW28/P1 which bears my signature at point A. I had given a
certificate u/s 65 B of IEA regarding the genuineness of the footage to
the IO. Certificate is Ex. PW28/P2 which bears my signature at point
A. I can identify the pendrive and footage if shown to me.
At this stage, Ld LAC with the accused do not dispute the
identity and the footage as identity of the pendrive and the footage
had already been established and exhibited as Ex. MO-1 colly.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. PW29 is the first IO SI Pooran Chand Sharma and his testimony
reads as under:
“On 13.11.2022 I was posted at PS G.K.-I. On that day I was
on emergency duty from 08.00 pm to 08.00 am on 14.11.2022. During
my duty hours at about 04.10 am one DD No. 7A vide Ex. PW-13/A was
received regarding the commission of murder of wife of Subhash Bera. I
perused the DD and as per the same the accused Subhash Bera himself
got recorded the said DD 7A wherein he stated that a quarrel took place
between him and his wife Pallavi then he killed his wife after
strangulated her neck.
On receiving the said DD I alongwith Ct. Yogesh took the
accused the Subhash Bera to the place of incident ie.e. H.No. 89,First
Floor, Zamrood Pur, G.K. The accused Subhash opened the door of theSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.23 of 67
room at first floor then I saw one lady was lying on the floor upon a
paper board (gatta). The name of the said lady was revealed as Pallavi
Bera. Lady Ct. Alka was also with me and she checked the body of
Pallavi and she was not responding.
I then informed the SHO and also called the crime team. The
SHO reached the spot alongwith the spot. The crime team inspected the
spot and clicked the photographs which are already Ex. PH-1 to PH-2
(Colly). The Crime Team collected the exhibits from the scene of crime
i.e. Two printed bedsheets, one card board cover of washing machine. I
sealed the exhibits with the seal of PCS and seized the same through
seizure Memo Ex. PW-29/P1 bears my signature at point A. The dead
body of the deceased was sent to AIIMS though Ct. Main Pal and we
returned to PS with the accused Subhash Bera. I conducted the cursory
search of Subhash and recovered two mobile phone make Vivo and
Poko. Both the mobile phones were sealed in two separate parcels with
the seal of PCS and mark given A to the parcel of Vivo phone and Mark
B given to the parcel of Poko phone. I seized both the mobile phone
through seizure memo Ex. PW29/PA which bears my signature at point
A.Thereafter, Ct. Mainpal brought the MLC from Hospital
wherein the lady was declared as brought dead. On enquiry the accused
told us that he was married to the deceased about two and a half years
ago. Then I called the SDM and informed the parents of deceased. I
filled in the medical examination form and sent to AIIMS hospital
through HC Jagdish and ASI Hari Parsad Tiwari.
The mother of the deceased reached at PS. Subhash Bera was
having his minor female child. I handed over the said child to the moter
of the deceased. The Tehsildar Hauz Khas Sh. Damanjeet singh also
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.24 of 67
reached at the PS who recorded the statement of mother of the deceased
namely Manna. HC Jagdish and ASI Hari Parsad Tiwari returned to PS
from Hospital and brought six sealed parcels pertaining to the body of
deceased collected for the purpose of evidence. They brought the same
in sealed condition with sample seal. I seized the same through seizure
memo Ex. PW-23/P1 bearing my signature at point B. Thereafter, the
postmortem upon the deadbody was conducted. The statement of the
relatives were recorded regarding the identification of deceased. After
the postmortem the deadbody was handed over to the legal heirs. After
the postmortem Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Yogesh brought 08 sealed exhibits
with sample seal. I seized the same through memo Ex. PW15/A bears
my signatures at point B. They had also brought the visra of deceased
with sample seal. I also seized the same through seizure memo Ex.
PW-15/B bears my signatures at point B.
Thereafter, on the basis of the statement of the mother of the
deceased medical papers and other circumstances I prepared Rukka Ex.
PW29/P-2 bears my signatures at point A and got registered the present
FIR No. 225 dated 14.11.2022. After registration of the FIR the
investigation was assigned to Insp. Prem Singh I then handed over all the
documents prepared by me and the accused to Insp. Prem Singh the I/O.
Accused Subhash Bera is present in the Court today (witness correctly
identified the accused today).
I alongwith the IO went to the spot. The prepared the rough site
plan of the place occurrence. The same is Ex. PW29-P-3 bears my
signatures at point A. Then the IO made enquiry from the landlord and
recorded his statement. The landlord gave the police verification form
regarding the deceased and the accused which was seized by the IO. The
IO also examined the neighbor of the deceased and thereafter we
returned to PS. The IO interrogated the accused and then he was arrested
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.25 of 67
by him in this case. The IO prepared the arrest Memo of accused which
is Ex. PW-29/P-4 bears my signature at point A. The IO conducted the
personal search of the accused vide Memo Ex. PW-29/P5 which bears
my signatures at point A. IO recorded the disclosure statement of the
accused vide Ex. PW29/P-6 bears my signature at point A. IO then
recorded my statement.
He identified the case property as under:-
(i). Bed sheet white colour (seized from the spot) – Ex.PW29/MO-1
(ii). Bed sheet blue printed (seized from the spot) – Ex.PW29/MO-2
(iii). Cardboard cover of washing machine (seized from the spot) –
Ex.PW29/MO-3.
(iv). Mobile phone make Vivo golden colour (recovered from accused
Subhash) – Ex.MO-A.
(v). Mobile phone (recovered from accused Subhash) – Ex.MO-B.
He identified accused Subhash Bera is in Court.”
(emphasis supplied)
16.2 During his cross-examination on behalf of defence, he
denied the suggestion that accused did not confess his involvement in the
present case or that DD No. 7A is a false and fabricated document. He
denied the suggestion that accused Subhash alongwith his minor reached
the police station only for police help when he finds his wife in
unconscious condition.
17. PW30 is the second IO Inspector Prem Singh, who deposed
that on 14.11.2022 further investigation of this case was assigned to him
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.26 of 67
and that he inspected the scene of crime at Zamrudpur, prepared the site
plan and seized the tenant verification form from the landlord. He further
deposed that thereafter he arrested the accused and conducted his personal
search and recorded his disclosure statement.
17.1. He further deposed that during investigation he obtained the
photographs of scene of crime Ex. PH1 (Colly) and Ex. PH2 (Colly); CDR
of deceased Pallavi and Madhav Sahis; PM report Ex. PW2/B; seized the
photographs of marriage between accused and deceased Ex.PW4/Q; seized
the CCTV footage of the camera installed in the PS vide seizure memo Ex.
PW28-P1 and also obtained the subsequent given by the doctor Ex.
PW30/P4 pertaining to accused and Ex. PW30/P-5 pertaining to deceased.
17.2 He further deposed that during investigation he got prepared the
scaled site plan Ex. PW12/A from the draughtsman; received the FSL
result Ex. PW20/P1 and after completing investigation prepared the charge
sheet and filed the same in the Court.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC:
18. Examined under section 313 of CrPC, the accused either pleaded
ignorance about the incriminating evidence or denied the same as
incorrect. He claimed to be falsely implicated and stated as under:-
“It is a false case. I have been falsely implicated in the present case by
my mother in law in connivance with the police officials and Madhav
Sahis with whom my wife was having illicit relationship. I had not
committed murder of my wife. On the day of incident I came fromSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.27 of 67
outside and found my wife dead and thereafter, I went to police station
for help, police officials accompanied with me to my house but
thereafter, on the false testimony of my mother in law and in order to
solve a blind murder case, they falsely implicated me in the present
case. Police officials did not investigate the matter properly and fairly.
I have done nothing wrong. I am innocent.”
18.1 Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
19. Thereafter, final arguments were advanced by both the
parties.
20. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has
successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances
pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. It was contended that
the testimony of PW4 Promila Manna (mother of the deceased) is natural,
trustworthy, and inspires confidence, particularly with respect to the
motive, prior conduct of the accused, and the immediate circumstances
preceding the incident. Her deposition regarding the persistent suspicion
harboured by the accused and the threats extended by him to the deceased
stands duly corroborated by independent witnesses namely PW6 Chatar
Pal (landlord), PW7 Suman, PW8 Sunny Yadav, and PW9 Madhav Sahis.
20. 1 It was further argued that the prosecution case is strengthened
by the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before PW10 HC
Jitender and PW13 ASI Jasram, wherein he clearly admitted to having
strangulated his wife. The said confession is voluntary, consistent, and
finds corroboration from surrounding circumstances including recovery of
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.28 of 67
the dead body from the locked room of the accused and the medical
evidence establishing death by strangulation and smothering.
20.2 Ld. Addl. PP further emphasized the “last seen” circumstance,
submitting that the accused and the deceased were last seen together in
their room on the night of 13.11.2022, immediately after a quarrel, and
within a short span thereafter, the deceased was found dead inside the
same room. The conduct of the accused in leaving the house at odd hours
with his minor daughter, falsely stating that he was going to a hospital, and
thereafter directly approaching the police station to confess his crime,
constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance.
20.3 It was lastly contended that minor inconsistencies or
discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses are natural and do not go to
the root of the matter. The prosecution evidence, when appreciated
cumulatively, clearly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
21. Per contra, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused argued that
the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and
that the accused has been falsely implicated. It was contended that the case
rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to
establish a complete chain of circumstances.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.29 of 67
21.1 Ld. Counsel further argued that the alleged extra-judicial
confession made before police officials is inadmissible in evidence in view
of the bar contained under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act,
and thus cannot be relied upon. It was submitted that the entire case of the
prosecution is vitiated as it heavily relies upon such inadmissible
confessional statements.
21.2 It was further argued that there are material contradictions and
improvements in the testimonies of public witnesses, particularly with
respect to the alleged quarrel, conduct of the accused, and timing of events,
thereby rendering their testimonies unreliable. The defence also sought to
challenge the “last seen” theory by contending that there is no independent
evidence to conclusively establish that no third person had access to the
room.
21.3 Ld. Counsel submitted that suspicion, however grave, cannot
take the place of proof, and in absence of direct evidence, the benefit of
doubt must be extended to the accused. On these grounds, acquittal of the
accused was prayed for.
22. Heard. Record perused.
23. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to
prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of
doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.30 of 67
prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the
prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of
doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
DISCUSSION ON LAW:
24. Since the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial
evidence, it would be apt to have a look on the law in this regard. Supreme
Court in Anwar Ali and Another Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh,
Crl Appeal No.1121/2016 dated 25.09.2020, held as under:-
“5.4 It is also required to be noted and it is not in dispute
that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. As held by
this Court in catena of decisions that in case of a
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken
cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is
no escape from the conclusion that within all human
probability the crime was committed by the accused and
none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to
sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of
the accused and such evidence should not only be
consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be
inconsistent with his innocence. In the case of Babu
(supra), it is observed and held in paragraphs 22 to 24 as
under:
“22. In Krishnan v. State (2008) 15 SCC 430, this Court
after considering a large number of its earlier judgments
observed as follows: (SCC p. 435, para 15)“15. … This Court in a series of decisions has consistently
held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence,
such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established;
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.31 of 67
(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a
chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and none else; and
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation
of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused
and such evidence should not only be consistent with the
guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his
innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra (1982) 2
SCC 351)”
23. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 while dealing with circumstantial
evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the
prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the
infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false
defence or plea. The conditions precedent before conviction
could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully
established. They are: (SCC p. 185, para 153)
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances
concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be”
established;
(ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty;
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency;
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved; and
(v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by theSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.32 of 67
accused. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court
in State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114 and Pawan v.
State of Uttaranchal (2009) 15 SCC 259.
24. In Subramaniam v. State of T.N (2009) 14 SCC 415,
while considering the case of dowry death, this Court
observed that the fact of living together is a strong
circumstance but that by alone in absence of any evidence
of violence on the deceased cannot be held to be conclusive
proof, and there must be some evidence to arrive at a
conclusion that the husband and husband alone was
responsible therefor. The evidence produced by the
prosecution should not be of such a nature that may make
the conviction of the appellant unsustainable. (See Ramesh
Bhai v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 12 SCC 603).”
5.5 Even in the case of G. Parshwanath (supra), this
Court has in paragraphs 23 and 24 observed as under:
“23. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature,
the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each
fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually.
However, in applying this principle a distinction must be
made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand
and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In
regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the
evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a
particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether
that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person
should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the
problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although
there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not
essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of
the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be
inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences,
the court must have regard to the common course of natural
events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts
of the particular case. The court thereafter has to consider the
effect of proved facts.
24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence
for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the
total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of
which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined
effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive inSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.33 of 67
establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be
justified even though it may be that one or more of these
facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis
except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean
that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon
circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and
every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever,
extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain
of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and must show that in all human probability the
act must have been done by the accused, where various links
in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or
false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to
the court.”
25. In Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, Crl.
Appeal No. 1348/2013 dated 02.03.2021 Apex Court observed as under:
“11. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of
circumstantial evidence has been very well crystalised in the
judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra:-
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an
accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be”
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the observations were made
: [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“19. …..Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict
and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long
and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.34 of 67
not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused
is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one
to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the
panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence.”
26. Further, in State of Odisha Vs Banabihari Mohapatra and
Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1156/2021, dated 12.02.2021,
Supreme Court held as under:-
“35. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully
established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be
established and the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There has to be a
chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable
doubt for any conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must
have been done by the Accused.
36. In Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12
SCC 158, this Court held that the principles for conviction of the
accused based on circumstantial evidence are:
“10.1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established.
10.2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
10.3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within
all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused
and none else.
10.4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction
must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidenceSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.35 of 67
should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
37. Keeping the above test in mind, we have no iota of doubt that
the Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents. There
is a strong possibility that the accused, who was as per the
opinion of the doctor who performed the autopsy, intoxicated
with alcohol, might have accidentally touched a live electrical
wire, may be while he was asleep. The impugned judgment of the
High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay does not
call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India.
38. It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of
this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of
proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This proposition has been
reiterated in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam reported in AIR 2013
SC 3817.
39. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR
1973 SC 2773, this Court observed:-
“Another golden thread which runs through the web
of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case
one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused
should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in
cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought is to be
established by circumstantial evidence.”
27. Next, in Anjan Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Assam (2017)
14 SCC 359, it was observed:
“(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances
concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ not and ‘may be’ established;
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not the explainable on any other hypothesis except that
the accused is guilty;
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature of
tendency;
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be provided; andSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.36 of 67
(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must shown that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused (See: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashra (1984) 4 SCC 116; M G Agarwal v. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200).”
28. The principles with regard to appreciation of circumstantial
evidence have also been explained in Gagan Kanojia Vs. State of Punjab
(2016) 13 SCC 516.
29. Therefore, the principle, as laid down in aforesaid judicial
dicta, is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the
circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no
gap left in the chain of evidence. The various circumstances in the chain of
events must be such so as to rule out the reasonable likelihood of
innocence of accused. The missing of important link snaps the chain of
circumstances and the other circumstances cannot in any manner establish
guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
30. In light of these guiding principles, I shall now give my
findings in the factual matrix of present case.
FINDINGS:
31. Firstly, I shall adjudicate if prosecution has been able to
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.37 of 67
successfully prove the various circumstances, whereupon it relies, in the
present case.
32. Applying the aforesaid principles of law to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully established the
following incriminating circumstances:
(i) Motive on the part of the accused, arising out of suspicion regarding
the character of the deceased, as deposed by PW4 and corroborated by
PW6, PW8 and PW9.
(ii) The accused and the deceased were last seen together in their room
on the intervening night of 13/14.11.2022.
(iii) A quarrel between the accused and the deceased immediately
preceding the incident, as proved by PW6 and PW8.
(iv) The conduct of the accused in leaving the house at odd hours after
locking the room from outside.
(v) Recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the exclusive
possession of the accused.
(vi) Medical evidence (PW2) conclusively establishing death due to
strangulation and smothering, ruling out any accidental or natural
cause.
(vii) Failure of the accused to offer any plausible explanation under
Section 313 CrPC regarding the death of his wife inside their shared
residence.
33. CIRCUMSTANCE OF LAST SEEN: Apex Court in Nizam
& Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, Crl. Appeal No. 413/2007, decided on
04.09.2015, discussed the law regarding last seen theory. It was observed: –
“Elaborating the principle of “last seen alive” in State of
Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, this Court
held as under:- “23. It is not necessary to multiply withSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.38 of 67
authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and
categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially
within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that
fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the
deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when
he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which
appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he
does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he
fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his
special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon
him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on
circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a
reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on
him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of
circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift
the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon
the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused
does not throw any light upon facts which are specially
within his knowledge and which could not support any
theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court
can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an
additional link which completes the chain. The principle has
been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd., Re. (AIR 1960 Mad
218)” The above judgment was relied upon and reiterated in
Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal, (2015) 5 Scale 319.”
34. Further, in Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr vs State
Of Andhra Pradesh, Appeal (Crl.) 997 of 2005 Apex Court held as follows:
“It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction
on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the
pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching
evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a
chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of
guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other
hypothesis. It is also well-settled that suspicion, however, grave
may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall
take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the
basis of the circumstantial evidence. [See Anil Kumar Singh v.
State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67 and Reddy Sampath Kumar v.
State of A.P. (2005) 7 SCC 603].
The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the
time gap between the point of time when the accused and the
deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead isSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.39 of 67
so small that possibility of any person other than the accused
being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such
a case courts should look for some corroboration.”
35. In case of State of U.P. v. Satish, Appeal (Crl.) 256-257 of
2005, with regard to last-seen theory following was held:
“The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap
between the point of time when the accused and the deceased
were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so
small that possibility of any person other than the accused being
the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult
in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last
seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of
other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any
other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the
deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come
to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is
positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen
together by witnesses.”
36. The other cases of Supreme Court based on last-seen theory is
tabulated below for ease of appreciation and understanding:
1 Bodh Raj @ Bodha v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 8 The last seen theory comes into play where the time
SCC 45; gap between the point of time when the accused
and deceased were seen last alive and when the
deceased is found dead is so small that possibility
……………
2 Tipparam Prabhakar v. State
of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 13 8. The last-seen theory comes into play where the
SCC 534; time-gap between the point of time when the
accused and the deceased were seen last alive and
when the deceased is found dead is so small that
possibility ………………
3 Rishi Pal v. State of
Uttarakhand, (2013) 12 SCC 18. Finally in Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005)
551; 12 SCC 438, this Court held that it is not possible
to convict Appellant solely on basis of ‘last seen’
evidence in the absence of any other links in theSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.40 of 67
chain of circumstantial evidence, the Court gave
benefit of doubt to accused persons.
4 Krishnan v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 279; 24. In Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 12
SCC 438, this Court held that in absence of any
other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence,
the appellant cannot be convicted solely on the
basis of “last seen together” even if version of the
prosecution witness in this regard is believed.
5 Kiriti Pal v. State of West
Bengal, (2015) 11 SCC 178; 14. From the evidence of PWs 6, 7 and 10,
prosecution has thus established that Anjali was last
seen alive in the company of first appellant Kiriti
Pal on the evening of 11.11.2008 and that at about
10.00/10.30 p.m., first appellant Kiriti Pal came
alone. The theory of “last seen alive” comes into
play when the time gap between the way the
accused and the deceased were last seen together
and the deceased was found dead was so small, the
possibility of any other person committing the
murder becomes impossible. ……………..
6 State of Karnataka v. Chand
Basha, (2016) 1 SCC 501; 14. The prosecution story relies upon the ‘last seen
together’ theory, which resulted into the death of
Ganesh. This Court has time and again laid down
the ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to
prove the ‘last seen together’ theory. The Court for
the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether
the said offence has been committed or not, may
take into consideration the circumstantial evidence.
However, while doing so, it must be borne in mind
that close proximity between the last seen evidence
and death should be clearly established. Yet, the
prosecution has failed to prove the evidence which
establishes the ‘last seen together’ theory beyond
reasonable doubt …………
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.41 of 67
7 Rambraksh v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 12. In the present case as noticed above the
251; Sessions Court as well as the High Court convicted
the appellant/ accused No.2 on the basis of last seen
evidence, the correctness of which is also doubtful.
The High Court had failed to appreciate the
aforesaid fact and erred in affirming the judgment
of conviction passed by the Sessions Court. We are
satisfied that the conviction of the appellant cannot
be sustained in law and liable to be set aside.
8 Anjan Kumar Sharma v. State
of Assam, 2017 (6) SCALE 21. It is clear from the above that in a case where
556 the other links have been satisfactorily made out
and the circumstances point to the guilt of the
accused, the circumstance of last seen together and
absence of explanation would provide an additional
link which completes the chain.
………………………..
37. The circumstance of “last seen together”, when examined in the
light of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, stands firmly established
against the accused. PW6 Chatar Pal (landlord) and PW8 Sunny Yadav
(co-tenant) have categorically deposed that on the night of 13.11.2022 at
about 11:00 PM, a quarrel was taking place between the accused and the
deceased inside their room. PW6 further deposed that during the said
quarrel, the accused expressed suspicion regarding the character of the
deceased and even threatened that if she did not end her alleged
relationship, he would kill her. This testimony remains unshaken in cross-
examination and is duly corroborated by PW8, who also witnessed the
quarrel and the conduct of the accused.
37.1 Further, PW6 has deposed that at about 03:00 AM in the
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.42 of 67
intervening night of 13/14.11.2022, he saw the accused coming out of his
room along with his minor daughter, carrying a polythene bag, and bolting
the room from outside. Upon being questioned, the accused gave a false
explanation that he was taking his daughter to the hospital. This conduct of
the accused assumes significance as it establishes that shortly after the
quarrel, the accused was the last person seen in the company of the
deceased inside the room, which was thereafter locked from outside.
37.2 The testimony of PW8 further corroborates that at about 04:45
AM, the accused returned to the premises along with police officials, and
upon opening the room, the deceased was found lying dead on the floor.
PW6 has also corroborated this fact and further stated that upon inquiry,
the accused admitted that he had killed his wife.
37.3 The evidence of PW13 ASI Jasram and PW10 HC Jitender
further establishes that the accused himself reached the police station in the
early hours of 14.11.2022 along with his minor daughter and disclosed that
he had killed his wife and that her dead body was lying in the house. This
leads to the immediate visit of the police to the spot, where the dead body
of the deceased was recovered from the very room occupied exclusively by
the accused and the deceased.
37.4 Thus, from the consistent testimonies of PW6, PW8, PW10
and PW13, it stands conclusively established that: (i) the accused and the
deceased were together in their room on the night of the incident; (ii) a
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.43 of 67
quarrel had taken place between them shortly before the death; (iii) the
accused was seen leaving the room alone with his child after the incident
and had bolted the room from outside; and (iv) the dead body of the
deceased was recovered from the said room immediately thereafter.
37.5 The time gap between the point when the accused and the
deceased were last seen together and the recovery of the dead body is so
small that the possibility of intervention of any third person is completely
ruled out. The place of occurrence being a closed room exclusively
occupied by the accused and the deceased further strengthens this
inference.
37.6 In such circumstances, the facts relating to the cause of death
of the deceased were especially within the knowledge of the accused,
thereby attracting the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence
Act. The accused was, therefore, under a legal obligation to furnish a
plausible and satisfactory explanation as to how the deceased sustained
fatal injuries inside the room. However, in his statement under Section 313
CrPC, the accused has merely denied the incriminating circumstances and
has failed to offer any explanation whatsoever regarding the death of his
wife.
37.7 The failure of the accused to discharge the burden cast upon
him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act constitutes an additional link in
the chain of circumstances and lends further assurance to the prosecution
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.44 of 67
case. In view of the cogent and consistent evidence on record, this Court
has no hesitation in holding that the “last seen” circumstance stands firmly
established against the accused and operates as a strong incriminating
circumstance pointing towards his guilt.
38. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
initial burden always lies upon the prosecution to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt, and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not
absolve the prosecution of this duty. However, once the prosecution
succeeds in proving certain foundational facts, particularly those which
establish that the occurrence took place in circumstances within the
exclusive domain or special knowledge of the accused, the burden shifts
upon the accused to furnish a plausible explanation.
39. In the present case, the prosecution has successfully
established that the deceased was residing with the accused in a single-
room tenanted premises and that her death occurred inside that very room
during the intervening night of 13/14.11.2022. The evidence of PW6
Chatar Pal and PW8 Sunny Yadav clearly establishes that immediately
prior to the occurrence, the accused and the deceased were together in the
room and were engaged in a quarrel. Further, the testimony of PW6
establishes that the accused was seen exiting the room at about 03:00 AM
along with his minor daughter, after bolting the room from outside, thereby
leaving the deceased alone inside.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.45 of 67
40. These facts unmistakably bring the case within the ambit of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as the circumstances in which the
deceased sustained fatal injuries inside the closed room were especially
within the knowledge of the accused. In such a situation, the accused was
under a legal obligation to explain as to how his wife suffered homicidal
death in the confines of their shared residence. However, the accused, in
his statement under Section 313 CrPC, has merely offered bald denials and
has failed to furnish any explanation whatsoever. Such failure, in the face
of strong incriminating circumstances, constitutes an additional link in the
chain of circumstances against him.
41. The subsequent conduct of the accused also assumes
considerable significance in the present case and is admissible under
Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, which makes the conduct of an
accused, both previous and subsequent to the occurrence, relevant if such
conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue. The said section
reads as under:-
“Section 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent
conduct.–Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive
or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of
any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in
reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in
issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an
offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant,
if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or
relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
Explanation 1.–The word “conduct” in this section does not
include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain
acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the
relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.
Explanation 2.–When the conduct of any person is relevant, any
statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affectsSC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.46 of 67
such conduct, is relevant.”
42. In the instant case, the conduct of the accused, as proved
through the testimonies of PW6, PW10 and PW13, is highly incriminating.
Firstly, the accused was seen leaving the room at odd hours after locking it
from outside and giving a false explanation that he was taking his daughter
to the hospital. Secondly, instead of seeking medical assistance or raising
any alarm regarding the condition of his wife, the accused directly
proceeded to the police station in the early hours of the morning along with
his minor daughter.
43. Such conduct is not consistent with that of an innocent person.
The act of leaving the scene after locking the room, coupled with the
absence of any effort to seek help for the deceased, and the subsequent
approach to the police station, clearly indicates a consciousness of guilt.
The law is well settled that conduct which is inconsistent with innocence
and indicative of a guilty mind is a relevant and significant circumstance.
Therefore, the subsequent conduct of the accused provides strong
corroborative evidence in support of the prosecution case.
44. Further, the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from
the tenanted premises assumes great evidentiary significance. The
evidence on record clearly establishes that the accused, upon reaching the
police station, furnished information which led the police officials to the
place of occurrence, and upon such information, the room was opened and
the dead body of the deceased was found lying inside. To this extent, the
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.47 of 67
information furnished by the accused, which led to the discovery of the
dead body, becomes relevant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
which reads as under:
“27. How much of information received from accused may be
proved.–Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered
in consequence of information received from a person accused of
any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such
information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”
44.1 The legal position with regard to Section 27 is well settled.
Only that portion of the information supplied by the accused, which
distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact, is admissible in evidence,
irrespective of whether such information is confessional in nature or
otherwise. The underlying principle of Section 27 is based on the doctrine
of confirmation by subsequent events, i.e., when a fact is discovered in
consequence of information received from an accused, such discovery
lends assurance to the truthfulness of that part of the information which led
to the discovery.
44.2 In the present case, the fact discovered is the presence of the
dead body of the deceased inside the room, which was within the exclusive
knowledge of the accused at the relevant time. The information furnished
by the accused, leading the police to the said room and facilitating the
recovery of the dead body, is thus clearly admissible to the limited extent
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.48 of 67
that it relates to such discovery.
44.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has
consistently held that a recovery made at the instance of the accused,
which has a direct nexus with the commission of the offence, constitutes a
relevant and incriminating circumstance. In Debapriya Pal v. State of West
Bengal, (2017) 11 SCC 31, it has been reiterated that only that part of the
disclosure statement which leads to the discovery of a fact connected with
the crime is admissible under Section 27. The Court, while referring to
Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra (1969) 2 SCC 872,
observed that the essential requirement is that the information given by the
accused must distinctly lead to the discovery of a fact, and such discovered
fact must have a direct connection with the commission of the offence.
44.4 Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, the recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the instance of the
accused is not a mere formal circumstance, but a vital and incriminating
link in the chain of circumstances. The dead body was recovered from a
place exclusively within the domain of the accused, and the discovery was
made pursuant to the information furnished by him. This circumstance,
therefore, strongly points towards the involvement of the accused in the
commission of the offence and lends substantial corroboration to the
prosecution case.
45. At this juncture, it is necessary to carefully examine the evidentiary
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.49 of 67
value of the statements made by the accused before police officials. As per
the testimonies of PW10 HC Jitender and PW13 ASI Jasram, the accused
had stated at the police station that he had killed his wife by strangulation.
However, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119), a
confessional statement made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence
under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, except to the limited
extent permitted under Section 27.
46. Thus, the confessional portion of the statement attributed to
the accused cannot be read in evidence as proof of guilt. However, it is
equally well settled that if a statement contains both confessional and non-
confessional elements, the non-confessional part, which relates to the
conduct of the accused or leads to discovery of relevant facts, is
admissible.
47. In the present case, even if the confessional portion of the
statement of the accused is excluded from consideration, the remaining
aspects of his conduct remain admissible and highly relevant. The fact that
the accused himself appeared at the police station at an unusual hour,
accompanied by his minor daughter, and led the police to the place of
occurrence, where the dead body of the deceased was found inside a
locked room, is a significant circumstance. This conduct is admissible
under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and clearly reflects the state of mind
of the accused.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.50 of 67
48. Moreover, the recovery of the dead body from the room
which was opened by the accused himself further strengthens the
prosecution case. The chain of events, beginning from the quarrel, the
departure of the accused from the room after locking it, his presence at the
police station, and the subsequent recovery of the dead body, forms a
coherent and consistent narrative pointing towards his guilt.
49. Therefore, even after excluding the inadmissible confessional
portion in compliance with the law laid down in Aghnoo Nagesia, the
prosecution case stands firmly established on the basis of admissible
evidence, including the conduct of the accused, the surrounding
circumstances, and the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
50. The prosecution has also sought to establish motive on the
part of the accused, which, though not a sine qua non for conviction in a
case based on direct or clinching circumstantial evidence, nevertheless
assumes significance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, as it
provides a link in the chain of circumstances. In the present case, the
prosecution has successfully established a strong and cogent motive for the
commission of the offence.
50.1 PW4 Promila Manna, mother of the deceased, has
categorically deposed that after the marriage, the accused used to harbour
suspicion regarding the character of her daughter, which often resulted in
quarrels between them. She has further deposed that on 13.11.2022, just a
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.51 of 67
few hours prior to the incident, the deceased had called her and informed
that the accused had again picked up a quarrel on account of his suspicion
and had threatened to kill her if she continued to talk to the shopkeeper.
The said testimony clearly establishes that the accused was nurturing
suspicion against the deceased and had even extended threats to her life
shortly before the occurrence.
50.2 The testimony of PW4 stands duly corroborated by
independent witnesses. PW6 Chatar Pal (landlord) has deposed that on the
night of 13.11.2022 at about 11:00 PM, he witnessed a quarrel between the
accused and the deceased, during which the accused explicitly stated that
the deceased was having an affair with one Madhav and threatened that if
she did not end the said relationship, he would kill her. Similarly, PW8
Sunny Yadav has also deposed that the accused used to suspect the
character of his wife and that on the night of the incident, he had heard the
accused making allegations of illicit relationship against the deceased.
50.3 Further corroboration is found in the testimony of PW9
Madhav Sahis, who has deposed that he was known to the family of the
deceased and had been assisting them financially at the request of PW4.
He has specifically stated that the accused had developed suspicion
regarding his relationship with the deceased and had threatened him as
well as the deceased, stating that he would kill them if such interactions
continued. This testimony not only establishes the existence of suspicion in
the mind of the accused but also demonstrates the intensity of such
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.52 of 67
suspicion, which had escalated to the level of issuing threats of death.
50.4 The consistent testimonies of PW4, PW6, PW8 and PW9,
which remain unshaken during cross-examination, clearly establish that the
accused was deeply suspicious of the character of his wife and was
agitated on account of her alleged interactions with other persons,
particularly Madhav. The evidence further establishes that such suspicion
had resulted in frequent quarrels and had culminated in threats to the life of
the deceased shortly before the incident.
50.5 The proximity of the motive to the time of occurrence is also
of considerable importance. The threats extended by the accused on the
evening and night preceding the incident, as deposed by PW4 and PW6,
demonstrate that the motive was not remote or stale, but was immediate
and subsisting at the time of commission of the offence. This proximity
lends further strength to the prosecution case.
50.6 It is well settled that motive, though not essential in every
case, becomes highly relevant where the prosecution case is based on
circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the prosecution has been able
to establish a clear and convincing motive, which fits seamlessly into the
chain of circumstances and provides a plausible explanation for the
conduct of the accused.
50.7 Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.53 of 67
successfully proved the motive on the part of the accused to commit the
murder of his wife, which constitutes a significant incriminating
circumstance against him.
51. The defence taken by the accused during the course of trial is
not only unsubstantiated but also mutually contradictory, thereby rendering
it wholly unreliable and furnishing an additional link in the chain of
circumstances. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused has
merely denied the incriminating evidence and claimed false implication,
without offering any plausible explanation as to how his wife suffered a
homicidal death inside the room exclusively occupied by them. In the face
of the established “last seen” circumstance and recovery of the dead body
from the said room, such silence on the part of the accused assumes
significance.
52. It is further pertinent to note that during the cross-examination
of PW4 (mother of the deceased), a specific suggestion was put by the
defence that the deceased was killed by PW4 herself in connivance with
PW9 Madhav Sahis. However, in stark contrast, a suggestion was put to
PW13 (ASI Jasram) that the accused had stated before him that his wife
had been killed by some unknown persons. These two suggestions are
inherently contradictory and mutually destructive, as one attributes the
alleged act to known persons (PW4 and PW9), while the other attributes it
to unknown assailants.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.54 of 67
53. Such inconsistent stands taken by the defence strike at the
root of its credibility and demonstrate absence of any coherent or probable
defence. No evidence has been led by the accused to substantiate either of
these suggestions. On the contrary, both suggestions stand falsified by the
consistent and cogent prosecution evidence establishing that the deceased
died inside the room exclusively occupied by the accused, in
circumstances pointing towards his involvement.
54. It is well settled that while a false defence cannot by itself
form the sole basis of conviction, it can certainly be taken into
consideration as an additional circumstance when the prosecution has
otherwise succeeded in establishing a complete chain of incriminating
circumstances. In the present case, the contradictory and untenable defence
set up by the accused lends further assurance to the prosecution case and
reinforces the inference of guilt. Reliance is placed upon judgment of
Supreme Court in Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, Crl.
Appeal No. 1348 of 2013, wherein it was observed as under:-
“Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is, that
the appellant failed to give any explanation in his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. By now it is well-settled principle
of law, that false explanation or non-explanation can only be
used as an additional circumstance, when the prosecution has
proved the chain of circumstances leading to no other
conclusion than the guilt of the accused. However, it cannot
be used as a link to complete the chain. Reference in this
respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda (supra).”
55. Next, the medical evidence assumes great significance in the
present case. PW2 Dr. Ruchi Kumari has categorically opined in the
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.55 of 67
postmortem report (Ex. PW2/B) that the cause of death was due to
strangulation and smothering, and that the injuries were ante-mortem in
nature. The said medical opinion rules out the possibility of accidental or
suicidal death and conclusively establishes that the death was homicidal.
The medical findings are fully consistent with the prosecution case and
lend strong corroboration to the other circumstantial evidence on record.
56. The defence has attempted to assail the prosecution case by
pointing out certain inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of
witnesses. However, upon careful scrutiny, this Court finds that the alleged
discrepancies are minor and pertain to trivial aspects, such as exact timings
or peripheral details, which are natural in human testimony. The core of
the prosecution case, particularly with respect to the quarrel, motive, last
seen circumstance, and recovery of the dead body, remains intact and
unshaken. It is well settled that minor inconsistencies, which do not go to
the root of the matter, are liable to be ignored.
57. The defence has also failed to probabilize any alternative
hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. There is no
evidence on record to suggest that any third person had access to the room
or that the death could have been caused by someone other than the
accused. In a case of this nature, where the offence has been committed
within the privacy of a dwelling shared by the accused and the deceased,
and the accused fails to offer any explanation, the inference of guilt
becomes irresistible.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.56 of 67
58. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established a
complete chain of circumstances which is consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and excludes every possible
hypothesis of innocence. The prosecution has, thus, proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused Subhash Bera committed the murder of
his wife Pallavi Bera by strangulation and smothering. Accordingly, the
accused Subhash Bera is held guilty and is hereby convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
ANUJ
ANUJ AGRAWAL
59. Parties be heard on the point of sentence. AGRAWAL Date:
2026.07.03
14:26:19
+0530
Announced in the open (ANUJ AGRAWAL)
Court on 03.07.2026 Additional Sessions Judge-03,
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.57 of 67
Appendix
Chart for witnesses examined:
Witness Witness Name Description
No.
PW1 Dr. Dheeraj Kumar He had medically examined the
accused vide MLC Ex. PW1/A.
PW2 Dr. Ruchi Kumari He alongwith Dr. Jay Narayan had
conducted the autopsy/ post-
mortem examination upon the dead
body of deceased Pallavi Bera,
vide postmortem report Ex.
PW2/B.
PW3 Dr. Virendra Singh He had medically examined the
Jadeja deceased vide MLC Ex.PW3/A.
PW4 Mr. Promila Manna She is the mother of deceased
Pallavi Bera, who deposed about
the conduct / behaviour of the
accused towards her daughter
Pallavi Bera; identified the dead
body vide Ex. PW4/B and received
the dead body vide handing over
memo Ex. PW4/C; provided the
photographs of marriage of his
daughter with accused Ex. P1
(Colly).
PW5 Ms. Parimal Manna She is the sister of PW4 Ms.
Pramila Manna and she also
identified the dead body vide Ex.
PW4/B and received the dead body
vide handing over memo Ex.
PW4/C.
PW6 Mr. Chatar Pal He is the owner of the house /
room, where accused along with
his wife Pallavi Bera / deceased
were living on rent. He deposed
that on 13.11.2022, at about 11.00
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.58 of 67
PM, a quarrel was going between
accused and his wife Pallavi Beri
and that he alongwith other tenant
namely Sunny pacified both
accused and his wife and went
away and next day he came to
know about the present incident.
PW7 Ms. Suman She was also one of the tenants in
the building, where accused
alongwith his wife and daughter
was living on rent and deposed
about arrival of police official at
the room of the accused on
14.11.2022 in the morning.
PW8 Mr. Sunny Yadav He was also one of the tenants in
the building, where accused
alongwith his wife and daughter
was living on rent and deposed
about the quarrel happened on
13.11.2022 night between accused
and his wife and that next day
arrival of police official at the
room of the accused.
PW9 Ms. Madhav Sahis He knew the mother-in-law of the
accused and she contacted him to
provide job for accused and to
provide financial assist to her
daughter. When he financially
assisted the wife of accused,
accused started raising suspicion
on him, with regard to the relation
with his wife.
PW10 HC Jitender He deposed that on 14.11.2022,
accused along with his daughter
visited at PS and told that “maine
apni patni ko gala dabakar mar
diya hain aur patni ki dead body
ghar per hi hai”.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.59 of 67
PW11 ASI Surender Rathi He was the duty officer, who made
endorsement on rukka Ex. PW11/B
and thereafter got registered the
present FIR Ex. PW11/A.
PW12 ACP Mukesh Kumar He alongwith Insp. Prem Singh and
Jain, Draftsman SI Pooran Chand visited the scene
of crime and took measurement
and thereafter prepared the scaled
site plan Ex. PW12/A.
PW13 ASI Jasram He deposed that in the intervening
night of 13/14.11.2022 accused
alongwith her daughter had visited
the PS and told that ‘he had killed
his wife namely Pallavi by
strangulation and her dead body
was lying at the house’.
PW14 Ct. Manipal On 14.11.2022, he reached at the
spot and thereafter took the dead
body to AIIMS Hospital and
handed over the MLC of the
deceased to Ct. Yogesh.
PW15 Ct. Sandeep He alongwith SI Pooran Chand, Ct.
Yogesh and Tehsildar went to
AIIMS Mortuary and that
Tehsildar had inspected the dead
body and thereafter the postmortem
of the dead body was got
conducted.
PW16 SI Devi Charan He was Incharge on E-29 PCR Van
and he alongwith Ct. Manipal took
the dead body of Pallabi Bera to
AIIMS Hospital.
PW17 Mr. Damandeep Singh, On the direction of SDM, he
Section Officer, DM visited the PS and recorded the
Office statement of mother of the
deceased Ex. PW4/A; prepared the
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.60 of 67
death report Ex. PW17/B; recorded
the statement of brother of the
deceased Parimal Ex. PW17/C;
prepared a request for postmortem
Ex. PW17/E.
PW18 Mr. Parveen Kumar, He proved the documents in
Nodal Officer, Reliance respect of the mobile phone nos.
Jio. 743xxxx561 and 8860497208 i.e.
CAF, copy of Aadhar Card,
certificate u/s. 65B IEA and CDR.
PW19 ASI Braham Prakash, He had taken the photographs of
Mobile Crime Team the scene of crime Ex. PH1 (Colly)
and Ex. PH2 (Colly).
PW20 Ct. Jitender He visited the office of Nodal
Officer and collected the CDR of
mobile no. 908xxxx789 and also
deposited the sealed exhibit to
FSL, Rohini.
PW21 Mr. Saurabh Pathak, He had conducted the biological
Chemical Examiner, examination of the exhibits and
RFSL also the DNA examination vide his
report Ex. PW21/P1.
PW22 Dr. Biswajit Santra, He had conducted the chemical
Chemical Examiner examination of the exhibits vide
his report Ex. PW22/P1.
PW23 ASI H.P. Tiwari He alongwith HC Jagdish took the
accused to AIIMS Hospital and got
conducted his medical examination
and handed over the exhibits to IO
SI P.C. Sharma, who seized the
same Ex. PW23/P1.
PW24 Dr. Zahid Ali He has proved the postmortem
report Ex. PW2/B, prepared by Dr.
Jai Narayan.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.61 of 67
PW25 Mr. Shashant Tyagi, He proved the documents in
Nodal Officer respect of the mobile phone no.
9083302789 i.e. CAF, CDR and
certificate u/s. 65B IEA. The D-
KYC is Ex. PW25/P1, CDR is Ex.
PW25/P2 and certificate u/s. 65 B
IEA is Ex. PW25/P3.
PW26 SI Balwant He inspected the spot and proved
the crime scene report prepared by
him Ex. P2.
PW27 W/Ct. Alka She reached at the spot, where IO
SI Pooran Chand handed over her
his seal bearing impression PCS
vide handing over memo Ex.
PW27/P1.
PW28 HC Krishan He removed the DVR from Duty
officer room and copied two sets of
CCTV footage dated 14.11.2022,
which were seized by the IO vide
seizure memo Ex. PW28/P1.
PW29 SI Pooran Chand Sharma On receiving DD No. 7A, he
reached at the spot along with Ct.
Yogesh, got inspected the spot
through Crime Team and
photographed, seized the exhibits
vide Ex. PW29/P1; seized both the
mobile phones of the accused vide
Ex. PW29/PA; seized the parcels
received from Hospital vide Ex.
PW23/P1 and Ex. PW15/A, seized
the visra of deceased vide Ex.
PW15/B; prepared the rukka Ex.
PW29/P-2 and got the present case
registered and thereafter
investigation assigned to Inspector
Prem Singh.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.62 of 67
PW30 IO / Inspector Prem He is the IO of the present case and
Singh deposed about the investigation
conducted by him
Chart of Exhibited Documents
Exhibit Description of the exhibit Proved by / Attested by
No.
1 MLC of accused Ex. PW1/A PW1 Dr. Dheeraj
Kumar
2 Request letter for conducting PW2 Dr. Ruchi Kumari
postmortem of deceased Ex. PW2/A
3 Postmortem examination report Ex. PW2 Dr. Ruchi Kumari
PW2/B
4 Photographs of deceased Pallabi PW2 Dr. Ruchi Kumari
Bera Ex. PH-1 (colly)
5 MLC of the deceased Ex. PW3/A PW3 Dr. Virendra Sinh
Jadeja
6 Statement of mother of the deceased PW4 Promila Manna
recorded by Tehsildar Ex. PW4/A
7 Dead body identification statement PW4 Promila Manna
Ex. PW4/B
8 Dead body handing over memo Ex. PW4 Promila Manna
PW4/C
9 Seizure memo of photographs of PW4 Promila Manna
marriage of accused with deceased
Ex. PW4/D
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.63 of 67
10 Photographs of marriage of accused PW4 Promila Manna
with deceased Ex. P-1 (Colly)
11 Tenant verification form Ex. PW6 Chatar Pal
PW6/A
12 Seizure memo of tenant verification PW6 Chatar Pal
form Ex. PW6/B
13 Statement of PW7 Suman recorded PW7 Suman
by the police Ex. PW7/DA
14 Statement of PW9 Madhav Sahis PW9 Madhav Sahis
recorded by the police Ex. PW9/DA
15 Copy of FIR Ex. PW11/A & PW11
certificate u/s. 65B IEA in this ASI Surender Rathi
regard Ex. PW11/C
16 Scaled site plan Ex. PW12/A PW12 ACP Mukesh
Kumar Jain
17 DD No. 7A Ex. PW13/A PW13 ASI Jasram
18 Seizure memos of exhibits and PW15 Ct. Sandeep.
sample seals obtained from hospital
Ex. PW15/A and PW15/B.
19 Forwarding letter to SHO regarding PW17
handing over the statement of PW17 Damandeep Singh
to IO is Ex. PW17/A.
20 Death report of deceased Ex. PW17
PW17/B Damandeep Singh
21 Statement of Parimal, the brother of PW17
deceased Ex. PW17/C. Damandeep Singh
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.64 of 67
22 Statement of Promila / mother of PW17
deceased Ex. PW17/D Damandeep Singh
23 Request made to autopsy surgeon PW17
for postmortem of deceased Ex. Damandeep Singh
PW17/E
24 Prepaid Customer Application form PW18 Parveen Kumar,
of accused Subhash Bera Ex.
PW18/A, Copy of Aadhar Card of
customer Mark PW18/B, certificate
u/s. 65B IEA Ex. PW18/C and CDR
Ex. PW18/D.
24 Prepaid Customer Application form PW19 Parveen Kumar
of Madhav Sahis Ex. PW18/E, copy
of Aadhar Card Mark PW18/F and
CDR is Ex. PW18/G
25 RC No. Ex. PW20/P1 and PW20 Ct. Jitender
acknowledgment Ex. PW20/P2.
26 Report of biological and DNA PW21 Saurabh Pathak
examination of exhibits Ex.
PW21/P1
27 Report of Chemical examination of PW22 Dr. Biswajit
exhibits Ex. PW22/P1 Santra
28 Seizure memo of sealed exhibits PW23 ASI H.P. Tiwari
alongwith sample seal handed over
by the doctor Ex. PW23/P1.
29 D KYC in respect of mobile phone PW25 Shashant Tyagi
number of Pallabi Bera Ex.
PW25/P1, CDR Ex. PW25/P2,
Certificate u/s. 65B IEA Ex.
PW25/P3 and Ex. PW25/P4.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.65 of 67
30 Scene of crime report Ex. P2 PW26 SI Balwant
31 Seal having over memo Ex. PW27 W/Ct. Alka
PW27/P1
32 Seizure memo of pendrive Ex. PW28 HC Krishan
PW28/P1 and Certificate u/s. 65 B
IEA Ex. PW28/P2
33 Seizure memo of mobile phones Ex. PW29 SI Pooran Chand
PW29/PA,
Seizure memo of exhibits collected
by the crime team Ex. PW29/P1,
Rukka Ex. PW29/P2, Rough site
plan Ex. PW29/P3, arrest memo Ex.
PW29/P4, personal search memo
Ex. PW29/P5, disclosure statement
of accused Ex. PW29/P6
34 Pointing Out memo Ex. PW30/P1, PW30 Inspector Prem
Letter to doctor for seeking Singh
subsequent opinion regarding
injuries Ex. PW30/P-2 and
PW30/P3 and the subsequent
opinion Ex. PW30/P4 and Ex.
PW30/P5
Chart for Material Objects/Muddamals
Material Description of the Proved
Object no. Exhibit by/Attested by
1. Pen drive containing CCTV footage PW6 Chatar Pal
Ex. MO-1
2. Two Bed sheets Ex. PW29/MO-1 and PW29 SI Pooran
PW29/MO-2 Chand Sharma.
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.66 of 67
3. Cardboard cover of washing machine PW29 SI Pooran
Ex. PW20/MO-3. Chand Sharma.
4. Mobile phones recovered from the PW29 SI Pooran
accused Ex. MO-A and Ex. MO-B Chand Sharma.
5. Pen drive containing the footage of PW30
police station Ex. MO-X Inspector Prem Singh
SC No. 153/2023 State v. Subhash Bera Page No.67 of 67
