Four years later, Delhi HC acquits domestic help in 82-year-old employer’s rape and murder case

The Delhi high court on Thursday acquitted a domestic help accused of raping and killing his 82-year-old employer in her Greater Kailash-II house in 2014.

Overturning the conviction, a bench of justice S Muralidhar and justice Vinod Goel said that even though the crime was “horrific”, the police had failed to prove that the help, Neeraj Safi, had committed it.

“The crime in the present case is indeed horrific. An elderly has been done to death in the most inhuman manner. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution, however, has failed to prove that it is the appellant (Safi) who is responsible for the crime,” the court said.

“Howsoever strong a suspicion might be, it cannot constitute proof and is insufficient to return a finding of guilt. The case against the appellant had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to do that in the present case,” the court said, adding it could not be proved that the suspect had raped the deceased.

On July 7, 2014, the widow’s burnt body was found on a cot on the first floor of her four-storey house. Her neck was found tied with a dupatta (scarf). She was naked from the bottom. Her salwar and underwear were lying by the side of the bed.

On February 21, 2017, a trial court convicted Safi and awarded him life imprisonment under section 302 of IPC for murder, 10 years of imprisonment under section 376 of IPC for rape and three years under section 201 of IPC for ‘causing disappearance of evidence of offence’.

According to the police, she was beaten, raped and strangled with a dupatta before being set on fire by her domestic help Safi.

Sexual assault not proved

Acquitting Safi, the court said Safi had not “committed rape upon her or penetrated her forcibly with an object”.

“Neither the forensics report nor the post-mortem conclusively establishes that it was the appellant who had any sexual contact with the deceased,” the court said.

“With medical and forensic evidence ruling out the possibility of the appellant having committed sexual assault on the deceased, the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the crime.”

Motive not established

The court said the prosecution also failed to prove the crime motive.

“This is a case where nothing belonging to the deceased was stolen. Her house was not touched. She was found in a burnt condition on the first floor of the building in the flat gifted by her to her daughter ….. With the medical and forensic evidence ruling out the possibility of the appellant having committed physical sexual assault on the deceased, the prosecution failed to prove the motive,” the court said.

Recoveries from accused

According to the police, a match box, a knife and kerosene oil was recovered from Safi’s room. But the court ruled out this possibility, saying it could be “planted”.

“...A plastic bottle of kerosene and a match box are very common objects...A knife again is a very common object used in every kitchen. With these common objects being recovered from the room of the accused while he was in police custody, the possibility of these objects being planted just to make it appear that it was the accused who used the kerosene to burn the dead body should not be easily disregarded...”

“Without the prosecution conclusively proving that it was only the appellant who was exclusively present in the building and that it was him alone who was present in the room on the first floor with the deceased at the relevant time, this discovery of the plastic bottle with some kerosene and a match box from the room of the appellant is really not convincing as a clinching circumstance at all,” it said.

It also ruled out the case of the prosecution that Safi had tried to destroy the evidence.

Witnesses not reliable

The bench said the testimony of the son-in-law of the deceased was not reliable and hence the conviction cannot be based on his statement.

The court said “many of his statements have not been corroborated either by the forensic or the medical evidence and the other evidence on record”.

It noted the son-in-law had filed an application seeking directions to summon the night security guard Santosh, whose testimony came to be very important for the conviction of Safi. The application had stated that even though the guard was examined by the police, he was not named as a prosecution witness in the charge sheet, it said.

“The circumstances under which the application of PW-2 (and not even the prosecution) under Section 311 Cr PC was made, after the arguments had concluded and order was reserved, makes it highly suspicious.

“PW-2 (son-in-law) is neither a reliable nor a truthful witness. The conviction of the appellant (Safi) cannot be based on the evidence of such witness,” the court said in its 83-page judgment.

“With the medical and forensic evidence ruling out the possibility of the appellant having committed the physical sexual assault on the deceased, the prosecution failed to prove the motive for a crime,” it added.

It also refused to rely upon the statement given by a security guard, Santosh, whose deposition had proved important in Safi’s conviction. The judge said it was a serious lapse by the investigating officer by not including this guard as one of the prosecution witness in the charge sheet.

Unclear facts

“...there is nothing to show that the appellant (Safi) was present anywhere near or in the room on the first floor of the building where the deceased was ultimately found or that there was no one else who had entered the building between 6 and 8 pm when the occurrence allegedly happened,” the court said.

While analysing the facts and circumstances of the case, the high court also noted that the deceased was found on the first floor, although she resided on the ground floor.

It said the police failed to give any explanation as to how Safi would have reached the first floor even though he did not have a duplicate key to the first floor and the only key was with the daughter and her husband.

“Without any proof that the deceased had a duplicate, without locating the duplicate key and without any disclosure by the appellant that he used the duplicate key and then threw it away, this part of the case remains unproved by the prosecution,” the court said.

First Published: Oct 05, 2018 10:01 IST