Delhi District Court
State vs . Parkash Chand Page 1 Of 61 on 31 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA KUMAR
MISHRA, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
SC No. 57864/16
FIR No. 168/12
U/s. 302/34 IPC
P.S. North Rohini
State
Vs.
1. Parkash Chand
S/o Sh. Maman Chand
R/o House no.8, Ward no. 6
B-19-D Gandhi Nagar, Rohtak
Haryana.
2. Sh. Parvesh Narwal
S/o Sh. Parkash Chand
R/o House no. 8, Ward
No. 6, B-19-D Gandhi Nagar
Rohtak Haryana.
3. Lal Singh
S/o late Sh. Hawa Singh
R/o House no. 669, ward no. 22
opp. PWD Rest House Barahi Road
Bahadurgarh, Haryana .................
Accused
Date of institution : 09.11.2012
Date of arguments : 05.09.2019
Date of judgment : 31.10.2019
MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OLD CASE.
JUDGMENT :
State vs. Parkash Chand Page 1 of 61
(FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini)
1. Accused persons were arrested by the Police officials of Police Station North Rohini, Delhi and were challaned to the court for trial of commission of the offences punishable U/s 302/34 IPC.
2. Prosecution story, as unfolded from the perusal of the charge-sheet is that on 20.05.2012 a PCR call was received at PS North Rohini stating that House no. 276, pocket D-7, Sector 6, Rohini, near Vishram Chowk a man is lying unconscious. The same was received vide DD no. 16-A and was marked to ASI Anil Tiwari for further action. He along with Ct. Satyanarayan reached the spot and found that body of Ashok Kumar whose name revealed after enquiry, was lying on the floor in a room of the above mentioned flat on 2nd floor. Sh. Subhash Chander who is relative of the above flat and Prakash Chand R/o House no. 8, Ward no. 6, Gandhi Nagar, Rohtak hjaryana, father in law of Ashok kumar were found present on the spot. CATS Ambulance arrived at the spot and Sh. Rajinder Singh Assistant Ambulance officer checked the body of Ashok Kumar and declared him dead. Mobile Crime Team came and carried out the Inspection of the scene of crime as well as of the dead body of Ashok Kumar and also took the photographs of the scene of crime. The dead body was preserved in the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mangolpuri, Delhi.
Inquest proceedings were got conducted. During State vs. Parkash Chand Page 2 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) enquiry, it was revealed that deceased Ashok kumar was married on 17.04.2008 to Pooja, daughter of Parkash Chand and a daughter was born on 12.08.2010 out of this wedlock. The couple took house no. D-7/276, Sector 6, Rohini on rent in October, 2011. Rent agreement was executed between Pooja and landlord Sh Vinod kumar. Since then the couple was residing at this flat. On 25.04.2012 Pooja left and went to her parental house at Rohtak. Pooja also filed a written complaint against Ashok kumar at PS North Rohini on the same day ie. 25.04.2012 and later on 27.04.2012 in CAW cell of outer Distt, regarding demand of cash/dowry and cruelty by husband and in laws. Since then Ashok was staying alone at above mentioned address.
On 20.05.2012 Parkash Chand father in law of Ashok along with his son Parvesh and brother in law Lal Singh came to pick up the house hold items of Pooja from the above mentioned rented flat of Ashok and Pooja. At that time Ashok Kumar was alone at home. When they started taking out the household goods from the house of Ashok and loading in the tempo, Sushil Kumar who is residing at the ground floor of the flat of Ashok Kumar informed over phone to Subhash Chander relative of the landlord who is residing nearby that father in law of Ashok kumar is vacating the house. At this, Subhash Chander came and he along with Sushil went on 2 nd floor and asked Prakash Chand father in law of Ashok that if wants to State vs. Parkash Chand Page 3 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) vacate the flat, he should give in writing. At this, Ashok Kumar told that let them take the goods. Then both Suhash and Sushil came down. Sushil remained down below and Subhash brought the photocopy of the rent agreement. At that time they saw once, Ashok Kumar in the balcony of 2nd floor. Thereafter when good were loaded Parvesh went away with tempo. Subhash got written from Parkash Chand on photocopy of rent agreement that he has handed over the possession of the rented flat of Pooja. Then Subhash chander and Sushil went on 2nd floor to check and found that Ashok was lying unconscious on the floor in the room. They called Parkash Chand up who was down below. He came up on 2nd floor and tried to pour water in the mouth of Ashok Kumar but he was no more. Then they made call on 100 number from local PCO booth and Ashok was declared dead by the CATS Ambulance staff. As the cause of death was not known, the dead body was got preserved at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mortuary for Post mortem.
On 21.05.2012 Sh. Mahipal father of deceased Ashok along with his family members came at PS North Rohini. Their statements were recorded. Sh. Mahipal suspected that his son has been killed by his in laws and he gave an application to get the post mortem of the dead body of Ashok conducted by the panel of doctors. Hence, Medical Board was got constituted. The post mortem of dead body of Ashok was got conducted on 24.05.2012. PM report was State vs. Parkash Chand Page 4 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) received on 07/06/2012. The opinion on PM report was 'death in this case occurred as a result of brain damage consequent upon blunt force trauma to the head which was produced by forceful impact with blunt object/weapon/surfaces and is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries are consistent with being produced in an assault." The exhibits handed over by the Doctor after post mortem were seized. It was only after receipt of PM report that death is homicidal.
In view of the above facts and circumstances the FIR no. 168/12 U/s 302/34 IPC dated 08.06.2012 was registered on the statement given by Sh. Mahipal on 21.05.2012 during inquest proceedings. Investigation of the case was taken up by Inspector Vinay Malik SHO. During investigation Sh. Parkash Chand father in law of the deceased was arrested on the same day i.e. 08.06.2012. His two days PC remand was taken, disclosure was recorded and his specimen handwriting were obtained after obtaining permission from the court. During investigation site plan and scaled site plan of the scene of crime was prepared. Videography of the scene was done. Specimen handwritings of Pooja and admitted handwriting of Pooja and Prakash Chand were obtained from their offices.
On 21.06.2012, accused Parvesh Narwal S/o Sh. Parkash Chand was arrested. On 22.06.2012 the further investigation was handed over to Inspector State vs. Parkash Chand Page 5 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) P. S. Sandhu. During further investigation accused Parvesh Narwal was taken on 3 days PC remand. On 24.06.2012 house hold goods which were taken away by the accused persons on 20.05.2012 from the house deceased were recovered at the instance of accused Parvesh from his house at Rohtak. His disclosure statement was recorded.
On 25.07.2012 accused Lal Singh was arrested. He was produced before the court in muffled face for conducting the judicial TIP but the accused refused to join the TIP proceedings. He was taken on two days PC remand, his disclosure statement was recorded and pointing out memo was prepared. Statements of Subhash Chander and Sushil were recorded, the accused was identified by the witnesses.
3. The matter was further investigated by the police. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing investigation and conducting other necessary formalities, charge-sheet was filed in the court. Offence u/s 302/34 IPC was stated to be made out against the accused persons.
4. After supplying copies of documents to the accused U/s 207 Cr.P.C., ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the present case to the Court of Sessions.
5. Vide order dated 14.01.2013 charge U/s 302/34 IPC was framed against accused persons to State vs. Parkash Chand Page 6 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Trial proceeded and during the course of trial, prosecution in order to substantiate its case against the accused, examined forty three witnesses in all.
The depositions made by the witnesses are :
i) PW-1 Mahipal has deposed before the court that deceased Ashok was his son, who was married to Pooja Narwal on 17.04.2008. He identified accused Parkash Chand as father of Pooja Narwal. He further deposed that his son Ashok was doing the business of trading of shares and property dealing and Pooja was working as a teacher in a school situated in H-Block, Sultan Puri. He further deposed that accused Parkash Chand was residing at Ward No.6, Gandhi Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana. PW-1 further deposed before the court that his son Ashok and daughter-in-law Pooja along with their daughter were residing in a rented premises at H. No.D-7/276, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi and had started living there since six months prior to the present incident. He further deposed that due to some matrimonial dispute, Pooja had left the company of her husband on 25.04.2012 and had started living with her parents. PW-1 further deposed that after about 3-4 months of marriage of Ashok & Pooja, some quarrel had started between them and in-laws of Ashok had made interference in their matrimonial life. He further State vs. Parkash Chand Page 7 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) deposed that accused Parkash Chand (father of Pooja) wanted to transfer the share of property as well as of business of Ashok in the name of Pooja and that fact was disclosed to PW-1 by his son Ashok in the first week of May, 2012. PW-1 further claimed that on 19.05.2012 his brother Ram Kumar had received a telephone call of accused Parkash Chand on his mobile demanding Rs.15 lacs as expenses of getting job for Pooja as a teacher and accused Parkash Chand also threatened if demand was not met with, the consequences will be serious and PW-1 and others will know the consequences within two or three days. He further deposed that his brother Ram Kumar told him about the telephone call made by accused Parkash Chand on 20.05.2012 at about 6.00 PM when he returned to Jind from Delhi after delivering the money to his son Ashok. PW-1 further deposed that on 20.05.2012 at about 8/8.30 AM, while he was present in Jind, his brother Ram Kumar informed him that he had received information from SI Jitender as well as from accused Parkash Chand regarding death of his son Ashok. He further deposed that his brother was informed that Ashok had consumed some poisonous substance. PW-1 further deposed that he along with his brother Ram Kumar, his son Kuldeep and some other persons reached at PS Rohini Delhi where they came to know that Ashok had expired and his dead body was lying at the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. He claimed that thereafter they State vs. Parkash Chand Page 8 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) reached at SGM Hospital along with the police. PW-1 further deposed that dead body was shown to him and he had identified the same to be of his son Ashok. He further deposed that from the hospital, they went to the house of Ashok and made enquiries from the owner of the house as well as from the neighbours and came to know that on 20.05.2012, father of Pooja i.e. accused Parkash Chand, brother of Pooja i.e. accused Parvesh, Pooja along with her mother and two other persons had come to the house of Ashok and took away all the articles lying in the house of Ashok. He further deposed that it was also informed by the neighbourers that there was a lot of noise in the house of Ashok and during that period, in-laws of Ashok took away the articles and thereafter Ashok was found dead. PW-1 further deposed that his statement Ex. PW-1/A was recorded by Inspector Jitender on 21.05.2012 and he told in his statement about the gold jewellery/articles given by him in the marriage to Pooja i.e. Rani Haar of about 4.75 tolas, bangles weighing about 5 tolas, two clips of one tola, a tika of 8 gms., chain of Ashok weighing about 2.5 tolas and ring weighing about 6 gms and he further deposed that all these articles were in possession of Pooja. PW-1 further deposed that postmortem examination of Ashok was got conducted on 24.05.2012 on his request through a panel of doctors and he proved his application in that regard as Ex. PW-1/B. He proved his statement regarding identification of dead body as Ex. PW-1/C. PW-1 State vs. Parkash Chand Page 9 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) further deposed that on 25.06.2012 he had visited PS North Rohini and in the PS, articles/goods i.e. sofa, refrigerator, dressing-table, table, two chairs etc., which were taken away by accused persons, were brought by the police and he had seen the same in the PS.
ii) PW-2 Vinod Kumar deposed before the court that he owns a property at D-7/276, second & third floor, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that in the month of October, 2011 he had given the afore-mentioned property on rent to Pooja and Ashok and a rent agreement was executed in that respect. He claimed that the said agreement was got prepared by his brother-in-law namely Subhash. He claimed that at that time Pooja had given some documents but he did not know the description of the same. He further deposed that his brother-in-law Subhash residing at D-7/191, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi, used to take care of his aforesaid property. PW-2 further deposed that he received a telelphonic call from his brother-in-law Subhash Chand who told him that his house bearing No. D-7/276, Second and third floor, Sector-6, Rohini was being vacated by the tenant, however, he claimed that he had not gone there being handicapped and his brother Satish Kumar had gone there. He further deposed that his brother-in-law Subhash had not told as to who had come to pick-up the articles from the said house and later on he came to know that a murder had taken place there but he State vs. Parkash Chand Page 10 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) claimed that he do not know as to who was murdered. PW-2 further deposed that he had give the original copy of rent agreement, photocopy of joining letter, photocopy of tenant verification form along with photocopy of driving licence and electricity bill and said documents were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. The rent agreement has been proved as Ex. PW-2/B, photocopy of joining letter of Pooja as Ex. PW-2/C, tenant verification information form as Ex. PW-2/D, photocopy of driving licence in the name of Pooja as Ex. PW-2/E and electricity bill as Ex. PW-2/F.
iii) PW-3 Rajendra Singh, Assistant Ambulance Officer, CATS, Govt. of Delhi, claimed before the court that on 20.05.2012 he was on duty on Alpha-8 from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM and 15.34 hours, an information was received through wireless set that a person had consumed poison at D-7/276, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that he alongwith his staff reached at the spot and on reaching there he found that there were 2-3 persons present, who were neighbours and one person was father-in-law of deceased. PW-3 further deposed that name of the deceased came to be known as Ashok from Jind, Haryana. He further deposed that ASI Anil was also present at the spot. PW-3 further deposed that he also checked the vitals of Ashok and same were not responding. He claimed that name of father-in-law of deceased was revealed State vs. Parkash Chand Page 11 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) as Parkash Chand working in Haryana Police. He further deposed that he filled the patient assessment proforma and original patient assessment proforma dated 20.05.2012 regarding patient Ashok Kumar was produced before the court by PW-3 and copy of the same has been proved as Ex. PW-3/A.
iv) PW-4 Ravinder Sharma deposed before the court that deceased Ashok was his friend and they studied together during post graduation. He further deposed that later on he worked with Ashok in partnership in Hyphen India Co. at T-13, Malhan Falcon Plaza, Sector-12, Dwarka, Delhi. PW-4 further deposed that Ashok was married with Pooja and matrimonial life of Ashok & Pooja was not cordial and he came to know about that fact through Ashok. He further deposed that there were temperamental differences between husband and wife. He further deposed that even at the time of birth of their daughter, Pooja had left Ashok and had gone to her parental house for about one year and thereafter they started living in a rented accommodation at D-7/276, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi since October/November, 2011. He further deposed that about one month prior to the incident of 20.05.2012, Pooja left the rented premises as again some dispute arose between Pooja and Ashok. PW-4 further deposed that on 21.05.2012 at about 8.00/8.30 AM, he received a phone call of accused Parkash Chand to the effect that accused State vs. Parkash Chand Page 12 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Parkash Chand along with others had come at the above said rented premises on 20.05.2012 to take the household articles and that Ashok had consumed some poisonous substance and had expired. He claimed that he was surprised to hear that as he had received the call from accused Parkash Chand for the first time. He claimed that on that day, he visited the PS where police made enquiries from him and had recorded his statement Ex. PW-4/A. He further deposed that on 21.05.2012, enquires were again made from him by the police and his statement was recorded on 30.06.2012.
v) PW-5. Dr. Akash Jhanjhee, PW-7 Dr. Vinay Kr. Singh and PW-20 Dr. Mohit Chauhan proved the postmortem examination report of deceased Ashok as Ex. PW-5/A. Diagram sheet regarding the injuries found on the body of deceased has been proved as Ex. PW-5/B.
vi) PW-6 retired SI Prem Singh deposed before the court that on 20.05.2012 while he was posted as Incharge, Mobile Crime-team, Outer District, Delhi, after receiving information, he along with his staff had reached at the spot i.e. at D-7/276, Second Floor, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi where ASI Anil Tiwari along with staff met them. He further deposed that dead body of Ashok Kumar, S/o Mahipal, aged about 35 years, was found lying on second floor. He further deposed that he State vs. Parkash Chand Page 13 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) inspected the spot and photographer Ct. Hans Raj took photographs of the spot. He further deposed that he prepared his report Ex. PW-6/A.
vii) PW-7 Dr. Vinay Kr. Singh proved the postmortem examination report of deceased Ashok as Ex. PW-5/A. He further deposed that after examination, he along with Dr. Shri Niwas and Dr. Akash Jhanjhi have opined that death in this case occurred as a result of brain damage consequent upon blunt force trauma to the head which was produced by forceful impact with blunt object/weapon/surfaces and is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Diagram sheet regarding the injuries found on the body of deceased has been proved as Ex. PW-5/B.
viii) PW-8 Sh. Anant Piplani deposed before the court that he was running a transport business from the office situated at G-1, Aggarwal Chamber, Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi. He claimed that on 20.05.2012 he was present in the school of his children and during meantime, he received the phone call of you accused Parkash Chand for hiring TATA 407 for transporting the furniture from Vishram Chowk to Rohtak. He further deposed that accused Parkash Chand had made the call to him from his office and at that time his driver Naresh was present in his office. He further deposed he directed his driver Naresh to accompany accused Parkash Chand in TATA 407 for the aforesaid purpose.
State vs. Parkash Chand Page 14 of 61(FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) He further claimed that by the time he reached his office, his driver Naresh had already left with accused Parkash Chand in TATA 407 bearing No. DL 1LE 8169. He claimed that the fare was fixed as Rs.2000/-. He claimed that on return, his driver Naresh informed that accused Parkash Chand had unloaded articles at Bahadurgarh instead of Rohtak and paid Rs.2000/- to him.
ix) PW-9 Sh. Naresh Pandit has not supported the case of the prosecution, however, he has supported the prosecution case to the fact that 2-3 persons came to the office of Shahji Transport. His owner Anant Piplani was not present at that time in the office. Thereafter, he reached at a house in Sector 6, Rohini by following the said 2-3 persons in a tempo bearing no. ...8169. He further admitted that furniture items like sofa, table, dressing table and freezer were loaded in the tempo. On the way, the said persons asked him to unload the goods at Bahadurgarh, then, he unloaded the goods in a house at Bahadurgarh.
x) PW-10 HC Satish deposed before the court that on 28.10.2011, he was working as Reader to SHO PS North Rohini and had joined the investigation of this case with Inspector A.S. Sandhu. He further deposed that he checked the tenant verification register and verified that Pooja Narwal, W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, R/o D-7/276, Second & Third Floor, Sector-6, Rohini, State vs. Parkash Chand Page 15 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) permanent R/o 8/19, Gandhi Nagar, Rohtak was tenant of landlord Vinod Kumar, S/o Sannu Ram. He further deposed that he checked tenant verification form and informed IO that the said form was received in PS on 21.10.2011 and entry in that regard was made at Sr. No.838 on 21.10.2011. He further deposed that copy of that form was sent to S.S.P. Rohtak for verification on 03.11.2011. He further deposed that he also informed the IO that he handed over the copy of that FIR to the applicant as a receipt. He further deposed that along with the application of tenant verification form, a photocopy of driving licence was annexed. He further deposed that he verified the entries of the said register and handed over the copies of the same to IO. He produced tenant verification register of 2011 before the court and photocopy of the same with regard to entry No.838 has been proved as Ex. PW-10/A and photocopy of tenant verification information form as Ex. PW-2/D and photocopy of driving licence of Pooja Narwal as Ex. PW-2/E. PW-10 further deposed that IO also produced one complaint of Pooja Narwal dated 25.04.2012, which was received by duty officer vide DD No.55-B and DD entry had been given to him and he got the same marked from SHO to HC Deepak for making enquiries/investigation. He further deposed that entry in that regard was made in a local register at Sr. No.LC 285 dated 28.04.2012 and entry was made in his handwriting. He claimed that he handed over the said complaint to HC Deepak Kumar. He further State vs. Parkash Chand Page 16 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) deposed that he verified the entries of said register and handed over the copies of the same to IO. He produced the local complaint register 2012 before the court and photocopy of the same with regard to entry LC 285 has been proved as Ex. PW-10/B. Original complaint bearing diary No. LC 285, dated 28.04.2012 and entry of DD No.55-B dated 25.04.2012 at 5.15 PM has been proved as Ex. PW-10/C. He further deposed that photocopies of both the registers with regard to relevant entry were handed over to IO, who had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-10/D.
xi) PW-11 Sushil Kumar deposed before the court that his mother Smt. Raj Rani used to reside in D-7/276, Ground Floor, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi where he used to visit daily to look-after his mother. He further deposed that second & third floor of that house were occupied by Ashok Kumar and his wife Pooja, who were residing in tenancy about 6-7 months ago prior to the incident. He further deposed that second & third floor were let out to Ashok Kumar and his wife Smt. Pooja by landlord Sh. Vinod Kumar by executing a rent agreement. He further deposed that Vinod Kumar was a resident of Subhash Nagar, Delhi and Subhash Ahuja used to look-after the property of Ashok Kumar as care taker and used to receive rent from Ashok & Smt. Pooja. PW-11 further deposed that father-in-law of Ashok i.e. accused Parkash Chand used to make call to him to know about Ashok and his State vs. Parkash Chand Page 17 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) daughter Pooja. He further deposed that about 3 days ago since the incident, accused Parkash Chand made a call to him and asked if Ashok had paid the rent or not. PW-11 deposed that he accordingly enquired from Subhash Ahuja, where Ashok was present, and he told that he had paid the rent and he would vacate the premises. PW-11 further deposed that on 20.05.2012 at about 12-12.15 noon, care taker Subhash Chand made a call to him and informed that Ashok had vacated the tenanted premises. He further deposed that Subhash Chand enquired from him as to what was the amount to be paid to Ashok, which he had paid as security at the time of induction of tenancy. He deposed that he told Subhash Chand that he would come in lunch hour at the above said premises and will discuss the matter with Ashok Kumar. PW-11 further deposed that at about 1.30/1.45 PM when he reached at the above said premises, he found a tempo was stationed outside and articles/goods of Ashok Kumar were being loaded in the tempo. He further deposed that near the tempo he met accused Parkash Chand and he enquired from accused Parkash Chand whether he was taking all the articles or taking only the articles belonging to Pooja. He further deposed that accused Parkash Chand told to him that he was taking away the articles belonging to her daughter Pooja and Pooja was getting divorce from Ashok Kumar and disputes with Ashok had been settled. He further deposed that he requested accused Parkash Chand State vs. Parkash Chand Page 18 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) that the rent agreement was executed by Pooja and he requested accused Parkash Chand to take away all the articles from the rented premises as there was no rent agreement in the name of Ashok Kumar. He further deposed that accused Parkash Chand told to him that he would take all the goods lying on second & third floor of that house. He further deposed that labourers were removing the goods from second & third floor and loading the same in tempo. PW-11 further deposed before the court that he went to the second floor of the house where he met Ashok Kumar whom he informed that accused Parkash Chand and others were taking all the goods in a tempo on which, Ashok told him that "LE JAANE DO INHE SAMAAN". He further deposed that he told Ashok Kumar to take away his clothes, which were lying scattered in the room. He further deposed that Ashok Kumar told him that he would take away his clothes and articles at about 4.00 PM that day itself. PW-11 further deposed that he made a call to Subhash Chand Ahuja to reach at the property and after sometime Subhash Chand Ahuja reached at the ground floor of the property. He further deposed that he went downstairs where accused Parkash Chand was present and he along with Subhash Chand Ahuja met accused Parkash Chand. He further deposed that accused Parkash Chand handed over the rent agreement to him and accused Parkash Chand wrote on the same that he was taking the articles from second and third floor and handing over the State vs. Parkash Chand Page 19 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) possession of second and third floor to Subhash Chand Ahuja. He further deposed that Subhash Chand Ahuja was also having original rent agreement in his possession. He further deposed that he requested accused Parkash Chand to handover identify proof and accused Parkash Chand handed over his identity card to him. He further deposed that accused Parkash Chand handed over the photocopy of his identity card to him as he was working in Haryana Police. Photocopy of rent agreement has been proved as Ex. PW-2/B and same was correctly identified by witness and portion Q1 (handwriting of accused Parkash Chand on rent agreement) has been proved as Ex. PW-11/A. Photocopy of identity card of accused Parkash Chand has been proved as Ex. PW-11/B. PW- 11 further claimed that he along with Subhash Chand Ahuja and accused Parkash Chand went on the ground floor where he (PW-11) asked his mother to prepare tea for them. He further deposed that they took tea on the ground floor and thereafter, accused Parkash Chand left his house and he along with Subhash Chand Ahuja went to second floor of the house. He further deposed that Ashok Kumar was lying in the first room of the second floor and frothly secretion was coming out of his mouth( JHAAG MUH SE AA RAHE THE). He further deposed that he along with Subhash Chand called accused Parkash Chand from the second floor and accused Parkash Chand came upstairs in that room. He claimed that he asked State vs. Parkash Chand Page 20 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) accused Parkash Chand to see what happened with Ashok Kumar and accused Parkash Chand replied that Ashok Kumar might have consumed something. He further deposed that he requested accused Parkash Chand to call the police and he made a call to the police at 100 number and thereafter police reached at the spot. He claimed that CATS Ambulance also reached the spot and informed them that Ashok Kumar had expired. He further deposed that Ashok Kumar was taken to the hospital in TSR. He further deposed that he along with Subhash Chand Ahuja was taken to PS North Rohini and he told everything to the police whatever happened in his presence. He claimed that police recorded his statement Ex. PW-11/C. PW-11 further deposed before the court that he had stated to the police that in second half of April, Smt. Pooja left deceased alone in the tenanted premises. He further deposed that one person having beard was also present at the second floor of the said premises and getting the articles loaded in the tempo from the second floor. He further deposed that he had stated to the police that when accused Parkash Chand was leaving the flat of Ashok, he requested accused Parkash Chand to call the police at 100 number but accused Parkash Chand told him that he should inform/call the police. He further deposed that there was only one way to reach the flat of Ashok Kumar i.e. staircase.
State vs. Parkash Chand Page 21 of 61(FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini)
xii) PW-12 Subhash Chand Ahuja corroborated the testimony of PW-11 Sushil Kumar and further deposed that his brother-in-law (Saala) Vinod Kumar owned first, second & third floor of D-7/276, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that first floor was occupied by tenant namely Rahul Jaiswal, who was working in NDPL, Delhi and second & third floor of the house let out to Pooja, W/o Ashok Kumar. He further deposed that a rent agreement was executed between Vinod Kumar & Pooja within 6-7 months prior to the incident. He further deposed that he used to look-after the tenanted premises of Vinod Kumar. PW-12 further deposed that on 20.05.2012 he had gone to Gur Mandi, Shakti Nagar, Delhi where he received a telephone call of Lucky @ Sushil Kumar, who informed him that tenant Ashok was vacating the tenanted premises of second & third floor and father-in-law of Ashok i.e. accused Parkash Chand were also present there at the tenanted premises. He further deposed that after about 1-1½ hours he reached the tenanted premises of Ashok where he met Sushil Kumar, who introduced him to accused Parkash Chand. He further deposed that one tempo was stationed outside the tenanted premises and labourers were loading the articles of Ashok in the tempo on the instruction and direction of accused Parkash Chand. He further deposed that labourers were taking the articles from second and third floor for loading in the tempo. He further deposed on the similar lines as deposed by State vs. Parkash Chand Page 22 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) PW-2 Vinod Kumar & PW-11 Sushil Kumar. He claimed that his statement Ex. PW-12/A was recorded by the police in PS. He further deposed that he handed over copy of rent agreement on which accused Parkash Chand wrote by giving physical possession of the tenanted premises and I Card of accused Parkash Chand, which were taken in possession by police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-12/B. He further deposed that he had stated to the police that there was dispute between Smt. Pooja and deceased Ashok Kumar.
xiii) PW-13 HC Ram Parvesh deposed before the court that on 25.04.2012 at about 5.15 PM while he was working as Duty Officer PS North Rohini, one written complaint was filed by Smt. Pooja Narwal, r/o second floor D-7, H. No.276, Sector-6, Delhi. He deposed that said complaint was received vide DD No.55-B and same has been proved as Ex. PW-13/A.
xiv) PW-14 Ct. Hans Raj deposed before the court that on 20.05.2012 while he was posted as photographer, Mobile Crime team, Outer District, Delhi, he along with SI Prem Singh reached at second floor, D-7, H. No.276, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi where one dead body of Ashok, S/o Mahipal was lying on the floor. He further deposed that ASI Anil was present at the spot. He further deposed that he took 13 photographs from different angles on direction of SI Prem & ASI Anil Tiwari. 13 photographs have been State vs. Parkash Chand Page 23 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) proved as Ex. PW-14/A1 to Ex. PW-14/A13 and negatives thereof as Ex. PW-14/B1 to Ex. PW-14/B13.
xv) PW-15 Sh. Ram Kumar deposed before this Court that his younger brother Mahipal married his son Ashok with Pooja, daughter of accused Prakash chand. He further deposed that after the marriage, dispute/anban started between Ashok and pooja and accused Prakash Chand started to intervene. He further deposed that accused Prakash Chand insisted that the agricultural land at village Kharak Gagar falls in the share of Ashok and half share of the said land should be registered/transferred in the name of Pooja. He further deposed that Ashok had also informed prior to his death accused Prakash Chand and his family members were threatening him to get partition of ancestral property which was in the name of father of Ashok and his family increased day by day. It is further deposed by PW 15 further deposed that on 19.05.2012 at about 9/10 pm, he received a call on his mobile number 8059183604 from mobile number 9813088242 of accused Prakash Chand wherein accused Prakash Chand demanded Rs. 15 lac from him which were spent by him for getting his daughter Pooja appointed as teacher. PW5 further deposed that accused Prakash Chand also told him on the mobile that if the demand of Rs. 15 lacs was not fulfilled, then they would face the consequence within two-three days. He further deposed that on 20.05.2012 he conveyed these State vs. Parkash Chand Page 24 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) facts to his brother Mahipal and on the said night his brother Mahipal left for Jind for consulting his relatives. PW-15 further deposed that on 21.05.2012 at about 8 am, he received a telephone call from police station North Rohini which was made to him by accused Prakash Chand wherein he told that accused Ashok had committed suicide by consuming poison and died at the spot. He further deposed that accused Prakash Chand also informed him that he had sent a message to SP Jind and police officials of Pillu Khera, Jind but no one had responded. He further deposed that immediately thereafter, he received a call which was made by Inspector Jitender Malik who claimed that he was calling from PS North Rohini and he asked him as to when he would reach at police station. PW-15 further deposed that since he was working in the fields, it would take 4-5 hours to reach PS North Rohini, Delhi. PW-15 further deposed that he went to his house and informed his family members about the factum of death of Ashok. He further deposed that his family members made a call to Mahipal and all family members gathered at his house. PW- 15 further deposed that they proceeded to police station North Rohini Delhi and reached there at around 2-2:30 pm on 21.05.2012. PW-15 further deposed that he made a complaint to Inspector Jitender Malik as to why they were not informed earlier with regard to death of Ashok. He deposed that Inspector Jitender told them that they should firstly visit at the place where Ashok State vs. Parkash Chand Page 25 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) was residing as a tenant and thereafter they all reached the place of occurrence. PW 15 further deposed that at the spot, they came to know from Sushil, Subhash and some females that Parvesh, Prakash Chand, one beard person whose head was covered with a piece of cloth and one another person along with mother of Pooja and Pooja had taken away all the articles in a tempo. He further deposed that those persons also claimed that they went upstairs and they found Ashok lying dead and they were sure that Parvesh, Prakash Chand, one beard person who was called by other as Mama and one another boy had murdered Ashok. PW-15 identified accused Parkash Chand, Parvesh and Lal singh before the Court.
xvi) PW-16 Ct. Anand Singh deposed before the Court that on 24.05.2012 he along with SI Satish Kumar went to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital for taking body of deceased Ashok Kumar for post mortem by Medical Board at Maulana Azad Medical College. He further deposed that dead body of deceased was taken to Maulana Azad Medical College and the Medical Boards conducted post mortem on the dead body and after the post mortem, hospital/doctor handed over SI Satish sealed pullanda containing clothes of deceased and one khaki envelope containing blood in gauze piece and sample seal which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 16/A. PW 16 further deposed that on 07.08.2012 on the direction of State vs. Parkash Chand Page 26 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) IO Inspector A.S.Sandhu and SHO, he collected from MHC(M) the documents with FSL form for depositing the same at FSL Rohini and deposited the same with FSL and obtained the acknowledgement from office of FSL which was handed over to MHC(M). He further deposed that during the period the documents remained in his possession, no one tampered the same in any manner.
Xvii) PW-17 Kuldeep deposed before the Court that his elder brother Ashok was married with Pooja D/o Prakash Chand. He further deposed that after 3-4 months since the marriage, his sister in law Pooja used to quarrel with Ashok and his family members. He further deposed that after 2 ½ years since the marriage, the furniture lying at his parents house was taken away by Ashok and his wife when they started living separately in a rented accommodation at Sector 7 Rohini, Delhi. PW 17 further deposed that accused Prakash Chand started interfering in matrimonial life of Ashok and Pooja and accused Prakash Chand used to pressurize his parents and family members including Ashok to part the share of ancestral property/land which would come in the name of Ashok to be transferred in the name of Pooja. He further deposed that his brother Ashok used to tell him that Pooja used to quarrel with him. PW 17 further deposed that accused Prakash Chand used to pressurize his brother Ashok to part with property of his share in the name of State vs. Parkash Chand Page 27 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Pooja or gave the money in lieu of the land in the name of Pooja. PW-17 further deposed that on 19.05.2012 in the evening hours, his Tau/uncle Ram Kumar received a telephone call from accused Parkash Chand and accused Parkash Chand demanded Rs. 15 lacs which was spent on his daughter Pooja, who was got appointed as a teacher otherwise there would be dire consequences which would come in reality in 2-3 days. He further deposed that his uncle Ram Kumar also disclosed this fact to him and his family. PW-17 further deposed that on 20.05.2012 at about 12.30 PM, Ashok made a telephone call from mobile number 9555150310 on his mobile number 9466887339 and informed that accused Parkash Chand and his family members were creating trouble. He claimed that at that time he was driving his motorcycle and he therefore requested Ashok that he would talk to him later on when he reached home. He further deposed that after about 15 minutes when he reached his house, he made a call on the mobile of Ashok which was found switched off. PW-17 further deposed that on 21.05.2012 in the morning hours, his uncle Ram Kumar received a telephone call from PS Rohini and his uncle informed them that he received a telephone call from PS North-Rohini that Ashok had consumed poison and had expired. He further deposed that he along with his family members went to PS North Rohini where he came to know that on 20.05.2012 Parkash Chand, his son accused Parvesh and accused Lal State vs. Parkash Chand Page 28 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Chand had come to the rented accommodation of Ashok to take the household articles and in the said quarrel, his brother Ashok had expired. He claimed that accused persons had taken away the household articles from the tenanted premises of Ashok. PW-17 further deposed that on 24.05.2012 he along with his family members went to Mortuary of LNJP Hospital where he identified the dead body of his brother Ashok Kumar vide identification statement Ex.PW17/A. He further deposed that after the postmortem of deceased brother was received by them.
Xviii) PW-18 Ct. Ravinder Kumar deposed before the court that on 08.06.2012, accused Parkash Chand was taken out from the lock-up and interrogated by the IO. He further deposed that accused Parkash Chand led the police team to second floor of house No. D- 7/276, Sector-6, Rohini Delhi and pointed out the place of occurrence. He claimed that IO prepared pointing out memo of place of occurrence. PW-18 further deposed that accused Parkash Chand was produced before the court of ld. M.M. in Rohini Courts and IO moved an application for permission to obtain the specimen handwriting of accused Parkash Chand and the application was allowed. He further deposed that on application of IO, ld. Court granted two days PC remand of accused Parkash Chand. PW-18 further deposed that on 24.06.2012 accused Parvesh Narwal was taken out from the lock-up and was interrogated State vs. Parkash Chand Page 29 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) by the IO. He further deposed that accused Parvesh Narwal led the police team to his house No.8, ward No.6, Gandhi Nagar, Rohtak Haryana. He further deposed that on the way to the house, one public person Harish Kumar, who was resident of the locality of you Parvesh Narwal, and said Harish Kumar joined the investigation. He claimed that accused Parvesh Narwal led them to the court yard of his house where one five seater sofa, one broken wooden table, meharoom colour godrej refrigerator and one dressing table were found and pointed out by accused Parvesh Narwal as the articles which were taken in a tempo from the house of deceased Ashok Kumar at Rohini, Delhi to Bahadur Garh and thereafter, said articles were shifted to their house. He deposed that all the articles were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-18/A. He further deposed that IO made inquiry from Pooja and mother of accused Parvesh. He further deposed that IO hired TATA 407 Tempo and loaded those articles for taking the same to PS Rohini and the articles were brought to PS North Rohini and deposited with MHC(M).
xix) PW-19 HC Deepak deposed before the court that on 28.04.2012 he received a complaint of Smt. Pooja Narwal wife of Ashok Kumar from the Reader of SHO for purpose of inquiry and the complaint was against Ashok Kumar regarding demand of money, harassment and beatings given to State vs. Parkash Chand Page 30 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) complainant Pooja Narwal. He further deposed that in the first week of May, 2012, he made inquiry with respect to said complaint and went to the rented accommodation of Pooja at House No. 276, Second Floor, D Block, Sector-6 Rohini where he met Ashok Kumar who informed him that there was dispute between him and his wife Pooja and the said matter would soon be resolved through the intervention of family members. He further deposed that Ashok Kumar also informed him that Pooja had gone to her parents' house some days ago. PW-19 further deposed that on 29.06.2012, he was called by the IO A.S. Sandhu who recorded his statement and handed over the complaint M.S. Pooja Narwal to the IO and the said complaint was identified by the witness and same has been proved as Ex.PW-10/C. Xx) PW-20 Dr. Mohit Chauhan also proved the post mortem report already Ex. PW 5/A. Xxi) PW-21 Ct. Ashzad deposed before the court that on 08.06.2012, he along with Inspector Vinay Malik, Inspector Satish Kumar and other staff had gone to D-7/276, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that one Sushil Kumar, who was residing at the ground floor of that property met them there and who led them to second floor where site plan was prepared by Inspector Vinay Malik. He further deposed that one Subhash Chand, who was care taker of the State vs. Parkash Chand Page 31 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) second and third floor of the said house, gave his statement to IO. PW-21 further deposed that accused Parkash Chand was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-21/A & personal search of accused Parkash Chand was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-21/B. He further deposed that accused Parkash Chand had made disclosure statement Ex. PW-21/C. xxii) PW-22 Ct. Inderaj deposed before the court that on 08.06.2012 duty officer HC Vijender had handed over to him envelopes containing copies of FIR for delivering the same to ld. Area MM and other senior police officials and he delivered the copies of FIR as per direction. He further deposed that he had left the PS vide DD No.31-A, copy of which had been proved as Ex. PW-22/A and he further deposed that he returned to PS vide DD No.35-A. PW-22 further deposed that on 13.08.2012 on the directions of IO, he collected two sealed parcels from MHC(M) vide RC No.40/21/12 and deposited the same in the FSL. He deposed that he obtained the acknowledgement from FSL and handed over the acknowledgement and copy of RC to MHC(M). He further deposed that till the exhibits remained in his custody, nobody including him tempered with the same.
xxiii) PW-23 Inspector Manohar Lal deposed before the court that on 15.06.2012 while he was State vs. Parkash Chand Page 32 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) posted as draftsman, North West District, he was called by Inspector Vinay Malik to PS South Rohini. He further deposed that he accompanied IO Inspector Vinay Malik & ASI Anil Tiwari to H. No.276, Second floor, Pocket D-7, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi, where he took rough notes and measurements for preparing scaled site plan. He further deposed that on 16.06.2012 he prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW-23/A and handed over the same to IO. He further deposed that after preparing scaled site plan, he destroyed the rough notes and measurements.
xxiv) PW-24 Ct. Rajinder deposed before the court that on 23.06.2012 accused Parvesh Narwal had made disclosure statement Ex. PW-24/A on having been interrogated by Inspector A.S. Sandhu.
xxv) PW-25 HC Ghanshyam proved copy of DD No.16-A dated 20.05.2012 PS North Rohini as Ex. PW- 25/A. He further claimed that he telephonically informed ASI Anil Tiwari & SHO for taking necessary action.
xxvi) PW-26 Ct. Rakshak Pal deposed before the court that on 25.07.2012 accused Lal Singh was arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex. PW-26/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-26/B. He further deposed that during interrogation accused Lal Singh had made State vs. Parkash Chand Page 33 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) disclosure statement Ex. PW-26/C. He further deposed that accused Lal Singh was informed that his TIP was required to be conducted and his face was covered with a piece of cloth. PW-26 further deposed that on 26.07.2012 accused Lal Singh was produced in Rohini Court with muffled face for his TIP, however, he refused to participate in TIP. He further deposed that on application of IO, PC remand of accused Lal Singh was granted for two days. PW-26 further deposed that during PC remand, accused Lal Singh led the police team to the place of occurrence i.e. second floor D- 7/276, Sector-6, Rohini and pointed out the spot vide pointing out memo Ex. PW-26/D. He further deposed that at that time Subhash Chand & Sushil Kumar also reached there who identified Lal Singh as the same person, who along with other associates came to said place on 20.05.2012.
xxvii) PW-27 HC Satya Narain deposed before the court that on 20.05.2012 on receipt of DD No.16-A, he along with ASI Anil Kumar Tiwari went to D-7, 276, Second Floor, Sector-6, Riohini, where one person was found lying on the floor. He further deposed that the name of the said person was revealed as Ashok Kumar, who was unconscious at that time. He further deposed that the CAT Ambulance was called and officials of CAT Ambulance checked Ashok Kumar and declared him dead. PW-27 further deposed that Inspector Jitender and crime team officials reached at State vs. Parkash Chand Page 34 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) the spot and crime-team officials inspected and photographed the place of occurrence. He further deposed that crime-team incharge gave report to ASI Anil Tiwari. He further deposed that care taker of the second floor namely Subhash Chand handed over some documents to ASI Anil Tiwari. ASI Anil Tiwari prepared an application for preserving the dead body in mortuary SGM Hospital and he (PW-27) took the dead body to SGM Hospital and preserved the same in mortuary. He further deposed that during the period the dead body remained in his care, no one tampered the same.
xxviii) PW-28 Sh. Som Nath Miglani produced before the court record of registration of marriage of Ashok Kumar, S/o Sh. Mahipal with Pooja Narwal, D/o Parkash Chand Narwal. He claimed that as per record, they were married on 17.04.2008 and marriage was registered on 20.03.2009. Photocopy of marriage registration certificate has been proved as Ex. P-3.
xxix) PW-29 Ct. Narender Kumar produced before the court Fauji Belt No.95, Rohtak with respect to accused Parkash Chand. He claimed that as per record, earlier the belt number was 62, Rohtak. He claimed that the file produced by him was having application for leave from 01.10.1991 to 30.10.1991 and application has been proved as Ex. PW-29/A. He proved another application for leave from 03.06.1992 State vs. Parkash Chand Page 35 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) to 17.06.1992 as Ex. PW-29/B, another application for leave from 02.03.1999 to 21.03.1999 as Ex. PW-29/C, another application for leave from 30.03.1999 to 08.04.1999 as Ex. PW-29/D. He claimed that the originals of the same were handed over to the police vide reply to the notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. and photocopies were retained in the file brought by him.
xxx) PW-30 Sh. Ajeet Singh, Assistant Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. produced before the court the record pertaining to mobile No.8059183604. He claimed that as per CAF, the aforesaid mobile number was issued in the name of Ram Kumar, S/o Goddu, which was a pre-paid Haryana connection. The copy of CAF has been proved as Ex. PW-30/A. CDR of the above-mentioned mobile from 19.05.2012 to 20.05.2012 has been proved as Ex. PW-30/B and certificate U/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act has been proved as Ex. PW-30/C. He deposed that all these documents were supplied to IO vide covering letter Ex. PW-30/D. xxxi) PW-31 Inspector Jitender Kumar Malik deposed before the court that on 20.05.2012, he along with ASI Anil Tiwari had reached at H. No.276, Pocket D-7, near Vishram Chowk, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi where they found one person lying unconscious, whose name was transpired as Ashok Kumar. He claimed that there was no visible injury mark on the State vs. Parkash Chand Page 36 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) body of said person. He further deposed that crime- team was called which inspected and photographed the spot. He claimed that ASI Anil Kumar prepared inquest papers and dead body was sent to mortuary of SGM Hospital and was preserved there. PW-31 further deposed that on 21.05.2012 complainant Mahipal Singh, father of deceased Ashok Kumar, came to PS and doubted accused persons. He deposed that he recorded the statement Ex. PW-1/A of complainant Mahipal and handed over the same to ASI Anil Tiwari. PW-31 further deposed that the deceased Ashok Kumar along with his wife and their daughter was residing in the tenanted second and third floor of H. No.D7/276, Sector-6, Rohini, which was having an area of 26 meters and there was only one way to go to the floor and third floor through staircase which starts from outside the said house. He claimed that ground floor was occupied by one person namely Sushil Kumar.
xxxii) PW-32 SI Satish Kumar deposed before the court that on 20.05.2012, ASI Anil Tiwari had handed over the inquest papers to him for taking necessary action. He deposed that on 21.05.2012, he recorded statement Ex. PW-4/A of Ravinder Sharma, a friend of deceased Ashok Kumar. He claimed that he moved an application for constituting a board of doctors for conducting postmortem on the body of deceased vide order dated 23.05.2012 and board was constituted State vs. Parkash Chand Page 37 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) accordingly. PW-32 further claimed that on 24.05.2012 dead body was taken to mortuary of Maulana Azad Medical College and LNH Hospital, He claimed that the dead body was identified by Kuldeep & Mahipal Singh and recorded their statements Ex. PW-17/A & Ex. PW-1/C respectively. He further deposed that he moved an application Ex. PW-32/A for conducting postmortem. The brief facts of the case has been proved as Ex. PW-32/B. He claimed that postmortem was conducted by Board of doctors and after postmortem dead body was handed over to the relatives. He further deposed that after postmortem, the hospital handed over to him sealed pullandas including envelope and sample seal, which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/A and deposited the same with MHC(M). On 07.06.2012, he collected the postmortem report and handed over the documents to IO Inspector Vinay Malik. PW-32 further deposed that on 08.06.2012, he along with IO Inspector Vinay Malik went to the place of occurrence where IO prepared site plan at the instance of witness Sushil. He further deposed that after preparing site plan and recording of statement of Sushil, he along with IO and other staff returned to PS where accused Parkash Chand was found present. He further deposed that accused Parkash Chand was interrogated and arrested in the present case and during interrogation, a disclosure statement was made by accused Parkash Chand. PW-32 further deposed State vs. Parkash Chand Page 38 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) that on 09.06.2012, accused Parkash Chand led the police team to the place of occurrence and had pointed out the same and pointing out memo prepared in that regard has been proved as Ex. PW-32/C. He further deposed that accused Parkash Chand was then produced in the court and IO had moved an application for taking specimen handwriting of accused Parkash Chand, which was allowed by the court and specimen handwriting of accused Parkash Chand was taken. He further deposed that IO moved an application seeking PC remand of accused Parkash Chand, which was allowed by the court. PW-32 further deposed that during PCR remand on 10.06.2012 accused Parkash Chand led the police team to G-1, Aggarwal Chamber, Sector-5, Rohini and pointed out the office of Transporter Shahji Travels from where the tempo was hired for loading the articles from the place of incident. He further deposed that IO recorded the statement of Anant Piplani and driver Naresh Pandit and then they returned to PS. He deposed that the supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW-32/D of accused Parkash Chand was recorded by the IO. PW-32 further deposed that on 21.06.2012, accused Parvesh Narwal came to PS and joined investigation with IO. He deposed that accused Parvesh Narwal was interrogated and arrested in the present case and arrest memo and personal search memo in that regard have been proved as Ex. PW-32/E & Ex. PW-32/F respectively. Board of doctors for conducting State vs. Parkash Chand Page 39 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) postmortem on the body of deceased vide order dated 23.05.2012 and Board was constituted accordingly. PW-32 further deposed that on 24.05.2012 dead body was taken to mortuary of Maulana Azad Medical College and LNH Hospital. The dead body was identified by Kuldeep & Mahipal Singh and recorded their statements Ex. PW-17/A & Ex. PW-1/C respectively. He further deposed that he moved an application Ex. PW-32/A for conducting postmortem. The brief facts of the case has been proved as Ex. PW- 32/B. He claimed that postmortem was conducted by Board of doctors and after postmortem dead body was handed over to the relatives. He further deposed that after postmortem, the hospital handed over to him sealed pullandas including envelope and sample seal, which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 16/A and deposited the same with MHC(M). He deposed that on 07.06.2012, he collected the postmortem report and handed over the documents to IO Inspector Vinay Malik. PW-32 further deposed that on 08.06.2012, he along with IO Inspector Vinay Malik went to the place of occurrence where IO prepared site plan at the instance of witness Sushil. After preparing site plan and recording of statement of Sushil, he along with IO and other staff returned to PS where accused Parkash Chand was found present. He further deposed that accused Parkash Chand was interrogated and arrested in the present case and during interrogation, a disclosure statement was made State vs. Parkash Chand Page 40 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) by accused Parkash Chand. PW-32 further deposed that on 09.06.2012, accused Parkash Chand led the police team to the place of occurrence and had pointed out the same and pointing out memo prepared in that regard has been proved as Ex. PW-32/C. Accused Parkash Chand was then produced in the court and IO had moved an application for taking specimen handwriting of accused Parkash Chand, which was allowed by the court and specimen handwriting of accused Parkash Chand was taken. IO moved an application seeking PC remand of accused Parkash Chand, which was allowed by the court. PW-32 further claimed that during PCR remand on 10.06.2012 of accused Parkash Chand led the police team to G-1, Aggarwal Chamber, Sector-5, Rohini and pointed out the office of Transporter Shahji Travels from where the tempo was hired for loading the articles from the place of incident. He further deposed that IO recorded the statement of Anant Piplani and driver Naresh Pandit and then they returned to PS. He claimed that the supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW-32/D of accused Parkash Chand was recorded by the IO. PW- 32 further deposed that on 21.06.2012, accused Parvesh Narwal came to PS and joined investigation with IO. He claimed that accused Parvesh Narwal was interrogated and arrested in the present case and arrest memo and personal search memo in that regard have been proved as Ex. PW-32/E & Ex. PW-32/F respectively.
State vs. Parkash Chand Page 41 of 61(FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Xxxiii) PW-33 Inspector Vinay Malik has conducted part investigation of this case. He claimed that postmortem report with respect to deceased Ashok Kumar was received on 07.06.2012 and on the basis of opinion given by the Autopsy Surgeon as to the cause of death, he made endorsement Ex. PW-33/A on statement Ex. PW-1/A and handed over the rukka to duty officer for registration of FIR. While corroborating the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses, PW-33 further claimed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW-33/B of the place of occurrence at the instance of Sushil Kumar. He further deposed regarding arrest of accused Parkash Chand in the present case and regarding his pointing out of the place of occurrence and office of Shahji Travels and regarding taking of his specimen handwriting after seeking permission from the court. PW-33 further deposed that on 15.06.2012, he called Inspector Manohar Lal to PS and accompanied him and ASI Anil Tiwari to the place of occurrence where Inspector Manohar Lal took measurements and prepared rough notes at the instance of ASI Anil Tiwari for preparing scaled site plan. He further deposed regarding arrest of accused Parvesh Narwal in the present case.
xxxiv) PW-34 HC Ashok Kumar deposed regarding deposit of case property/ exhibits in
malkhana and regarding sending of exhibits to FSL State vs. Parkash Chand Page 42 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Rohini. He also produced before the court original register No.19 & 21. Copies of relevant entries of register No.19 & 21 have been proved as Ex. PW-34/A to Ex. PW-34/C. He further deposed that during the period the case property and exhibits remained in his possession, no one tampered the same in any manner.
xxxv) PW-35 Retired ASI Anil Kumar deposed that on receipt of DD no. 16A, he along with Ct. Satya Narayan reached at the spot ie. Second floor, D-7/276, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi where they found one person lying unconscious. There was no visible injury mark on the body of said person. CAT ambulance reached at the spot who checked Ashok Kumar and declared him dead. Inspector Jitender Malik and other police officials including ACP also reached at the spot where dead body of Ashok Kumar was found. Crime team was called. Crime team inspected the spot and photographer took photographs. Crime team Incharge handed over the report to him. Subhash Chand, who is brother in law of the owner produced copy of rent agreement between Vinod kumar and Pooja. Accused Prakash Chand was also present at the spot and he gave in writing that he has removed the articles of his daughter Pooja from the said tenanted room and he gave the same under his signature on the copy of rent agreement. Accused Prakash Chand gave photocopy of his identity card as he was working as ASI in Haryana police. PW 35 recorded statement of Susheel State vs. Parkash Chand Page 43 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Kumar, who resided at the ground floor of the said house and care taker of the property of Vinod. PW-35 also recorded the statement of Prakash Chand Ex. PW 35/A. PW-35 prepared inquest papers and dead body of Ashok was sent to mortuary of SGM hospital for preserving the same through Ct. Satya Narain. He handed over the inquest papers to SI Satish for taking further action.
PW-35 further deposed that on 15.06.2012 the draftsman Manohar Lal came to the police station, he along with Inspector Vinay Malik and Draftsman went to place of occurrence and draftsman took measurement and prepared rough notes at his instance for preparing scaled site plan. On 21.05.2012 Inspector Jitender Malik recorded the statement of Mahipal already Ex. PW 1/A who is a father of deceased Ashok Kumar. Inspector Vinay Malik got registered the case on 08.06.2012. He handed over all the documents collected by him in this case to IO.
xxxvi) PW-36 Sh. Harish Kumar is a formal witness. He deposed that on 24.06.2012 while he was present in his house, wife of accused Prakash Chand came to him and informed that some police officials from Delhi had come. She also told him that they wanted to obtain his signatures on some documents. Accordingly, he went to house of Parkash where a police official met him and informed him that they are seizing articles in respect of a murder case.
State vs. Parkash Chand Page 44 of 61(FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) xxxvii) PW-37 Inspector Surender Sharma claimed before the court that on 30.04.2012 while he was posted in office of ACP CAW Cell, Outer district, a complaint filed by Ms. Pooja Narwal was assigned to him. He claimed that alongwith the complaint there were some annexures like marriage certificate, copy of complaint marked to SHO PS North Rohini and one rent agreement etc. PW-37 further claimed that in July 2012, IO of this case requested him to handover copies of those documents to him and accordingly he handed over the attested copies of the said documents to IO which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 37/1.
xxxviii) PW-38 ASI Vijendra Kumar proved copy of FIR of this case as Ex. PW-38/1, endorsement made by him on the rukka as Ex. PW-38/2 and certificate U/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act in respect of FIR as Ex. PW- 38/3. PW-38 also proved copy of DD No.38-A dated 08.06.2012, PS North Rohini as Ex. PW-38/4 and DD No.31-A dated 08.06.2012 PS North Rohini as Ex. PW- 22/A. xxxix) PW-39 ASI Dinesh Chandra deposed that on 09.06.2012, accused Prakash Chand was already in police custody and he along with IO Inspector Vinay Malik, SI Satish, Ct. Ravinder along with accused Parkash Chand had gone to House No. D-7/276, State vs. Parkash Chand Page 45 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Sector-6, Rohini Delhi and accused Prakash Chand had led them to second floor of that house and pointed out towards a room stating that he and his son Parvesh had given beatings to his son-in-law Ashok in the said room and due to the beatings, Ashok had expired. PW- 39 further deposed that thereafter, accused was produced before the Court and IO moved an application for obtaining specimen signatures/ handwriting of accused Parkash Chand. The application had been allowed by the Court and specimen handwriting of accused Parkash Chand was taken. Thereafter, IO had moved an application for obtaining PC remand of accused and two days PC remand of accused Prakash Chand was granted by the court. PW-39 further deposed that on the next date I.e. 10.06.2012, he again joined investigation of the case along with IO and SI Satish Kumar. PW 39 further deposed that accused Parkash Chand was taken out from the lock up and he had led them to G-1, Aggarwal Chamber, Sector-5 Rohini, Delhi and pointed towards a shop in the name and style of Shah Ji Travels stating that on 20.05.2012 they had hired a tempo from that shop and in that tempo, articles from Sector-6, Rohini had been transported to Rohtak. One Anant Piplani was found present in the shop, who claimed himself to be the owner of that shop. IO made enquiries from him and recorded his statement. He also produced one Naresh Pandit, who was driver on the said tempo on 20.05.2012. IO also made enquiries from Naresh State vs. Parkash Chand Page 46 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Pandit and recorded his statement. Thereafter, they returned to the police station along with accused.
xl) PW-40 Mohan Singh deposed before the court that on 25.07.2012, while he was posted as UDC, Sarvodya Kanya Vidalaya, H-Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi, police officials from PS Rohini had come to his office and had sought some documents relating to admitted signatures of Smt. Pooja Narwal, who was serving as TGT (English) in that school. He claimed that after obtaining permission from the principal he had handed over to the police officials - I) attested photocopy of page No.3 of Service Book of Pooja Narwal containing her details and signatures; 2) application dated 09.05.2012 addressed to Principal, SKV, H-Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi seeking permission for NET Exam ,
3) application dated 27.04.2012 addressed to the Principal, GSKV, H-Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi, seeking half day casual leave and those documents have been seized by the police officials vide seizure memo Ex. PW-40/1. He proved the application seeking permission for NET Exam as Ex. PX-4, application seeking half day casual leave as Ex. PX-5 and page No.3 of Service Book of Ms. Pooja Narwal as Ex.PW- 40/A. xli) PW-41 Dr. Jiju P.V., Assistant Director, CFSL, Pune, Maharashtra proved FSL report bearing report No.2012/D-5836 dated 25.10.2012 as Ex. PW-
State vs. Parkash Chand Page 47 of 61(FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) 41/1.
xlii) PW-42 Sh. Israr Babu, alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. Produced before the court the relevant record pertaining to mobile phone No.9813088242. He deposed that as per record, the aforesaid number has been alloted to accused Parkash Chand Narwal, S/o Sh. Maman Chand Narwal. Certified copy of Pre-paid Customer Information Form has been proved as Ex. PW-42/1, certified copy of CDRs for the period 19.05.2012 to 21.05.2012 has been proved as Ex. PW-42/2 and certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act with respect to the CDRs has been proved as Ex. PW-42/3.
xliii) PW-43 Inspector A.S. Sandhi is IO of the case and has deposed regarding the details of investigation carried out by him. While corroborating the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses, PW-43 further claimed that during investigation he seized a complaint (Ex. PW-10/C) made by Ms. Pooja Narwal from Enquiry Officer HC Deepak, PS North Rohini vide seizure memo Ex. PW-43/1. He deposed that he also seized the marriage certificate and photographs of marriage of Ms. Pooja Narwal and deceased Ashok Kumar vide seizure memo Ex. PW-43/2, which had been handed over to him by one Sandeep. He deposed that marriage certificate was got verified from the office of Registrar of Marriage, Municipal State vs. Parkash Chand Page 48 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) corporation, Rohtak and verification report in that regard has been proved as Ex. PW-43/3. He further claimed that he obtained specimen handwriting/signatures of Ms. Pooja Narwal on two sheets of paper, which have been proved as Ex. PW- 43/4 & Ex. PW-43/4A and further claimed that admitted handwriting of Ms. Pooja Narwal had been obtained from Sh. Mohan Singh, UDC, SKV, Sultan Puri, Delhi. He further deposed that he concluded the investigation, prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the court. He further claimed that when he had filed first charge-sheet, FSL result was still awaited and after FSL result was received, he filed a supplementary charge-sheet.
7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating evidence, which has come on record during trial against the accused persons, were put to them to which they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and all the witnesses are interested witnesses. They have nothing to do with the alleged offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials in connivance with the family members of deceased. Their signatures were forcibly obtained on blank/printed performas and subsequently the same were converted into various incriminating memos. They never made any disclosure statement. Only accused State vs. Parkash Chand Page 49 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Prakash Chand opted to lead DE. Rest of the accused persons did not opt to lead DE.
8. During defence evidence, accused persons examined DW-1 Sh. Satpal. During his evidence recorded before the court, he deposed that in the year 2010-2011, Mahipal along with Ram Kumar came to his house situated in Kehlpa, Haryana. They informed him that there was matrimonial dispute between his son Ashok and Pooja and they asked him to go to the house of Prakash Chand which was situated at Rohtak, Haryana. They knew Prakash Chand prior to the marriage of Ashok and Pooja as he is his co- villager. Thereafter, they went to the house of Prakash Chand to enquire about the matter. One panchayat was held there. From the side of Ashok, the father of Ashok namely Mahipal was present along with Ashok, Ram Kumar and two-three persons and from the side of Pooja, the father of Pooja namely Prakash Chand was present along with his wife and Pooja. On that day, at the house of Prakash Chand, he asked Pooja about the matrimonial dispute between her and Ashok and thereafter Pooja told him that Ashok and his family members used to torture her for money and she further told him that her in laws namely Mahipal and his wife was suffering from HIV positive and due to the said reason, Ashok used to demand money from her and due to the said reason only, Ashok used to pressurize her for money to bear the medical expenses for the State vs. Parkash Chand Page 50 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) treatment of HIV positive. Thereafter, he asked the same thing from Mahipal to which he admitted that he and his wife was suffering from HIV positive and they both were getting treatment for the same in Delhi. Thereafter, the matter was settled between both the parties and Ashok and Pooja further assured them that they will not fight in future.
DW-1 further deposed that in the month of May, 2012, he received a telephone call from Ram Kumar on his registered mobile number 9050463288. He received the said call at about 9-9:30 pm on the said day. He received the said call one day prior to the death of Ashok. On the said telephonic conversation, Ram Kumar informed him that the matrimonial dispute was settled and they are ready to return the dowry articles of Pooja which were lying in the tenanted premises of Ashok and he further asked him to inform Prakash Chand to lift the said articles from the house of Ashok and he further asked him to inform the same to Parkash Chand. Thereafter, he made a telephonic call to Prakash Chand from his number and informed Prakash Chand about the telephonic conversation which took place between him and Ram Kumar and further asked him to make a call to Ram Kumar.
9. I have heard Sh. J. S. Malik, ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Gaurav Bhatia, ld. Counsel for accused persons. I have also perused the material on record.
State vs. Parkash Chand Page 51 of 61(FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini)
10. Ld. Addl. PP for State has contended that there is not an iota of doubt in coming to the conclusion that accused persons have committed the offence, and, hence, they are liable to be convicted in this case. It is argued by ld. Addl.PP that the depositions made by the witnesses prove that the accused persons have committed the offence. The testimony of prosecution witnesses is reliable and full of confidence. It is further argued by him that all other evidence indicate towards the guilt of the accused persons and they should be convicted and may be punished accordingly.
11. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has contended that there are glaring contradictions in the statements of witnesses examined by the prosecution. It is further submitted by ld. Defence Counsel that no evidence is there against the present accused persons and thus accused persons deserve for clear acquittal in this case.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE.
A) During cross-examination, PW-4 Ravinder Sharma, who was friend of deceased Ashok deposed that he used to share his family problems with Ashok being his friend. Ashok used to disclose about his matrimonial problem in his office at Gurgaon. During the time when his wife had gone to her parental house after delivery, Ashok was staying at Gurgaon office.
State vs. Parkash Chand Page 52 of 61(FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Ashok used to tell him about his matrimonial problem during those days. He had tried to resolve the matrimonial problem of Ashok by meeting father of Ashok. He further deposed that his father also attended one of the panchayat from the side of Ashok held at Rohtak in the house of Ashok.
B) PW-7 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Specialist, Forensic Medicine, Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Delhi, proved the post mortem report of deceased Ashok wherein it was opined that death in this case occurred as a result of brain damage consequent upon blunt force trauma to the head which was produced by forceful impact with blunt object/weapon/surfaces and is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
PW-7 has explained the meaning of Blunt Force Impact. Any injury caused on the body with the help of any hard object or due to fall on hard object/surface is called injury caused by Blunt Force Impact. PW-7 deposed that as per the record, blood tinged fluid was trickling from the mouth. PW-7 has denied the suggestion that he has given false opinion regarding the cause of death at the behest of the relatives of the deceased and the IO.
C) PW-11 deposed that he along with Subhash Chand Ahuja and accused Prakash Chand went on the ground floor where he asked his mother to prepare tea for them. They took tea at the ground floor.
State vs. Parkash Chand Page 53 of 61(FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Accused left their house and he along with Subhash Chand Ahuja went to second floor of his house. Ashok Kumar was lying in the first room of the second floor and frothy secretion was coming out of his mouth. He asked accused Prakash Chand to see what happened with Ashok Kumar. Accused Prakash Chand replied that Ashok Kumar might have consumed something.
D) PW-8 and PW-9 are witnesses to the fact of unloading the goods/furniture from Vishram Chowk to Rohtak.
E) PW-15 Sh. Ram Kumar deposed that after the marriage of Ashok with Pooja, the dispute started between them and father of Pooja used to intervene. He also deposed that Prakash Chand insisted that the agricultural land at village Kharak Gagar falls in the share of deceased Ashok, and hence half share of the said land should be registered/transferred in the name of Pooja. He also told that earlier prior to his death, deceased Ashok had also informed them that accused Prakash Chand and his family members were threatening him to get partition of the ancestral property in the name of father of deceased Ashok and on this issue the dispute between the families of deceased and that of accused increased day by day. He further deposed that on 19.05.2012 at about 9-10 pm, he received a call on his mobile number 8059183604 from mobile no. 9813088242 of accused State vs. Parkash Chand Page 54 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Prakash Chand wherein he demanded Rs. 15 lacs from him which was spent by him for getting his daughter Pooja appointed as Teacher. Accused Prakash Chand also told him on the mobile that if the demand of Rs. 15 lacs was not fulfilled, they would face the consequence within 2-3 days.
F) PW-17 specifically deposed in his examination in chief that on 20.05.2012 at about 12:30 pm, Ashok made a telephone call from no. 9555150310 on his mobile no. 9466887339 who informed him that Prakash Chand and his family members were creating troubles for him. This fact is duly corroborated with Ex. PW 42/1 which confirms that accused Prakash Chand had made a call to Ram Kumar.
G) The presence of accused persons at the spot have been proved by PW-11 and PW-12. The articles were lifted from G-1, Aggarwal Chamber, Sector-5, Rohini to Bahadurgarh as deposed by the prosecution witnesses namely Anand Kriplani and driver Naresh Pandit. Copy of rent agreement also disclosed that accused Prakash Chand has given an acknowledgement to the effect that 'meri beti ne jo makan uprokt kiraye par liya tha, uska maine aaj kabja de diya hai' H) Defence has not been able to explain as to State vs. Parkash Chand Page 55 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) how the injuries Ex. PW5/B have been inflicted upon the deceased. During their statement, accused persons were bound to explain how the injuries have occurred, but they have simply stated that they did not know how injuries have been inflicted. Burden shifts upon the accused to show as to how the injuries were inflicted as it is proved that they were present at the time of incident.
I) The accused persons have simply stated in their statement u/s 313 Cr. PC that goods were not lifted from Rohini house, however, the fact remains that goods were lifted from the said house and which fact is itself admitted by accused during his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC itself. There is statement of PW-8 Sh Anant Kriplani who deposed that on return, his driver Naresh informed him that accused Parkash Chand had unloaded articles at Bahadurgarh instead of Rohtak and paid Rs.2000/- to him. How, this witness cannot be believed as he is an independent witness and no reason is argued to disbelieve his testimony.
J) PW-1 during his cross-examination admitted that he had not stated in his statement Ex. PW 1/A that they were also informed by the neighbours that there was a lot of noise in the house of Ashok and during the period, in laws of Ashok took away the articles and thereafter he was found dead. Voluntarily, deposed that State vs. Parkash Chand Page 56 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) he had told this fact in his supplementary statement.
Hence, this fact reflects that there was a noise and quarrel occurred between the parties cannot be ruled out.
K) PW-1 during cross-examination deposed that the neighbours had not told them the complete facts on their first visit, but later on when they asked them politely, they agreed to help them and disclosed all the facts slowly. Sushil told them he had seen small injury with bleeding on the nose of Ashok and had asked him about what had happened on which, Ashok had replied "Kuch nahi, rehne de isko".
During cross-examination, PW-1 denied the suggestion that he was an HIV positive patient and Ashok was helping him in the treatment of AIDS or that he was in shock after coming to know about his disease. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he used to pressurize Pooja to bring money from her parents for that purpose. PW-1 denied the suggestion that his son was suffering from epilepsy. On the other hand, PW-4 during his testimony deposed that he received a phone call of accused Parkash Chand wherein they stated that they had come at the above said rented premises on 20.05.2012 to take the household articles and Ashok who had consumed some poisonous substance has expired and he was surprised to hear this as he had received the call of Prakash Chand for the first time. Hence, these are two contradictory statements State vs. Parkash Chand Page 57 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) i.e. at one side a suggestion was put to PW-1 that deceased was patient of epilepsy and on the other hand, it was told to PW-4 by accused that deceased has consumed some poisonous substance.
L) PW-4 admitted that accused Ashok was not under depression. PW-4 admitted that in his statement dated 21.05.2012, he had stated that on 19.05.2012 at about 2:55 pm, he had talked with Ashok on phone and till that time everything was normal. PW-4 admitted that deceased Ashok used to use the said card for withdrawing the money from their account sometimes. PW-4 denied the suggestion that deceased Ashok never told him anything about his matrimonial life.
M) Testimony of PW-1 during cross-examination proved the presence of accused Lal Singh at the spot. No challenge is there to that piece of evidence on behalf of the accused persons.
N) PW-9 deposed that 2-3 persons came to his office and he reached at a house in Sector-6, Rohini by following the said 2-3 persons. Again there is no challenge by ld. Defence Counsel to this piece of evidence.
O) PW-11 also proved the presence of accused Lal Singh at the spot. It is also proved that accused no. 1 State vs. Parkash Chand Page 58 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Prakash Chand tried to use his influence as police officer as PW-12 deposed that accused Prakash Chand had shown him his police identity card.
P) Testimony of PW-39 also proved the involvement of accused no. 2 Parvesh Narwal. Moreover, in statement U/s 313 Cr. PC, accused no 2 has given evasive replies to the questions put to him and from those evasive replies, a strong inference is drawn towards complicity of accused no. 2 in the crime.
Q) Accused Parkash Chand in his statement U/s 313 Cr. PC himself admitted his presence in the tenanted premises of Pooja and the deceased in order to take the dowry articles on the same date.
R) The relevant portion of the statement given u/s 313 Cr. PC made by accused Parkash Chand is being reproduced as under:
"On 20.05.2012, I alone went to the tenanted premises of Pooja in order to take the dowry articles and on the very same day, while I was taking tea at the ground floor with Subhash and Sushil, at that time, Ashok Kumar was saying from the upper floor and asking Sushil to get the agreement in his name for the next time. After taking tea, while I was going back towards my house, in the meantime, Sushil and Subhash asked me to come upstairs and they informed me that Ashok was lying unconscious at the floor. Thereafter, I immediately went to the upper floor where Ashok was lying unconscious and State vs. Parkash Chand Page 59 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) something was oozing out from his mouth. Thereafter, I made a PCR call from nearby STD booth. After some time, police reached at the spot and they recorded my statement".
Thus, it is the case of accused Prakash Chand that when they had come out after taking dowry articles, then, at the upper floor Ashok was lying unconscious and something was oozing out from his mouth. Now this Court refers the post mortem report Ex. PW 5/A wherein opinion expressed by the Medical Board is being reproduced as under:
'Death in this case occurred as a result of Brain damage, consequent upon blunt force trauma to the head; which was produced by forceful impact with blunt object/weapon/surfaces and is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
The injuries are consistent with being produced in an assault".
S) The defence evidence produced by accused Prakash Chand does not help the case of the accused at all inasmuch as prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
T) Thus, keeping in view the testimony of PW-
5 and post mortem report, it was upon the accused to explain how there was brain damage of deceased Ashok as it is admitted case of the accused that they were present at the last time with the deceased. They had seen deceased Ashok alive last time. Therefore, this Court refers Section 106 of the Indian Evidence State vs. Parkash Chand Page 60 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) Act as under:-
''106 Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him".
In view of testimonies of these PWs and also presence of accused persons at the tenanted premises of the deceased at the last time, it is proved that all such circumstantial evidence indicate that these are accused who have committed the crime. CONCLUSION:-
In view of the above facts disclosed during evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that prosecution has successfully proved against accused persons case U/s 302/34 of IPC as it is proved that accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Ashok. Accused persons are accordingly held guilty for commission of offence U/s 302/34 of IPC and convicted accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 Digitally signed JITENDRA by JITENDRA KUMAR KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2019.11.04 MISHRA 12:17:50 +0530 (Jitendra Kumar Mishra) ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS), North, Rohini Courts, Delhi. State vs. Parkash Chand Page 61 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini) State vs. Parkash Chand Page 62 of 61 (FIR No. 168/12 PS North Rohini)