Delhi District Court
State vs . : 1). Kanwaljeet Kaur @ Sonia on 1 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF ASJ/PILOT COURT/NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No:58286/16 & 59458/16
FIR No. : 261/04 & 397/04
U/s : 302/307/365/387/34 IPC & 302/307/34 IPC
P.S. : Tilak Nagar & Shalimar Bagh
State Vs. : 1). Kanwaljeet Kaur @ Sonia
W/o Late Sh.Devender Singh
R/o WZ-67A, Old Shah Pura,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
2). Nawab Singh
S/o Sh. Surinder Singh
R/o WZ-75, Plot No.126,
Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
3). Balraj @ Ladi
S/o Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o A-20D, Tilak Nagar,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : 302/307/365/387/34 IPC
& 302/307/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
Date of committal : 09.11.2004
Date of Judgment : 22.03.2017
JUDGMENT
1. On 03.05.2004 Kumari Manju gave a complaint that she is working as compounder with Dr. Anil Kumar State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 1 ::
Nangia who is running his clinic at 290 Chand Nagar, Delhi. On that day at about 9:15 am when she was giving injection to one of the patient she heard the noise of a lady and a male arguing with Dr. Anil Kumar Nangia. They were asking Dr. Anil to accompany them but doctor refused. When she peeped through the dressing room she found Sonia the wife of brotherin law of Dr. Anil having one small child in her lap and a person aged 30 to 32 years blackish complexion, having good height asking doctor to accompany them. When doctor refused Sonia said "yeh aise nahi chalega"
thereafter that person had shown a pistol to the doctor and said, "Tu aise nahi manega" thereafter doctor went along with them. She can identify those persons if shown to her. While going out that person also said to her "koi gadbad mat karna verna teek nahi hoga". They took away doctor sahab on the point of pistol. On the basis of this complaint FIR No.261/04 u/s 364IPC r/w 34 IPC was recorded at PS: Tilak Nagar on 06.05.2004.
2. On the same day i.e. 03.05.2004 information was State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 2 ::
received vide DD No.17 that at KP267, Maurya Enclave, the landlord and his daughter has been mercilessly beaten. Police reached the spot and found Saudagar Singh and his wife Kuldeep Kaur in injured condition. They were removed to the hospital. They also came to know that their injured daughter had already been removed to the hospitals. The statement of the injured daughter Gurdeep Kaur was recorded. She said that on Wednesday her husband Dr. Anil dropped her at her parental home i.e. KP267, Pitam Pura at 11 pm. On
03.05.2004 at about 9:00 a.m. she after giving her daughter to her father went to sleep. At about 10:00 am when she woke up to give milk to her daughter and came to drawing room she found two persons arguing with her father. Her daughter was in the lap of her husband. The person with short height had pointed out a pistol on the head of her husband. The tall person was having a knife in his hand. They were also asking her father to transfer the property in the name of Sonia. But her father had already disowned Kanwaljeet Kaur @ State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 3 ::
Sonia from the property. Her father wrote on the blank paper that his daughter and soninlaw will have no right in the property. Despite that tall one gave many knife blows to his mother, father and to her also. She became unconscious. On regaining conscious she found there was none. Her parents were lying there injured. She was having injury on her both hands. She came out and raised alarm for seeking help on which people removed her to the hospital.
3. Statement of Anil Kumar Nagia was also recorded. On the basis of the information received from PCR another FIR No.397/04 u/s 302/307 IPC at PS:
Shalimar Bagh was registered.
4. Anil kumar also supported the testimony of Manju as well as his wife. He also stated that thereafter accused persons asked him to give them Rs.30,000,00/ in order to protect himself and his daughter's life. They took him in his car and went to Punjab National Bank Tilak Nagar but bank was found closed. Thereafter they went to M.K. Property dealers but there also he could State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 4 ::
not get any money. Thereafter he took them to the house of Avtar Singh but he was also not there. Then he took them to New Popular Motors and there he offered to sell his car where Har Simran met them. They offered to pay Rs.1,12,000/ of the car. Thereafter, leaving the car there he along with the accused persons and Har Simran went to the Jail Road but there also they could not get money. Then they went away. During investigation all the three accused persons were arrested, weapon of offences were also recovered. The charge sheet was filed in the case FIR No.397/04 PS:
Shalimar Bagh as well as at PS: Tilak Nagar. In the charge sheet for Tilak Nagar the accused persons were charged for the offence u/s 365 r/w 34 IPC but as it was also the part of the same incident where the two persons were murdered and attempt to murder on the third person was made therefore, this case file was also sent to the Sessions Court for being tried along with case FIR No.397/04.
5. In case FIR No:261/04 in the Sessions Court the State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 5 ::
charge for the offences u/s 365 r/w 34, 384 r/w 34 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC was framed. But after the two were clubbed together again the charge was reframed and all the accused were charged for the offence u/s 365 r/w 34, 387 r/w 34, 302 r/w 34, 307 r/w 34 IPC. Accused Nawab Singh and Balraj were also charged for offences punishable u/s 25 Arms. Act. This charge was amended by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dt.30.05.2007and all the accused were charged for the offence u/s 365 r/w 34 IPC, 302 r/w 34 for causing death of Saudagar Singh, 302 r/w 34 for causing death of Kartar kaur, 387 r/w 34 IPC for committing extortion by putting Saudagar Singh under in fear of death of Dr. Anil Kumar. 307 r/w 34 IPC for causing injury on the person of Gurdeep Kaur, 387 r/w 34 IPC to extort Rs.30,000,00/ by putting Dr. Anil Kumar Nangia in fear of death of his daughter and Nawab Singh and Balraj Singh were also charged for the offences u/s 25 Arms Act.
6. At later stage an application u/s 216 Cr.PC was moved by the prosecution which was decided vide order State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 6 ::
dt. 29.10.2014 and the charge was amended again qua Kanwaljeet kaur. She was charged for the offences punishable u/s 365 r/w 34 IPC, 387 r/w 34 IPC, 387 r/w 109 IPC, 302 r/w 111 IPC and 307 r/w 111 IPC to which she pleaded not guilty.
7. By the time many of the witnesses were already examined and Kanwaljeet Kaur after amendment of the charge wanted to recall 3 PW's i.e. PW1 Ms. Manju, PW2 Ms. Gurdeep Kaur and PW3. Dr. Anil Kumar Nangia for further crossexamination and not the remaining witnesses i.e. PW4 to PW35 who had already been examined and crossexamined.
8. Prosecution examined 35 witnesses to prove its case.
9. Kumari Manju was examined as PW1. She deposed that on 03.05.2004 at around 9:15 am she was present in the clinic of Dr. Anil Kumar Nangia. She was working as compounder at his clinic situated at 289290 Chand Nagar, Delhi. She was inside the clinic and heard the sound of altercation that the Dr. Nangia was asked State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 7 ::
to go with some persons and he (Dr. Nangia) was unwilling to go. She identified the accused persons. She said that the lady accused also used to come to the clinic to demand some money. On one occasion doctor refused to pay money to her. When doctor refused to go. The tall one i.e. accused Nawab was having pistol in his hand pressurised the doctor to accompany him. Thereafter, the lady accused i.e. Kanwaljeet Kaur said doctor would not buzz in this fasion and then all of them forcibly took doctor with them and accused Nawab said to her (Manju) "Peeche se gadbad mat karna". They took the doctor with them in the vehicle belonging to the doctor i.e. Santro car. She proved her statement Ex.PW1/A.
10. During crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP she denied the suggestion that accused persons demanded Rs.25,000,00/ from the doctor. She stated that she did not hear it. She denied the suggestion that doctor refused to pay the amount to the accused and he was taken to some distance by the accused and was left at State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 8 ::
Jail Road of Hari Nagar. She admitted that she knew Sonia @ Kanwaljeet Kaur prior to the incident since she is the wife of the brotherinlaw of Dr. Nangia. She admitted that the lady was also having infant child with her. She denied the suggestion that she was administering an injection at that time. She stated that she was preparing injection.
11. During crossexamination for accused Kanwaljeet Kaur she stated that she had seen Kanwaljeet Kaur prior to the incident twice in the clinic but she does not remember the dates and time. She came to know that she is related to the doctor when she was demanding money from the doctor and at that time the doctor told her the relationship. The wife of the doctor was not coming to the clinic. She did not inform the police when the accused came near the clinic. Her first statement was recorded by the police on 03.05.2004 at the clinic. She does not remember the time. On the day of incident Sonia @ Kanwaljeet Kaur remained at the clinic for about 510 minutes. At that time there were 3 staff State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 9 ::
working in clinic among them two were boys but they were on leave. After the doctor was taken away she met the doctor only at PS: Shalimar Bagh and lateron when the clinic was opened.
12. During crossexamination for accused Balraj she stated that she was working with the doctor for more than 2½ years. At the time of incident two people came inside the clinic. She made a telephone call to the sister of the doctor but she does not know where she resides. She did not make a call at the residence of the doctor. She is not having any appointment letter. She denied the suggestion that she did not make a call to the police at 10:00 am.
13. Manju was recalled in terms of order dt. 30.05.2007 and was crossexamined on behalf of accused Nawab wherein she denied the suggestion that her father was friend of Dr. Anil Nangia. She stated that her father was not acquainted with Dr. Anil Nangia prior to this occurrence. She went to the doctor first time in the company of Ms. Meena sister of her mother. She State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 10 ::
was matriculate when she met the doctor first time. She was working as helper in the clinic of Dr. Nangia. In her statement she told that she was working as compounder in the clinic as actually compounder is synonymous of helper. She never administered any injection to any patient. She denied the suggestion that no statement of her was recorded on 03.05.2004. She denied the suggestion that she was not serving in the clinic of Dr. Anil Kumar Nangia on 03.05.2004. She was taken by the police from her house but she does not know if she was taken to PS: Shalimar Bagh. She denied the suggestion that she has been tutored. She cannot tell the name of the patient for whom she was preparing the injection. She told the police that two persons had taken away Dr. Anil Kr. Nangia. She was confronted where it was not found mentioned that doctor was taken away by those two persons in the car of the doctor. She admitted that she saw the accused persons for the first time in the court after the day of occurrence. She again said that she had seen the lady accused at PS: Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 11 ::
prior to that also. She denied the suggestion that no such occurrence had taken place. She was confronted where it was not found mentioned in her statement that lady accused used to visit the clinic to demand money. She denied the suggestion that on the day of occurrence Kanwaljeet Kaur did not come to the clinic of Dr. Anil Kumar Nangia or that she named her before the police only because she was relative of Dr. Nangia and she used to visit their house and house of the doctor. She admitted that on the day of occurrence she was not knowing the accused Nawab. She denied the suggestion that police tutored her that the taller accused was Nawab. She denied the suggestion that accused Nawab did not visit the clinic of Dr. Nangia on 03.05.2004. She denied the suggestion that Kanwaljeet kaur did not say that doctor was not going to acced or obey in the manner they wanted or that they did not take away the doctor with them or that Nawab did not say her, not to do any wrong at their back. She admitted that she did not inform her father about the occurrence. She State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 12 ::
informed her mother about the occurrence. She does not know if telephone was installed at the house of in laws of the doctor.
14. The witness was recalled after the amendment of charge qua accused Kanwaljeet Kaur and during cross examination for accused Kanwaljeet Kaur she stated that she does not remember if she told the police in her initial statement that accused used to visit the clinic to demand some money. She denied the suggestion that accused never told that the doctor would not buzz in this fashion, or that accused did not visit the clinic of doctor Nangia on the day of occurrence or that she is deposing falsely.
15. Gurdeep Kaur was examined as PW2. She deposed that on Friday her husband dropped her at her parental house i.e. KP267, Pitam Pura Delhi. On 03.05.2004 when she woke up she saw some people quarreling with her parents. Her husband was made to sit on "sette" with the infant in his lap and accused Balraj was holding a pistol on his head (witness pointed State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 13 ::
towards the short statured accused present in the court). The tall one was demanding that half of property be transferred in the name of accused Sonia @ Kanwaljeet Kaur. Kanwaljeet Kaur is the wife of his deceased brother. The witness stated that under threat her father said that he would give all the property in the name of Sonia but not in the name of this witness and her husband. Earlier to that her father had disowned Sonia and her deceased husband in writing. Thereafter her father asked them to leave as he had already given in writing but the accused said that they will take away the doctor and the infant child with them. Her parents protested. On this Nawab Singh took out a knife. Her father tried to escape by screaming and went near the balcony but the accused followed her father. She also followed. The accused attacked her father with knife. Accused Nawab Singh said to accused Balraj "karde". Accused Balraj attacked her mother on her head who was sitting in the drawing room. She suffered injury on her head. When she came to rescue her mother Nawab State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 14 ::
Singh followed her and attacked on her head with the knife. She tried to rescue by raising her hands and in the process fingers of her both hands were cut. The two fingers of the left hand and the pointing finger of the right hand cut. There was no prior animosity between them and the accused. Witness stated that this incident had happened at the behest of accused Sonia wife of her deceased brother. In the said incident both her parents Sardar Saudagar Singh and mother Kartar Kaur lost their lives. She was examined in Muni's Maya Ram Jain hospital on 03.05.2004. On 06.05.2004 police had shown her the post card photographs of accused persons and on seeing the photographs she identified all the accused.
16. During crossexamination for accused Sonia she stated that her brother Gurumukh Singh husband of accused Sonia expired in the year 2002. She does not know how he expired, since he had already deserted them. Gurmukh Singh was younger to her. He married Sonia in the year 2001. The relationship between her State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 15 ::
parents and brother were normal. Sonia filed a case against her parents with CAW Cell. Sonia demanded Rs.40,000,00/ which her father was not having. She was not practicing as doctor at the time of marriage. She denied the suggestion that her marital ties with her husband was not cordial. She did not get any information about kidnapping of her husband on the day of kidnapping. She got the information that her sisterin law Sonia wanted to remarry after the death of her brother. She denied the suggestion that no such incident had ever happened or that the accused did not participate in the occurrence.
17. During crossexamination for accused Balraj she denied the suggestion that her husband was pressurizing her for her share in the parental property.
On Friday when her husband brought her at her parental home, he did not stay with them on that night and the incident happened on Monday. She denied the suggestion that on Friday there was a discussion on property between her and her parents. She denied the State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 16 ::
suggestion that her husband also threatened her parents. She denied the suggestion that she told the police that her husband cut her fingers. The incident lasted only for 10 minutes. She was attacked near the door of the room. When she shouted nobody came to help her in the balcony. She did not make a call to the police. She was shifted to the hospital prior to police reaching the spot. She was unconscious when shifted to the hospital. She does not remember when she regained consciousness. Her statement was recorded in the hospital by the police. The doctors and nurses were there when her statement was recorded. Her husband met her at the time of discharge. At the time of her marriage with the doctor he was already divorced. Her husband could not intervene or protest since all of a sudden accused attacked them. She was protecting herself when she was attacked and cannot say if her husband intervened or not. She denied the suggestion that her husband is the person behind the entire incident. She denied the suggestion that accused State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 17 ::
Nawab and Balraj were not there or were not present in the house at the relevant time. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely being threatened by her husband. She denied the suggestion that she had seen the accused persons first time in the court only.
18. She was not crossexamined on behalf of accused Nawab Singh but lateron on the application the witness was recalled for crossexamination on behalf of accused Nawab and she deposed that she was not conscious when assailants left the spot. She cannot say after how much time she regained her consciousness.
She was taken to the hospital by her neighbours but she cannot specify their names. She denied the suggestion that she was fully conscious when taken to the hospital. She admitted that she rushed down to the stairs off her own and shouted for help. She denied the suggestion that she told the neighbours that she does not know the name of the assailants. Looking at her condition the neighbours tried to help her but no one asked about the State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 18 ::
identity and names of the assailants. She cannot tell the time when she reached hospital. She regained consciousness on 06.05.2004, but she cannot tell the time. At that time she was in ICU. She was not able to know whether it was morning, afternoon or evening. She denied the suggestion that she was conscious on 04th and 05th May 2004. Her Bua from husband side met her on 06.05.2004 in the hospital. No other person in her relation met her on that day. The doctor did not inquire from her as to how she sustained injuries. She denied the suggestion that doctor asked her about the same but she replied that she does not know as to how the incident had taken place. She was discharged on 12.05.2004. She admitted that her husband did not meet her in the hospital till 12.05.2004. She denied the suggestion that he did not meet her as their relations were not cordial. She admitted that there were only two LR's i.e. she herself and accused Sonia who succeeded the property of her father. She volunteered that her father during his life time disowned her brother and his State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 19 ::
wife i.e. accused Sonia. She does not know as to why her father disowned her brother. Her brother expired on 22.01.2003, but she is not sure about the date. There is a civil suit pending, filed by the daughter of accused Sonia against her in Tis Hazari Courts regarding property left by her father. The house where her parents used to live is lying locked and she is in possession of the same. In her statement Ex.PW2/DA it is mentioned that she went to her parental home on Wednesday and she stated that she does not remember if she went to her parental home on Wednesday or Friday. At the time of her marriage she was in the job and for the purpose of preparation of marriage, she had taken leave for three months. After marriage she started her own practice which she continued till the birth of the child. She denied the suggestion that she knew accused Nawab and Balraj prior to the incident. She denied the suggestion that she was treating the mother of accused Nawab regarding her teeth. She deposed that Nawab Singh came to her husband to take medicine. She does not State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 20 ::
remember if she told the police that Nawab Singh took medicine from her husband twice. She did not tell the police that her husband was knowing accused Nawab Singh.
19. After the charge was amended she was further crossexamined by accused Nawab Singh wherein she stated that accused Nawab and Balraj were never shown to her by the police. She denied the suggestion that police had not shown them to her as she told the police that she already knew them. She was confronted with her statement where it was not found mentioned that Nawab asked for transfer of half of the property in favour of accused Sonia, [only the word 'half' is missing].
She was confronted where it was not found mentioned that accused were not allowing her husband to move.
20. The witness was recalled after the charge was amended with respect to accused Kanwaljeet Kaur. During crossexamination for accused Kanwaljeet Kaur she stated that her parents were owing two immovable properties i.e. property No.3030A Krishna Nagar Delhi State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 21 ::
and KP267, Pitam Pura, Delhi during their life time. After their death the properties have to devolve upon their legal heirs as per law. She admitted that property no.3030A Krishan Nagar had already been sold. She volunteered that said property was sold before 2007 by her and before the institution of civil suit on behalf of accused Kanwaljeet Kaur @ Sonia against her and her husband Dr. Anil Nagia. She denied the suggestion that they had self interest in the properties of her deceased parents and due to that reason they had falsely implicated accused Kanwaljeet Kaur @ Sonia in the present case.
21. Dr. Anil Nangia was examined as PW3. He deposed that on 03.05.2004 he was at his clinic situated at 290 Chand Nagar, Delhi. His compounder Manju was also in the clinic. At around 9:15 am accused Kanwaljeet Kaur and Nawab Singh who is present in the court today came to his clinic and asked him to accompany them. He refused since it was clinic hour. The accused persons pressurized him but he protested. In the State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 22 ::
meantime accused Nawab Singh took out a gun i.e. pistol and threatened him and asked him to accompany them. He asked whether accused Kanwaljeet @ Sonia is also a party and accused Kanwaljeet replied in affirmative by nording her head. Accused Sonia @ Kanwaljeet Kaur is wife of his deceased brotherinlaw. He asked them where to go on which they told that the place is in Pitam Pura. He accompanied the accused persons in his santro car. Sonia was sitting on the back seat with accused Balraj. He was driving the vehicle. Near Keshav Puram Depot, accused persons asked him to stop the car and accused Nawab Singh asked Sonia to get down from the car. Accordingly Sonia got down along with her child. Thereafter, they all three reached Pitam Pura at KP267 i.e. the house of his fatherinlaw. The accused persons followed him. They climbed the stairs and reached the first floor. They went inside. His daughter was sleeping on the sette. Accused asked him to sit down and this witness took his daughter in the lap and sat down on the sette. Accused Balraj put the State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 23 ::
revolver on his head. His fatherinlaw inquired from the accused persons as to who are they? On which accused replied that it is irrelevant and they asked his fatherin law to write half of the property in the name of Sonia. His fatherinlaw told them that this is not the way. They should either go to the court or either call panchayat of the elders. On this accused threatened his fatherinlaw to write or else head of this witness will be blown. On this his fatherinlaw had written on a paper that his daughter Gurdeep Kaur and son in law i.e. this witness shall have no share in the property. Before writing this his fatherinlaw tried to seek some help by going towards balcony but accused Nawab pulled him back and made him sit and write. His fatherinlaw after writing this, gave the paper to Nawab Singh and asked them to leave since their work was over, but accused told that they would take this witness with them after tying his hands. His fatherinlaw insisted that he be spared. His fatherinlaw then tried to go to balcony and his motherinlaw tried to go out by opening the iron State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 24 ::
door which was bolted by the accused persons while entering. On this accused Balraj pulled back his mother inlaw and she fell on the floor. When Nawab Singh was pulling back his fatherinlaw his wife (wife of this witness) rushed to rescue her father. At this point he heard the sound 'Karde' accused Nawab Singh immediately attacked his fatherinlaw with sharp weapon like a sickle and caused injuries on his head. Balraj attacked his motherinlaw and his wife with knife. After attacking them accused persons asked this witness to accompany them. His fatherinlaw, mother inlaw and wife were not in a position to move. Accused persons forced him to accompany them on the point of revolver and he accompanied them with the child. He was made to drive the car and the child was taken by accused Balraj. They asked him to drop them outside Delhi. The vehicle was driven by him at the insistence of accused. Accused Nawab demanded Rs.30,00,000/ from him. They took from him Rs.1,000/ which he was having at that time. Accused insisted to take the car State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 25 ::
towards Rohini side. Nawab Singh checked the dash board where the cheque book was lying. Accused made him to pass through small lanes and streets of Rohini, Nangloi and Chander Vihar. From Nangloi side they reached Tilak Nagar where this witness was having his account in the Punjab National Bank. The car was stopped near the bank but bank was closed. Thereafter, accused Balraj went out to find out reason of closure of bank. It was 10:50 am and it was told that bank is closed on account of some holiday. Accused Balraj wanted money somehow from him. The witness told that he may sell his vehicle but they told that it would not be sufficient. This witness further told that he will sell his clinic on which accused told that he should somehow arrange the money of Rs.30,000,00/. Then he went to a property dealer i.e. Palli property dealer at Chand Nagar. Nawab Singh also followed him. Accused Balraj kept on sitting on the back seat with baby. He asked the property dealer that he want to sell his property and arrange for money immediately but the property dealer State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 26 ::
could not arrange such an huge amount. They went to Chowkhandi to meet electrician Avtar Singh for money. He was not available as informed by his wife. On seeing the child she asked this witness to give the child to her so that the child could be fed with milk. She took the child but immediately accused told him that they don't have much time and asked this witness to bring back the child. Hesitatingly wife of his friend gave the child to this witness and Balraj took back the child from him. He was again made to drive car and go further towards Vikas Puri where there is market of car dealers. They went to Popular motors owned by one of his patient Jag Mohan Singh but he was not available there. His son Simran and his employees were present at the shop. He told them that he want to sell his car immediately. They inspected the car and said that they can give Rs.1,60,000/ and not more than that. He asked them to pay the money immediately. They said that they don't keep such huge amount at the shop and asked him to go to their house for money. He asked them to procure State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 27 ::
the money at the spot expressing inability to go their home. Simran called at his residence on phone and they were asked to come to their home personally. Simran told that money would be paid at the house. He also told Simran that he want to sell his clinic and desperately needed money Rs.25 to 30 lacs. He left the car there only. Thereafter he went to the house of Jag Mohan Singh in the car of Simran. Accused Balraj and Nawab also accompanied them to the house of Jagmohan. Jagmohan was available at home. Jagmohan gave water etc to the child as he was not feeling comfortable. This witness told him that he need money urgently to the extent of Rs.25 to 30 lacs and he is willing to sell his clinic as well as car. He said that he would arrange and called a property dealer on telephone, one sardarji came, they talked in another room. In between Smt. Parveen was very curious and constantly asking him as to why I needed such a huge amount but he could not tell any reason. When she went to another room Nawab threatened him that he should not show any of his State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 28 ::
intelligence and hence I could not talk anything else except demanding money. Ultimately, he got the reply that money cannot be arranged as banks were closed due to holiday and thus accused told him that they would contact him later, procure the money and keep it ready. When they left the house the doors were bolted at his asking and he told Jagmohan, his wife and Sardarji about the entire incident. After telling them he telephoned from their residence to his house and house of his cousin Raj Kumar. He also called at his clinic by telephone. Jagmohan and others told them they would drop him at police station Tilak Nagar but he requested that he would go of his own. He reached PS: Tilak Nagar in a cycle rickshaw along with his child. At about 4:00 or 4:30 pm his relatives met him at the police station. He gave his child to his sister. He was made to sit in the PCR van and they took him towards Pitam Pura chowki. In the police chowki his statement was recorded. Seat cover of his car was cut by the police. Lateron he came to know that car was also seized. State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 29 ::
22. He was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he admitted that DL 4CN 5692 is the registration number of his Santro Car. The car was inspected by the police and one blood stained piece of newspaper and one piece of blood stained seat cover were taken in possession by the police vide sizure memo Ex.PW3/A having his signature at point A. He admitted that his car was also seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW3/B having his signature at point A. He denied the suggestion that they also went to the house of Sonia at 67A, Old Shah pura, Tilak Nagar where Sonia was not present or her father Surender Singh and her brother Gurmeet Singh were present. He was confronted with his statement where it was so recorded. He also denied the suggestion that from the house of Sonia they went to house No. WZ75, Plot No.126, Street No.36, Sant Garh Tilak Nagar. The house of accused Nawab or that from the house of Nawab they came to know about the address of Balraj Singh @ Ladi i.e. A208, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. He also denied the State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 30 ::
suggestion that from the house of Nawab they went to the house of Ladi but he was also not present. He was confronted with his statement where it was so recorded. He denied the suggestion that in the house of Nawab group photo was shown to him in which Nawab was wearing turban, standing on the left side and he identified accused Nawab. He admitted that passport size photograph was also shown to him and on seeing the photograph he identified accused Balraj. The witness stated that the group photo of Nawab was shown to him in the police station wherein he identified him.
23. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Nawab he stated that he met the police of PS: Tilak Nagar at 4 pm on 03.05.2004. But his statement was not recorded. Infact he did not enter the police station Tilak Nagar. While he was in front of PS: Tilak Nagar SHO PS: Shalimar Bagh met him and took him to PP Shalimar Bagh where his statement was recorded. He denied the suggestion that he has concocted this State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 31 ::
version that SHO PS: Shalimar Bagh met him in front of PS: Tilak Nagar who took him to Police Post: Pitam Pura. Police did not make any inquiry from him. He was married twice. The first marriage was dissolved in the year 1999. He admitted that Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, his second wife was at her parental house on the day of occurrence. He volunteered that he left his wife at her parental home about 3 days prior to the incident, on telephonic message that her motherinlaw is not keeping good health. Police never demanded from him any record regarding educational qualification of Manju. He is having record of employment of Manju in the clinic and the same can be produced. At the time of employment she was 1718 years of age. He denied the suggestion that Manju was never employed by him in the clinic or that she was not qualified to be a compounder.
24. There was no litigation or quarrel between him and Kanwaljeet Kaur prior to the present incident. He did not know accused Nawab prior to the occurrence. State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 32 ::
He knew Kanwaljeet as she visited his clinic for medical treatment of her child. He does not remember if he told the police that accused Nawab came to his clinic for medical treatment. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/DA where it was recorded that Nawab came to him number of times and got prescribed medicines. He stated that he does not remember if accused Nawab ever came to his clinic prior to the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that he knew Nawab and his family members even prior to the present occurrence or that he is deposing falsely in this regard. He also denied the suggestion that Kanwaljeet Kaur was also well known to him prior to the present occurrence. He denied the suggestion that he was medically treating husband of Kanwaljeet Kaur. It was not found mentioned in his statement that accused Nawab Singh took out a pistol and threatened him when he refused to accompany them. He was also confronted where it was not found mentioned that when he inquired from Kanwaljeet whether she is also party of Nawab on State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 33 ::
which she nodded in affirmative. He was also confronted where it was not found mentioned that accused persons told him that they had to go to Pitam Pura and infact what is recorded is that accused Nawab told the witness that he had to accompany them to his inlaws house No. KP267, Pitam Pura Delhi. He was also confronted where it was not found mentioned that accused Nawab asked Kanwaljeet to alight from car at Keshav Puram Depot. He was also confronted where it was not mentioned that accused persons told that they would take this witness along with them after tying his hands. He was also confronted where it was not found mentioned that accused Balraj went to find out the reason for closure of the bank or it was 10:50 am and Balraj came to know that bank was closed due to some holiday or that he requested property dealer to arrange money but he could not arrange such a huge amount. He was also confronted where it was not found mentioned that Avtar's wife told that her husband is not available. He denied the suggestion that on 03.05.2004 State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 34 ::
his clinic was closed. He denied the suggestion that he himself telephonically informed or got the PCR staff informed by dialing No.100 that his inlaws had got him abducted or four persons had come and he was taken towards the side of Khyala. He stated that he does not know about arrival of ASI Jai Narain on the spot after receiving such information or that DD No.5 was recorded in this regard. He also denied the suggestion that he has no knowledge if his clinic was found closed when ASI Jai Narain reached there. He himself did not inform the police about his abduction from near Chand Nagar Gurudwara. He stated that his sister might have so informed the police. He does not know if police was informed that he was abducted at gun point by a male and a female in unidentifiable vehicle.
25. He knew Dr. Gaurav who is his brotherinlaw. But he does not remember telephone number of his residence or office clinic. He does not know if during those days one of the telephone Number was 56228085. He does not remember if on 03.05.2004 he State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 35 ::
talked with Dr. Gaurav. He does not know as to how Dr. Gaurav happened to accompany the SHO. He does not know if Dr. Garuav also informed PCR on that day at 4:10 pm. He denied the suggestion that he got the telephone call made to PCR through Dr. Gaurav at 4:10 pm. He denied the suggestion that he was not abducted or that he fabricated the evidence regarding his abduction. He denied the suggestion that on 03.05.2004 he never met the police. He denied the suggestion that he got the accused persons falsely implicated. He does not know if clothes of any of accused got stained with blood at the time of murder. He did not inform PCR staff about murder of his inlaws or about the condition of his wife. He said that he informed the police about the murder of his parentsinlaw and wife at PS: Tilak Nagar between 4 or 4:30 pm.
26. During crossexamination for accused Kanwaljeet Kaur he denied the suggestion that he got her falsely implicated with intent to usurp the property left behind after the death of her husband. He denied the State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 36 ::
suggestion that he made false statement or that Kanwaljeet was not involved in the occurrence.
27. During crossexamination for accused Balraj. He deposed that he is running clinic at Chand Nagar since the year 198889. He is not the owner of the said plot. The plot belongs to his mother Smt. Laxmi Kumari. On 03.05.2004 there were only one or two patients waiting for him. He can tell the names of those patients only after seeing the register. There was an atta chakki opposite to his clinic. He was not treating any patient at the time when lady came to the clinic who took him away as one of the two patient had just left the clinic and the other patient was accused who came in the clinic and sit like a patient. He was detained in the police station on 03.05.2004 and 04.05.2004 and he cannot say during this period who all had made inquiries from him. Even thereafter inquiries were made from him. He cannot tell how many patients were waiting at that time. He admitted that he has to pass through the waiting area of his clinic for going outside. He has not heard any State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 37 ::
noise or cries of his compounder or any other person when he was taken out of the clinic. He never tried to get down and run away after opening the car either at Khayala police post or at the red lights as revolver was put on him through out.
28. He parked the car on the side of the road near the park outside the street of his inlaws house. The distance between the place where he parked the car and the house of inlaws was about 100 yards. He does not remember if just outside the house of inlaws there was a function of child birth. He does not know how many tenants were residing in the said house. From the stairs they entered the drawing room of the first floor. He was sitting on Dewan cross legged facing dining table.
His wife was at a distance of about 4 ft from Dewan and 1 ft from the dinning table when she was assaulted. His fatherinlaw was sitting on the chair which was placed in between the dinning table and Dewan during the period of assault. His motherinlaw had fallen down on the floor near the dinning table. It took approximately 5 State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 38 ::
minutes in assault incident. He does not remember exactly which person had put revolver on him while he was climbing the stairs of the house of inlaws. He did not receive any injury during the assault. He removed his footwear before sitting on the Dewan at the time of assault. He had not gone either towards the Balcony or towards the main exit door at the time of assault. He did not intervene during the assault on his family members as he was having small child in his lap and short boy was putting a revolver on him. He also stated that all the three were assaulted simultaneously.
29. The witness was asked to bring the record of the patients i.e. the register but he stated that register is now not available. (It is important to note that this cross examination was conducted on 02.04.2012 where as the incident was of 03.05.2004).
30. He admitted that there is a police booth at the Tpoint behind his clinic where he parked his car. At the time of going to the house of inlaws he did not notice the police booth and hence he did not jump from his car.
State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 39 ::
They reached at PNB from the house of inlaws at about 10:45 am. The bank is situated on the inner road at about 200 meters from main Tilak Nagar, Najagrah Road. From the bank they took the service road to reach at chowkandi. They remained at Palli Properties for few minutes. He does not knew the owner of Pali Properties personally. He did not make any effort to call police from Palli Properties as his child was with accused Balraj. He was confronted with his statement where it was not found mentioned that Nawab followed him in the office of Palli properties while Balraj was sitting in the car with the child. He does not remember if he discussed with Simran regarding selling of his clinic. He told the police that Simran inspected the car and told that he can give Rs.1,60,000/ only and not more than that.
31. He made a call to his relatives and asked them to come at PS: Tilak Nagar. He started waiting at Jail Road Tilak Nagar where SHO PS:Shalimar Bagh along with Gaurav Aggarwal reached and from there he was taken to New Popular Motors after he told them everything. He State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 40 ::
stated that his statement that he went to PS: Tilak Nagar is correct. He did not name accused Balraj in the statement as he was not knowing his name at that time. He also admitted that he has not given any description of accused Balraj. He did not make any call to Gaurav. He does not remember if he made call to his sister.
32. During crossexamination for accused Kanwaljeet Kaur he stated that the assailants did not drag the dead bodies. His inlaws and wife were not moving at that time when he left the spot. He admitted that assailants did not try to rob the house. He denied the suggestion that assailants did not try to rob as money was fixed by him which was to be paid to the assailants. He denied the suggestion that in order to pay contract money to the assailants he was making attempt to arrange the money by going to the bank and to sell his properties. He denied the suggestion that assailants who had kidnapped him left him after he assured that he will pay the money to them lateron. He denied the suggestion that he contacted the second marriage for grabbing the State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 41 ::
property of family of PW2. He denied the suggestion that he had the chance to escape from the custody of kidnappers but he did not escape as he was the main conspirator and was with them out of his own will. He does not remember how many times he has to stop his car due to red light and due to traffic jam. He denied the suggestion that superficial injuries were inflicted on the head of PW2 to create the impression that she was assaulted on her vital body parts. The distance between exit door and place where he was sitting is 5 to 6 ft. He denied the suggestion that he had a quarrel with his inlaws many times with regard to transfer of property. He denied the suggestion that he had taken the child from his inlaws house as he had the fear that if the child cry that would alarm the neighbours and they could reach at his inlaws house and inform police.
33. He does not know family of Manju personally some patient introduced PW1 to him. He came to know lateron that father of Manju was an auto driver. He denied the suggestion that Manju was not his State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 42 ::
compounder or that she was a procured witness.
34. He was taken to Pitam Pura police post on the day of incident in the evening. He was not suspected as murderer by the police. His wife had sold the property of Krishna Nagar. He admitted that a civil suit had been filed by accused Kanwaljeet Kaur on behalf of her daughter against his wife and him for injunction wherein written statement has already been filed. He had also filed will of his fatherinlaw along with the written statement. He denied the suggestion that property was sold within few days of the murder to bribe the police and to falsely implicate accused Kanwaljeet Kaur.
35. He admitted that accused had got signature of his inlaws on some documents but he does not remember whether those documents were blank or something was written on it. He denied the suggestion that he arranged two contract killers for murder of his inlaws or that he pretended before his inlaws that he has been kidnapped by those two contract killers. He denied the suggestion that those blank papers on which contract State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 43 ::
killers obtained signatures were lateron converted into will. At the time of assault the attackers attacked so suddenly that his inlaws and his wife could not get a chance to cry. They also did not cry after assault as they became unconscious immediately after the attack. He denied the suggestion that his wife's two fingers of left hand and one finger of right hand were chopped off by him after giving sedatives to minimize the pain and to create the injured witness to secure the conviction of Kanwaljeet @ Sonia so that she can be brought out of purview of inheritance. He denied the suggestion that Kanwaljeet Kaur @ Sonia never visited his clinic on 03.05.2004.
36. Ct. Somvir was examined as PW4. He deposed that on 06.05.2004 he was posted at PS: Tilak Nagar.
On that day ASI Jai Narain handed over him one tehrir. He went to the police station and got the FIR registered. He came back and handed over the same to the IO. He also searched for the culprit. The lady who met them on clinic lateron informed that doctor had returned to his State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 44 ::
house at about 45 pm and is attending his wife who is admitted in the hospital.
37. During crossexamination he stated that they went to the clinic at about 1 pm on 3rd. Kumari Manju met them. Her statement was not recorded on that day. He cannot tell the time when the tehrir was handed over to him. He cannot tell at what time they went for the investigation or whose statements were recorded by the IO.
38. Satpal was examined as PW5. He deposed that on 03.05.2004 he was present in his office. At about 12 noon Dr. Anil Nangia came to his office with one tall boy.
There were other visitors also in his office. Dr. Anil Nangia came close to him and stated that he is in need of Rs.25 to 30 lakh immediately and he is ready to sell his car and clinic. He inquired as to why he (Dr. Anil Nangia) is in hurry but he did not tell the reason. He was little bit nervous. He had shown his inability to arrange money. Thereafter Dr. Anil Nangia left his office with that tall boy. He stated that he cannot identify that boy as he State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 45 ::
had not seen him properly.
39. During crossexamination for accused Nawab Singh he deposed that he was not on friendly terms with Dr. Nangia. He knew him for the last 8 to 10 years. As per his knowledge doctor was not in a financial business. He had never inquired from doctor as to why he had come in a panic situation to take money. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. No question was put by other accused persons, but the witness was lateron recalled on the application of other accused person.
40. During cross examination for accused Balraj he stated that he was holding the meeting on 03.05.2004 of BJP workers around 12:00 noon with regard to the road show of election of Sh. Sahib Singh Verma. There were about 10 to 12 persons in the office when Dr. Nangia came to him. He was confronted with his statement where it was not found mentioned that Dr.Nangia came along with one tall boy. Dr. Nangia did not request him for making any phone call. He also did not disclose State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 46 ::
anything to him about the occurrence. There were no blood marks on the clothes of Dr.Nangia. He did not notice any visible injury on Dr. Nangia. Dr. Nangia remained with him for about 10 minutes.
41. Ranjeet Kaur was examined as PW6. She deposed that on 03.05.2004 at about 12:00 noon one tall, fair complexion person called her while standing on the stair case and told that one doctor Nangia was calling her. She went down stairs. Dr. Nangia was sitting in his car on the driver seat and asked for her husband Avtar Singh. She told him that he is not at home and had gone for his job. She telephoned her husband and requested Dr. Nangia to please wait as her husband would be coming. Dr. Nangia again asked this witness to call her husband as early as possible. During that time Dr. Nangia also gave his daughter to her and asked her to feed the child. The girl was sitting on the rear seat with short statured person. While she was carrying the child upstairs that short statured person followed her and asked her to give back the child. She resisted but State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 47 ::
he forcibly took away the child from her and thereafter they left the place. She was not able to identify the accused persons. She was crossexamined by the APP and thereafter she correctly identified both the accused persons.
42. During crossexamination for accused Nawab she stated that her statement was recorded by the police on 08.05.2004. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW6/DA where it was not mentioned that tall, fair completion boy called her but it is mentioned that a short person called her. That person rang the door bell. She was also confronted with her statement wherein she has referred to both the persons as short. She denied the suggestion that Dr. Nangia had never come to her house on that day or that the child was not forcibly snatched from her. She stated that she did not tell the police that child was forcibly snatched from her. He simply asked her to hand over the child.
43. During crossexamination for accused Balraj she stated that she did not notice if there was any blood State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 48 ::
stains on the clothes of Dr. Nangia, the child or on the clothes of other two persons who came with Dr. Nangia. The vehicle in which Dr. Nangia came remained parked there for about 34 minutes. She was not having any mobile at that time. She did not feed milk to the child, because while she was in the process of feeding the milk one person came up and took away the child. She was confronted where it was not mentioned that short statured person had taken away the child. However, it was mentioned that the child was taken away by one of them.
44. HC Ram Swaroop was examined as PW7. He was working as MHC(M) at PS: Tilak Nagar. On 24.05.2004 Santro car No: DL 4CM 5692 was deposited in the malkhana regarding which he made entry at sl.no.4102 in register No.19, photocopy of the same is proved as Ex.PW7/A. On 26.05.2004 the said car was released on superdari to Dr. Nangia and he made the endorsement against entry No.PW7/A in this regard.
State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 49 ::
45. ASI Bahadur Singh was examined as PW8. On 06.05.2004 he was posted at PS: Tilak Nagar as duty officer. On that day at about 7:45 pm on receiving rukka sent by ASI Jai Narain from Ct. Sombir he recorded FIR No.261/2004. He proved the copy of the FIR as Ex.PW8/A.
46. Har Simran Singh Madhok was examined as PW
9. He deposed that on 03.05.2004 he used to deal in motor vehicles. His shop was situated at 68A Outer Ring Road, Vikas Puri, Delhi. On that day at about 12:30 pm Dr. A.K.Nangia, his family doctor, came at his shop. Dr. Nangia was known to him for the last 1415 years.
Doctor was in santro car No. DL 4CM 5692 and he wanted to sell his car and clinic. Dr. told him that he is in need of Rs.25, 30, 40 lacs immediately and he should pay whatever could be the sale proceeds. At that time Dr.Nangia was accompanied by two boys, one of them was tall height and other was short. He inquired from the doctor as to why he need this money but the doctor did not reply. Doctor appeared to be nervous. He was State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 50 ::
carrying child in his lap. He asked the doctor to accompany him to his house so that he may be delivered the money. He took the doctor along with those two boys, his manager and the child to his house in his car leaving Santro car at his shop. They remained at his house for about 1½ hours where his mother and father were also present. Those two boys got perplexed and said to the doctor that they would come next day and collect the money from him. Thereafter those two boys left. Thereafter, Doctor Nangia told them that his life was in danger and his daughter would be killed by thoe two boys. The doctor also told that those two boys had murdered his wife, motherinlaw and fatherinlaw. Dr. Nangia left the house and went to the police station. The witness has identified both the accused Nawab and Balraj as the persons who came to his shop and then to his house along with Dr. Nangia.
47. During crossexamination for accused Nawab Singh he deposed that on 03.05.2004 police came to his shop in the evening between 7 to 9 pm. His statement State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 51 ::
was recoded in the police station but he does not remember in which police station and also does not remember the name of the police officer. He does not remember if his statement was recorded on 12.05.2004. He did not drop Dr. Nangia at PS: Tilak Nagar. He never been a property dealer and had no idea in which area the clinic of Dr. Nangia is situated. Dr. Nangia did not sell his santro car to him. The deal regarding sale of car by Dr. Nangia could not be struck as banks were closed on that day being holiday and also because he was nervous. The doctor even demanded tablet of sorbitrate from his manager. He denied the suggestion that the doctor Nangia and the two accused persons did not come to his shop on 03.05.2004. He learned about the arrest of accused persons from the news paper. Police never called him after the arrest of accused persons for identification. He denied the suggestion that he gave a false statement or that he had not taken Dr. Nangia, the two boys, his manager and child to his house in his car leaving Santro car at his shop. He did not accompany State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 52 ::
Dr. Nangia even after he told that his life was in danger as he was feeling tired and that after bringing doctor to his house he went to one of the room of his house to have a nap. His father advised the doctor that he should go to police station, situated nearby and also because the two boys accompanying the doctor has come to his room.
48. During crossexamination for accused Balraj he stated that he found the conduct of Dr. Nangia suspicious when he visited his shop. He did not notice any blood stains on the clothes of Dr. Nangia and those two boys during the period they remained with him. He stated that they thoroughly inspect the car when it is brought to their shop for sale but he does not remember if the car in the present case was inspected by them or not. He does not remember if he quoted any price for Santro car brought by Dr.Nangia. When he reached home his father was present at home and he discussed the matter with Dr. Nangia. Dr. Nangia might have stayed at their home for about 1½ hour. During that State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 53 ::
period he did not do anything which would suggest that he was in danger. He does not remember if Dr. Nangia made any call to the police after the two boys left.
49. SI Manohar Lal was examined as PW10. He is draftsmen. He deposed that on 11.07.2004 he was called by Inspector B.R. Maan SHO PS: Shalimar Bagh and he visited KP267, Maurya Enclave Pitam Pura.
There he took the rough notes and the measurements at the instance of Smt. Gurdeep and Dr. Anil Nangia. Thereafter, he prepared the scaled plan Ex.PW10/A. Testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
50. HC Dharam Raj was examined as PW11. He deposed that on 03.05.2004 he was posted in PCR control room. On that day at about 10:33 am one person namely Mumtaz Ahmad from telephone No.27315545 informed that in H.No.KP267, Maurya Enclave, Pitam Pura owner of the house, his wife and daughter had been badly beaten by someone and are in injured condition. He filled the PCR form mark PW11/A and State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 54 ::
sent the information. The photocopy of the order vide which the PCR forms were destroyed is marked PW11/B. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
51. Ct. Manoj Kumar was examined as PW12. On 03.05.2004 he was present at trauma centre Civil lines Delhi. One unkown lady, lateron identified as Kartar Kaur, was admitted in trauma centre, referred from BSA hospital died on 05.05.2004 in the casualty. He passed on this information to PP: Pitam Pura on which DD No.18 was recorded. The testimony of this witness has also gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
52. Amarjeet Singh was examined as PW13. He deposed that on 03.05.2004 after receiving and hearing the news at television he came to Delhi on 05.05.2004. He identified the dead body of deceased Kartar Kaur in BRJM morutary. His statement in this regard is Ex.PW13/A. After post mortem he also received the dead body vide memo Ex.PW13/B. On the same day he also identified dead body of his elder brother Saudagar State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 55 ::
Singh vide statement Ex.PW13/C and received his body vide memo Ex.PW13/D.
53. Dr. Avinder Kaur was examined as PW14. On 03.05.2004 she was the duty doctor in casualty and was shown the MLC of Gurdeep Kaur and Saudagar Singh, prepared by the lady doctor. Injured Gurdeep Kaur was brought in casualty with alleged history of assault with multiple injuries. Gurdeep Kuar was having multiple lacerated wound over whole of scalp, face and both hands with choked left index and middle finger and choked right index finger and other associated injuries on dorsum. Left hand extending to palmer aspect. The patient was profusely bleeding and was in state of shock. She proved the MLC of the injured Gurdeep Kaur as Ex.PW14/A. The injuries sustained by her were dangerous, sharp and blunt. The patient Saudagar Singh was declared dead, on local examination the MLC of injured Saudagar Singh is proved as Ex.PW14/B.
54. HC Vikas Kumar was examined as PW15. On 03.05.2004 he was posted at PS: Shalimar Bagh, State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 56 ::
PP:Pitam Pura as constable. On that day on receipt of DD No.17 he along with SI Puran reached at H.No.KP 267, Maurya Enclave, Pitam Pura. On the first floor in drawing room Saudagar Singh and Kuldeep Kaur were found in injured condition. Blood was lying on the floor and both of them had sustained injuries on their head and face with sharp edged weapon. Both the injured were sent to hospital in PCR vehicle. He along with SI Puran Pant and Inspector B.R. Maan went to the hospital. Ct. Ashwani remained at the spot. One injured was found admitted in Muni Maya Ram Hospital where injured Saudagar Singh was declared brought dead. Kuldeep Kaur was admitted in injured condition in BSA hospital. No eye witness was found on the spot. IO Inspector B.R. Maan made endorsement and handed over rukka to him, which he took to the police station and got the FIR registered. He returned to the spot along with rukka and copy of FIR and delivered the same to IO/Inspector B.R. Maan. IO Inspected the spot and lifted the exhibits from there i.e. some hair having State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 57 ::
blood stains, bed sheet having blood stains, one pagri having blood stains, one hand towel having blood stains, two finger rings one of golden colour and other of silver colour, one rudraksh having some hairs and blood, one blanket having blood stains, some blood as sample from three places, earth control having blood stains. 2 fingers of human body. All these were put in separate parcels sealed with the seal of PRM and seized. He does not remember how many memos were prepared but can identify the same. The memos are Ex.PW15/A to Ex.PW15/H having his signature at point A. In the meantime SI Sudhir Gulia also reached at the spot and brought a sealed parcel containing jewellery of injured Kuldeep kaur along with MLC. IO seized the jewellery vide memo Ex.PW15/I. Lateron Kuldeep Kaur also expired. Thereafter, they went to Muni Maya Ram Hospital and collected the MLC of deceased Saudagar Singh. IO went to Vikas Puri to recover Santro Car along with Dr. Nangia. There they found one Santro car bearing No.DL4CM 5692 parked on road. It was State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 58 ::
inspected by the IO. One piece of newspaper having blood stains was lying inside the aforesaid car which was seized after sealing. Some blood was also lying on the seat of the car. IO cut the cover of the seat and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/J. The car was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A. The case property was thereafter deposited with the MHC(M).
55. On 05.05.2004 the post mortem was got conducted by the IO and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to relatives of the deceased. He identified the case property as Ex.PW15/Article1 to Ex.PW15/ArticleB1. He identified the newspaper and the piece of the seat of the Santro car as Ex.PW3/A1 to Ex.PW3/A2. The photograph of the Santro car is identified as Ex.PX1 and PX2.
56. During crossexamination for accused Nawab he stated that he received the information about the incident at 10:34 am vide DD no.17. They reached the spot within 1015 minutes. PCR reached the spot at about 11:00 am. No public person was present inside State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 59 ::
the house when they reached there and no public person was present outside the house. Within few minutes SHO also reached there. SI Puran Pant asked some public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. There were more than one PCR on the spot. He came to know at about 11:30 am that 3rd injured Gurdeep Kaur is admitted in Muni Maya Ram Hospital. He does not know who had taken Gurdeep Kaur to the hospital. In the hospital they came to know that Gurdeep Kaur is in ICU and is unconscious. They remained in the hospital till 12:20 or 12:30 noon. They again reached at the spot at about 1:30 pm. Rukka was handed over to him in Muni Maya Ram Hospital. He does not know if any finger prints were lifted from the spot by the crime team. He did not meet Dr. Gaurav in the hospital. No finger prints were lifted from the car in his presence. Public persons were asked to join the investigation but none agreed. He does not remember if the day of incident was holiday or not.
57. During crossexamination for accused Kanwaljeet State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 60 ::
Kaur. He stated that he did not notice any jeweller on the body of injured Kuldeep Kaur. However, Jewellery articles of Kuldeep Kaur were seized from the hospital. He did not notice blood stains on the walls of the stairs. He does not know if crime team inspected kitchen, balcony and bathroom. No public person told them anything about the case. From the spot they went to the clinic of Dr. Nangia situated at Khyala, at about 3:00 pm. From there they went to Jail Road Tilak Nagar where Dr. Nangia met them. From there they went to Popular Motors and then returned to PS: Shalimar Bagh. Dr. Nangia was not arrested. He denied the suggestion that Santro car was recovered on 05.05.2004. Manju Compounder of Dr. Nangia met them at the clinic. IO interrogated her. No other person was interrogated in his presence by the IO at the clinic.
58. During crossexamination for accused Balraj he was confronted with his statement where it was found mentioned that he was left on the spot and after return from the hospital rukka was handed over to him by the State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 61 ::
IO. But he stated that IO might have recorded the same of his own but he has not given any such statement to the IO.
59. W/HC Saroj was examined as PW16. She proved the arrest of accused Kanwaljeet Kaur on 04.05.2004 from WZ57A, Old Shahpura, Tilak Nagar. The arrest memo is proved as Ex.PW16/A. The personal search memo is Ex.PW16/B. Accused also made the disclosure statement which is Ex.PW16/C.
60. During crossexamination for accused Kanwaljeet Kaur she stated that they reached the place of arrest at noon time. She does not remember if any neighbour was called at the time of arrest. She denied the suggestion that she did not join the investigation of the case or that no document was prepared at the spot.
61. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Assistant, Biology was examined as PW17. He examined the exhibits of this case and proved the serological examination report as Ex.PW17/A and biological examination report as Ex.PW17/B. The testimony of this State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 62 ::
witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
62. Ct. Dhirender was examined as PW18. On 30.06.2004 he took 27 parcels, 19 having seal of BRM and 8 having seal of medical Supdt. BJRM hospital along with two sample seals to FSL vide RC No.87/21/04. He deposited the same and on return handed over receipt to MHC(M). The testimony of this witness has also gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
63. HC Chunni Lal was examined as PW19. He was part of the crime team which visited the spot i.e.KP267, Maurya Enclave on 03.05.2004. He took 28 photographs of scene of crime. The photograhs are Ex.PX1 to Ex.PX28 and the negatives are Ex.PW19/A 1 to A28. The print photographs are 13 in number and the negatives are 28 in number.
64. During crossexamination nothing material came on the record to discredit the witness.
65. Sh.Parsuram Singh, Senior Scientific officer, Physics was examined as PW20 and he proved his State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 63 ::
report as Ex.PW20/A. The testimony of this witness has also gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
66. W/HC Sarojni was examined as PW21. On 03.05.2004 she was working as duty officer at PS:
Shalimar Bagh and proved the copy of FIR No.397/04 as Ex.PW21/A. Her endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW21/B.
67. During crossexamination she denied the suggestion that B.R.Maan did not send the rukka or that the daily diary were stopped for manipulating the case.
She also sent the 12 copies of FIR to different officials through special messenger. However, this fact was not mentioned in the FIR but was mentioned in the DD instead. The constable Neeraj was the special messenger who delivered the copies of FIR to the senior police officers.
68. HC Mukesh Kumar was examined as PW22. On 05.05.2004 he was working as DD writer and proved the copy of DD No.18 as Ex.PW22/A.
69. During crossexamination he denied the State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 64 ::
suggestion that DD entry was not endorsed in the roznmacha as per the time told by the informer.
70. SI Sudhir Kumar was examined as PW23. He deposed that on 03.05.2004 he was called by SHO at KP267 Pitam Pura. From there he was sent to BSA Hospital with instruction to find out if the lady, who was admitted in the hospital, is fit for statement. He reached the hospital and collected the MLC. The lady was found to be unfit. The personal belonging of the said injured were given by the doctor to him. He came back at the spot and handed over the same to the IO. The same were seized vide memo Ex.PW15/1 by the IO. The said lady was identified as Smt. Kuldeep Kaur wife of Sh. Saudagar Singh. She died on 05.05.2004. On the instructions of IO he shifted the dead body to the mortuary of BJRM hospital.
71. During crossexamination he stated that he did not seal the personal belonging of the injured. He was not informed that the KP267 was the house where the injured was residing.
State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 65 ::
72. Dr. Kuldeep Singh was examined as PW24. He proved the MLC of the unknown person brought by PCR on 03.05.2004 with alleged history of assault as Ex.PW24/A. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
73. HC Satish Kumar was examined as PW25. He joined the investigation on 08.05.2004 with Inspector B.R. Maan, SI Puran Pant and Ct. Rakesh. They went to New Delhi Railway Station in Govt. Gypsy. Secret information was received on telephone and they went to ISBT Kashmiri Gate. On the stairs of ISBT two persons were sitting, the secret informer pointed out towards those two persons. They were apprehended. They revealed their names as Nawab Singh and Balraj Singh and both were arrested. Arrest memo of Nawab Singh is ExPW25/A and of Balraj is Ex.PW25/B. Their personal search were conducted vide memo Ex.PW25/C and Ex.PW25/D. They made the disclosure statements Ex.PW25/E and Ex.PW25/F respectively. Both the accused led the police party to the park behind bus State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 66 ::
stand District Centre, Janak Puri. They dug out the earth & took out one black colour bag. On checking the bag, same was found containing one country made revolver and two "Rapi" type weapons. Inspector B.R. Maan checked the revolver and it was found loaded with two live cartridges. The sketch of revolver and cartridges were prepared. The sketch of "Rapi" type weapons were also prepared and their measurements were taken. The sketch of country made revolver and cartridge is Ex.PW25/G. The two sketches of "Rapi" type weapons are Ex.PW25/H and Ex.PW25/J. The weapons were put in separate pullandas, sealed with the seal of BRM. The bag was also put in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of BRM . These were seized vide memo Ex.PW25/K. IO also seized the wearing shirt of the accused persons as there were blood stains on the shirt. The shirts were put in separate pullandas sealed with the seal of BRM. Shirt of accused Balraj was seized vide memo Ex.PW25/L and of Nawab as vide memo Ex.PW25/M. Accused persons also pointed out the place of occurrence vide State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 67 ::
pointing out memo Ex.PW25/N. Seal after use was given to SI Puran Pant. He identified both the accused persons. He also identified the revolver and two live cartridge ExP1 & Ex.P1/1 respectively. The two weapons recovered at the instance of accused persons are Ex.P2 & P3. The shirt of Balraj is identified as Ex.P 4 and of Nawab as Ex.P5 and bag is identified as Ex.P 6 from which articles Ex.P1, P1/1, P1/2, P3, were recovered. The witness was recalled for cross examination as initially no question was put.
74. During crossexamination for accused Balraj he deposed that he does not remember if any attempt was made to join any independent witness on 08.05.2004 during the proceedings conducted. He does not remember as to who was the driver of the gypsy and also the registration number of the gypsy. SHO made attempts to join the witnesses from the offices at ISBT but they refused to join the investigation. He does not remember if the names of the organizations, shops and kiosks or the name of the persons were noted down by State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 68 ::
the SHO who refused to join. The entire writing work on that day is in the handwriting of SI Puran Pant. At ISBT the writing work was done while sitting on the stairs and at District Centre writing work was done while sitting on the wall of the park. They remained at ISBT for about an hour. The investigation and interrogation of accused persons was done separately. He was confronted with his earlier statement where it was not mentioned that accused dug out the earth from the corner of the park. The weapons were measured with plastic scale. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation on 08.05.2004 or that the accused persons did not make any disclosure statement or were not arrested on the day as deposed by him or that he signed the documents lateron in the police station.
75. W/SI Parsila was examined as PW26. On 03.05.2004 she was working as DD writer at PP: Pitam Pura. She proved the copy of the DD No.17A which is part of the rukka, the same is Ex.PW21/B. The said DD was given to SI Puran Pant for necessary action. State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 69 ::
76. HC Vijay Kumar was examined as PW27. He was working as MHC(M) at PS: Shalimar Bagh and proved the entries in register No.19 and 21 as Ex.PW27/A to Ex.PW27/D. Nothing material came during his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons to discredit the witness.
77. HC Rakesh Singh was examined as PW28. He also corroborated the testimony of PW25, PW26 regarding arrest of both the accused persons and recovery from District Centre Janak Puri. He identified both the accused persons and also the case property.
78. During crossexamination for accused Balraj, he stated that the secret information was received around 1:30 or 2:00 pm. SI Puran Pant informed him about the secret information. Departure entry was made but he does not remember the DD Number. They all were in govt. gypsy. They reached ISBT Kashmiri gate at about 3:30 pm. The accused were standing on the stair case.
The accused were arrested at about 4:30 or 4:45 pm. He cannot tell in whose handwriting the arrest memos State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 70 ::
and other documents are. They remained there for about 15 to 20 minutes. They reached District Centre at about 5:30 or 6:00 pm. He denied the suggestion that there were no bushes near the bus stand from where the alleged recovery was effected. He denied the suggestion that there was no kuccha space so as to dig the earth at that place. The sketches of weapon were prepared by SI Puran Pant. They remained at District Centre for 1 or 1 ½ hours. He does not recollect if IO put any specific identification mark on the weapon of offence and the bag. They reached at PS at about 8:00 or 8:30 pm. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation on that day or that accused persons were not arrested in his presence from ISBT or that they did not make disclosure statement or get effected any recovery.
79. During crossexamination for accused Nawab he deposed that he does not know when and in what circumstances secret informer met senior officers. The secret informer remained with them till he pointed out State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 71 ::
the accused persons.
80. Dr. L.C Gupta was examined as PW29. He conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Smt. Kartar Kaur on 05.05.2004 and proved the post mortem report of the lady as Ex.PW29/A. He also said that the clothes of the deceased along with blood were preserved sealed and seized and handed over to the IO along with original inquest papers which were 13 in number. Attached with the request for post mortem which are Ex.PW24/A. PW29/A to Ex.PW29/D, PW13/A, PW29/E to Ex.PW29/K. The witness also stated that the injury mentioned at point No.1 in the post mortem report may result from the use of weapon Ex.P 2 and P3 or such like weapons.
81. He also conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Saudagar Singh on the same day and proved the post mortem report as Ex.PW29/D. 10 inquest papers are Ex.PW29/L to Ex.PW29/R and Ex.PW13/C. He also stated that injury No.1 and 2 mentioned in the post mortem report is Ex.P3 and injury No.3 could be State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 72 ::
possible by both the weapons and such like weapons. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallanged and uncontroverted.
82. Ct. Neeraj Rana was examined as PW30. He delivered the copies of FIR to the senior officers and MM on 03.05.2004. He was cross examined but nothing material came in the crossexamination to discredit the witness.
83. Dr. Devender Singh was examined as PW31. But his evidence could not be completed and therefore could not be looked into.
84. Inspector Puran Pant was examined as PW32.
On 03.05.2004 he was posted as Incharge police post Pitam Pura, PS: Shalimar Bagh. On that day on receiving DD No.17 Ex.PW32/A he along with Ct. Vikas reached KP267 Maurya Enclave, Pitam Pura. They went to the first floor. There they found one old aged lady and a male in injured condition. Blood was also found spread in the room and on the goods lying in the room. Inspector B.R. Maan along with staff also reached State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 73 ::
there. The injured were sent to hospital in PCR Vans. They made inquiries in the neighbourhood but no eye witness was found. They came to know that injured were Saudagar Singh and his wife Kuldeep kaur. Saudagar Singh was taken to Muni Maya Ram hospital and Kuldeep Kaur to Ambedkar Hospital by PCR Vans. Inspector B.R. Maan sent SI Sudhir Guliya to Ambedkar Hospital. This witness along with SHO and Ct.Vikas reached Muni Maya Ram hospital. Ct. Ashwani and some other staff were left at the spot to guard the same. In Muni Maya Ram Hospital they came to know that Saudagar Singh has been declared dead. One Gurdeep Kaur daughter of Saudagar Singh was also found admitted in Muni Maya Ram Hospital. She was in ICU and was unfit. Inspector B.R.Maan made endorsement on the DD and sent the rukka through Ct.Vikas. No eye witness was found in Muni Maya Ram hospital. Thereafter they returned to the spot. IO inspected the spot and prepared site plan. In the meantime crime team reached the spot, inspected the scene and took State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 74 ::
the photograph and also videograph. Thereafter, IO lifted the exhibits from the spot. In the meantime Ct.Vikas came back on the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. He corroborated the testimony of PW15 with respect to the lifting of exhibits from the spot and seizure of the same. They came to know during investigation that Gurdeep Kaur was married with Dr. Anil Nangia having his clinic at Chand Nagar, Khayala. Manju, compounder of Doctor Nangia informed on telephone that Dr. Nangia had been taken away from clinic on the gun point by one Sonia and two other persons. Dead body of Saudagar Singh was sent to BJRM hospital mortuary. Thereafter, they went to the clinic of Dr. Nangia. Manju told that the lady was Sonia and the associates were Nawab and Ladi who were calling each other by these names. Thereafter they met Dr. Nangia who corroborated the statement of Manju and then he told about the incident. Then they went to Popular Motors where they found the Santro car. The car was checked and he corroborated the State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 75 ::
testimony of PW3, Dr. Nangia regarding the seizure of car and he also corroborated the testimony of PW16 lady Ct. Saroj regarding arrest of accused Sonia. He also deposed that after post mortem on the body of Saudagar Singh and Kuldeep Kaur, doctor handed over the exhibits along with the sample seals which were seized vide memo Ex.PW32/C and Ex.PW32/D. He deposed about the arrest of the two accused persons i.e. Nawab and Balraj and recovery at their instance and fully corroborated the testimony of PW25. He identified all the accused persons and also the case property.
85. During crossexamination he stated that he reached the scene of crime at about 10:40 am. PCR also reached at the same time. Saudagar Singh and his wife Kuldeep Kaur were lying in injured condition but they were not in a position to talk. In the hospital relatives of the deceased namely Gaurav and his wife Dr. Anita informed that compounder of Dr. Anil Nagia has informed that Doctor has been kidnapped at the gun point. He does not know if IO recorded statement of State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 76 ::
Gaurav and his wife Anita. IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Nawab at ISBT, Kashmiri Gate. The distance between the place from where recovery was effected and ISBT was about 10 to 12 kms. He denied the suggestion that the place from where weapon was recovered is a crowded place or that many public persons were present there. IO asked public persons to join the investigation but none joined. He denied the suggestion that no weapon was seized at the instance of accused Nawab. Accused Nawab told that he was wearing the same shirt on the day of incident. The pants of accused Nawab was not seized, as accused did not tell that he was wearing the said pant at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement or that no recovery was effected.
86. During crossexamination for accused Kanwaljeet Kaur he stated that he does not know if any call was made regarding the incident from landline number 27315545 by one Mumtaz Ahmad. On the first day of State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 77 ::
incident they came to know that murder had been committed by the accused. In his presence IO did not make any effort to trace Mumtaz Ahmad. He admitted that the house where the incident took place is situated in the residential area. As per his knowledge there was no occupant on the ground floor. IO made inquiries from the neighbours but none claimed that he had witnessed the incident or knew anything about the incident. He does not remember as to who had taken Gurdeep Kaur to the hospital. He does not know if IO tried to search that person. He identified photograph Ex.PX21 as the photograph of kitchen of the house where incident has taken place and that blood stains are visible on the slab of the kitchen. Ex.PX27 and PX25 are of balcony of the first floor and the blood stains are visible on the parapet wall of the balcony and that blood stained clothes are hanging on the railing of the balcony of the first floor. He admitted that the scene of crime was not disturbed in any way before the above mentioned photographs were taken by the crime team. The bunch State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 78 ::
of hair which were recovered from the scene of crime one was of grey hair and the other was of black hair. There were total four bunches of hair. There was no evidence of robbing the house. He cannot say on which road Dr. Nangia met them but he met them about one km away from PS: Tilak Nagar. He was on foot. Gaurav was with them who accompanied them from Muni Maya Ram hospital and he identified Dr. Nangia. He denied the suggestion that Dr. Anil Nangia was in police custody from 03.05.2004 to 05.05.2004 being suspect. He denied the suggestion that Dr. Nangia was let off after he paid huge bribe. He denied the suggestion that they did not visit the clinic of Dr. Anil Nangia or that Manju did not meet them or that Manju did not tell them that Dr. Nangia was taken away from the clinic on the gun point by one Sonia along with two more persons.
87. During crossexamination for accused Balraj he stated that he did not find two women and one man in injured condition when he reached the spot. He stated that in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC it was inadvertently State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 79 ::
mentioned that two women and one man were found in injured condition. The seizure memo's Ex.PW15/A to Ex.PW15/F were prepared after return to spot from the hospital. At the time of their first visit to Muni Maya Ram hospital they came to know that Saudagar Singh had been declared dead, while Gurdeep Kaur was found admitted in the ICU. They reached the clinic of Dr.Anil Nangia at around 3:45 or 4:00 pm. Crime team was not called there. Finger prints were not lifted from the clinic. Manju met them at the clinic, but he does not remember if her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was recorded at that time or not. The statement of Dr.Nangia was not recorded when he initially met them. Proprietor of New Popular Motor was present at his shop when they reached there. The key of the car was with the owner of New Popular Motors and it was taken from him by them before inspection of the car. He does not remember if the photographs of the car were taken at that time. He does not remember if there were any blood stains on the clothes of Dr. Nangia or on the clothes of Minor child State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 80 ::
Khushboo. He denied the suggestion that no proceedings were recorded in his presence on 03.05.2004. The secret information was received by the SHO but he does not remember the time. At ISBT IO made attempt to join independent witnesses. Few passersby were asked to join but they refused and left the spot. He does not remember in whose handwriting memos and disclosure statements were recorded at ISBT on 08.05.2004. They remained at ISBT for an hour. Both the accused were interrogated separately.
He denied the suggestion that accused did not give any statement or that the disclosures were fabricated subsequently. He denied the suggestion that accused persons did not get recovered the weapon as deposed by him.
88. ASI Joseph Lakra was examined as PW33. On 03.05.2004 he was posted as Incharge PCR Van Commander Cobra. On that day after receiving the information he along with the staff reached at KP267 Maurya Enclave, Pitam Pura. A large crowd was there State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 81 ::
and local police was also present. One female was found badly injured on the first floor. She was put in their van and they removed her to BSA hospital where she was admitted. Ld. APP put a leading question to the witness after permission from the court wherein he denied that he had also seen one Sardar in injured condition who was also taken out from the first floor and removed to the hospital.
89. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Nawab Singh he stated that he does not remember the time when he received the information and of their reaching the spot. The local police reached the spot after their arrival. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
90. ACP B.R. Maan was examined as PW34. He is the IO of the case and corroborated the testimony of PW30, PW15, PW16, PW32, PW25 as well as PW31. He proved the site plan prepared by him. He proved the rukka prepared by him as Ex.PW34/A. The site plan as Ex.PW34/B. He identified the accused State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 82 ::
persons. He collected the mobile crime team report prepared by SI Subhash Chand, proved the same as Ex.PW34/C. He collected the FSL result of the Ballistic expert K.C. Varshney and same is Ex.PW34/D. He identified all the accused persons and also the case property.
91. During crossexamination for accused Balraj he deposed that he started for patrolling duty on 09.05.2004 after making departure entry. He does not remember his exact location when he received information on wireless. There was a crowd present in the gali i.e. place of occurrence. PCR officials were not present there. 34 police officials and SI Puran Pant were present there. He does not remember if injured lady Kartar Kaur was conscious and oriented as per MLC. However in the MLC it is mentioned that patient was conscious and her vitals were normal. He did not ask the lady as to how she has received the injuries when he met her. He asked SI Puran Pant if he made inquiries from the injured lady and SI Puran Pant told State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 83 ::
him that he made inquiries from the lady but she was seriously injured and was not able to speak anything.
92. He sent the rukka at 12:30 pm from Muni Maya Ram hospital. Gurdeep Kaur told her that after the incident she had gone to balcony but after going through her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He stated that this fact was not mentioned in her statement that she had gone to balcony after the incident. He denied the suggestion that he or SI Puran Pant recorded the statement of Gurdeep Kaur on the day of incident which was not placed on record.
93. He admitted that as per MLC of Saudagar Singh Ex.PW14/B he was taken to hospital by Dr. Gaurav. He did not inquire from Dr. Gaurav how he reached at the spot and in what manner he removed Saudagar Singh to the hospital. He recorded the statement of Manju on 03.05.2004. But after going through the case diary and the judicial record he stated that there is no statement of Manju dt. 03.05.2004. He does not know if in DD No.5 of PP Khyala it was mentioned that 4 men had taken State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 84 ::
Dr.Anil Nangia from Khyala. However, this fact find mention in DD No.5 Ex.PW34/DA. He also admitted that according to DD No.6 dt. 03.05.2004 Ex.PW34/DB wife of Dr. Anil Nangia lodged report regarding kidnapping from telephone No.22582255. He admitted that in DD No.11 dt. 03.05.2004 Ex.PW3/4C. Dr. Gaurav informed that Dr. Anil Nangia reached PS: Tilak Nagar and this information was given from phone No.56228085. He did not record any statement of doctor Gaurav in the present case. He investigated Dr. Nangia in the present case.
94. He admitted that as per information received by the PCR one Mumtaz Ahmad informed from phone No.27315545 i.e. landlord and his wife had been beaten and lying in injured condition. He never carried out any investigation on this aspect. He denied the suggestion that he made inquires from Mumtaj Ahmad but the same has not been brought on record as according to him Dr. Nangia is the main accused and in order to save Dr. Nangia his statement was not placed on record. State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 85 ::
95. He also did not investigate as to how blood was found on the Dikki of the car which was found parked inside the house. He admitted that as per crime team report the name of IO is mentioned as ASI Raj Kapoor and not him. ASI Raj Kapoor was not cited as witness by him.
96. He made inquiries from the neighbours near the clinic of Dr. Nangia regarding the incident of kidnapping but none deposed anything. He did not investigate as to which patients were in the clinic on that day at the time of incident. He did not lift any chance prints from the clinic of Dr. Nangia.
97. No independent witness was joined by him at the time of recovery of Santro Car of Dr. Nangia from new Popular Motors.
98. He had shown the photograph of accused Balraj and Nawab to Gurdeep Kaur on 06.05.2004. He admitted the suggestion that photographs were shown to Dr. Anil Nangia and other witnesses. Dr. Nangia told him that he knew accused Nawab prior to the incident State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 86 ::
as Nawab used to visit his clinic.
99. He denied the suggestion that accused was not arrested from ISBT or that he did not make disclosure statement or that the case property was planted upon the accused persons. During his entire investigation he did not come to know that deceased Saudagar Singh made will of his property. He denied the suggestion that Dr. Nangia made a concocted story in connivance with him or that Dr. Nangia was never kidnapped. He denied the suggestion that brotherinlaw of Dr. Nangia's i.e. Dr. Gaurav and his sister were involved in the murder. He denied the suggestion that accused Balraj has been falsely implicated.
100. During crossexamination for accused Kanwaljeet Kaur he stated that he does not remember if Dr. Anil Nangia told him that bank was found closed when he was taken to bank for withdrawl of money by accused Nawab Singh and accused Balraj. He cannot say if 03.05.2004 was a working day of the bank. He does not remember if Dr. Nangia told him that accused persons State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 87 ::
other than Sonia forced the deceased Saudagar Singh to sign certain documents regarding the transfer of the property in favour of accused Sonia. He does not remember if he inquired from the accused persons as to what they have done with the said paper on which Saudagar Singh had written that he had debarred his daughter and Damad from the property and gave to the assailants. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not investigate the said fact as he knew that said fact was false and no such document was executed by deceased Saudagar Singh.
101. He denied the suggestion that Dr. Anil Nangia was formally arrested and he admitted committing murder of his parentsinlaw with the help of two assailants. He denied that subsequently the story was manipulated and the offence was shifted upon Sonia @ Kanwaljeet Kaur. He had not requested the doctor to take the nail clipping of deceased for conducting DNA finger printing. He had not requested for conducting DNA of hair and blood recovered from the spot. He did State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 88 ::
not interrogate the persons who brought down Saudagar Singh. He denied the suggestion that he met Gurdeep Kaur in the hospital who gave statement implicating Dr. Anil Nangia as main accused.
102. Inspector R.K. Ojha was examined as PW35. On 24.06.2004 the charge sheet was prepared in case FIR No.265/04. ASI Jai Narain was the IO of the said case.
He had seen him signing and writing and is conversant with his handwriting. He has proved the site plan of the scene of crime as Ex.PW35/A. The seizure memo is Ex.PW35/B. The arrest memos of accused Nawab and Balraj and Kanwaljeet Kaur is Ex.PW35/C, Ex.PW35/D and Ex.PW35/E respectively and their personal search memos are Ex.PW35/F, 35/G and Ex.PW35/H. He proved the rukka as Ex.PW35/J nothing material came during his cross examination.
103. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein they denied entire evidence and stated that they have been falsely implicated. They also stated State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 89 ::
that they want to lead evidence in defence.
104. Balraj examined Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur his mother as DW1. She deposed that his son was working as Hawker at Tilak Nagar Market in the beginning of 2004. ASI Jai Narain of Tilak Nagar used to demand money from them and they were giving money regularly for working on the patri. MCD officials visited there 'Thela' and they said that will issue receipt to him and that he should not give any money to the police. Thereafter Balraj refused to give money to ASI Jai Narain due to which ASI Jai Narain got annoyed. In the year 2004 some police officials came to her house and took her son to PS: Shalimar Bagh complaining that her son was taken for some inquiry. There he was implicated in this case falsely.
105. During crossexamination she stated that she does not make any complaint to the higher officials regarding paying money to ASI Jai Narain. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely to save her son.
State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 90 ::
106. Vikas was examined as DW2. He also deposed on the lines of DW1.
107. During crossexamination he also stated that he did not make any complaint to higher police officials or that he has concocted the story to save his friend Balraj.
108. Satender Singh was examined as DW3. He deposed that Nawab Singh was arrested on 07.05.2004 at about 2 am from his residence i.e. 31 Gyan Vihar, Basti Baba Bagh, Jallandhar, Punjab. About 1011 persons in civil dress having pistols came to his house. They hold up accused and forced him to sit in a Santro car. On inquiry they said that they are from Crime Branch, Delhi and the person leading the team told his name as Inspector B.S. Maan. When he protest they threatened to lift him also.
109. During crossexamination he stated that no local police official was with Inspector B.S. Maan. He denied the suggestion that he did not report about the incident as no such incident has happened or that he is deposing falsely to save his relative Nawab. He cannot tell the State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 91 ::
number of Santro Car. He denied the suggestion that Nawab Singh was arrested on 08.05.2004 from ISBT, Kashmiri Gate. Nawab Singh is son of his wife's Mausi. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. Thereafter accused persons closed the evidence.
110. Additional statement of Kanwaljeet Kaur u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein she denied the entire evidence. Thereafter, case was fixed for final arguments.
111. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Defence counsels for the accused persons and perused the record.
112. Ld. APP submitted that in the present case there are two main eye witnesses namely Dr. Anil Kumar Nangia examined as PW-3 and Mrs. Gurdeep Kaur, PW-
2. Ld. APP submitted that both these witnesses have fully supported and corroborated the case of prosecution. Their presence on the spot is also not disputed. PW-2 is the daughter of the deceased persons and is also one of the injured and PW-3 is the son in law of the deceased persons and husband of PW-2. Ld. APP State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 92 ::
submitted that on that day i.e. 03.05.04 accused persons abducted Dr.Nangia from his clinic situated at Tilak Nagar. PW-1 Manju, on whose testimony FIR no.261/2004 was registered, identified the accused persons i.e. accused Nawab with other accused and Kanwaljeet Kaur @ Sonia came there. Her attention towards them was attracted on hearing their conversation as the accused persons were asking Dr. Anil to accompany them but doctor refused. It has come in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 that Dr. Anil was kidnapped from his clinic by the other two accused persons i.e. Nawab and Balraj on the abatement of Kanwaljeet Kaur @ Sonia. However as per the evidence of PW-3 on the asking of accused Nawab, he stopped his car at Keshav Puram, where accused Kanwaljeet @ Sonia alighted from the car along with the infant child which she was carrying in her lap. Thereafter both the accused persons went to the house of in-laws of Dr.Nangia and parents of PW-2 i.e. KP-267, Mourya Enclave, Pritam Pura. From the testimony of PW-2 as well as PW-3, it is clear that the accused persons committed this offence on the abatement of Kanwaljeet State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 93 ::
Kaur @ Sonia with intention to claim estate of late Sodagar Singh in the name of accused Kanwaljeet Kaur @ Sonia and that is why after reaching the aforesaid property, they asked Sodagar Singh to give it in writing that his property will devolve only upon Kanwaljeet Kaur @ Sonia and that he will not given any of his property to his daughter/PW-2 and son in law PW-3. Accordingly Saudagar Singh wrote that document and handed over the document to accused Nawab Singh. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the accused Kanwaljeet Kaur was charged for abeting the offence of extorting Rs.30,000/- but the evidence regarding claiming property for Kanwaljeet Kaur is also there from the very beginning and there is also specific cross examination of PW-2 and PW-3 on this aspect. Hence no prejudice is caused to the accused persons on this aspect even if no specific charge in this regard was framed. Thereafter he (Saudagar Singh) asked them to leave but they did not and committed the offence of murder and attempt to murder as they attacked Saudagar Singh and his wife Kuldeep Kaur. When PW-2 tried to intervene, she was also attacked, her fingers were chopped and she also State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 94 ::
sustained dangerous injury on the vital part of the body i.e. head and thereafter the accused persons took Dr. Anil and her daughter with them in the santro car of Dr. Anil/PW-3. Dr. Anil Kumar has been used by the accused persons right from the beginning i.e. kidnapping till end. The CFSL report clearly establishes the use of the santro car in the commission of offence as blood stains were found on the seat cover of the car and also on newspaper which was lying in the car. Ld. APP submitted that in this case, according to the seizure memo PW15/J two weapons Ex.P-2 and PW-3 and country made revolver Ex.P-1 along with live cartridge were recovered from the bag Ex.P6. Pursuant to the disclosure of both the accused persons which they have kept concealed after digging the earth which they got recovered from the open space, Near District Centre, Vikas Puri from near the bushes. The sharp edged weapons were sent to FSL and in the analysis, blood of group A belonging to the deceased persons was found on the weapons. Ld. APP submitted that in this case the testimony of the eye witnesses is very important particularly when one of the eye witness is injured State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 95 ::
herself and according to the MLC the injuries were dangerous. Both the witnesses Anil Nangia as well as PW-2 fully corroborated each other except a contradiction that according to Dr. Anil Nangia and story of prosecution, it was Balraj, who attacked Gurdeep Kaur and her mother but according to PW-2 it was Nawab, who attacked her and her mother was attacked by Balraj. This contradiction is only a natural variation and does not go to the root of the case. All the witnesses available have been examined. The presence of the accused persons is also corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses where the accused persons have taken him to take money i.e. Smt. Ranjeet Kaur/PW-6 and Harsimran Singh Madhok/PW-9.
113. Ld. PP submitted that so far as the delay is concerned, in fact there is no delay. According to the available record, the statement of Manju was recorded on 03.05.04 itself but the same was kept pending till 06.05.04 as mentioned in the rukka itself. This fact is also confirmed by Manju that her statement was recorded only on 03.05.14. Hence so far as the complainant is concerned, there is no delay in lodging State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 96 ::
the same.
114. Mumtaj Ahmad, who made the call at 100 number was not traceable and hence could not be examined. Dr. Anil Nangia, who was abducted as per the information given by Manju, was spotted near PS Tilak Nagar from where he was brought to the PS Shalimar Bagh and on his statement FIR was recorded. Ld.APP submitted that the witnesses are truthful. The testimony of PW-3 is corroborated by PW-2 and also the two independent witnesses, Harsimran Singh Mandhok and Ranjeet Kaur, those witnesses have also identified the two accused persons. Ld. APP submitted that there was no other person except the family members when the deceased persons and PW-2 were attacked and therefore, the testimony of PW-3 and injured/PW-2 can not be looked upon by suspicion. So far as the contradictions are concerned, those are natural variations and not going to the root. Motive is established as they wanted to get the property in the name of Kanwaljeet Kaur @ Sonia because Saudagar Singh had executed a will whereby he had debarred his son as well as her daughter in law accused Kanwaljeet State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 97 ::
Kaur @ Sonia from inheriting his property and it was categorically mentioned in the will, copy of which has been placed on record by the defence itself and is Ex.PW-3/DX that both of them have no concern with him or his property in any manner what so ever. As this document was produced by the defence itself, therefore, it can be relied upon and after coming to know about this fact, she in order to get the property abeted the commission of offence through Nawab and Balraj. Ld. APP submitted that the two eye witnesses are trust worthy reliable having no reason to depose falsely and so far as Kanwaljeet Kaur is concerned, it was done at her instance/abetement and hence she is also equally responsible. She got the doctor abducted in order to get the property transferred in her name and then may be she has no intention of murder but wanted to get execution of documents in her favour which also was got executed. Simply because that document is not recovered, does not falsify the story as both witnesses categorically deposed in this regard and thereafter both the accused murdered Saudagar Singh and his wife Kuldeep Kaur and attepted to murder Gurdeep Kaur. Ld. State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 98 ::
APP submitted that onus which was on the prosecution has fully been discharged. It is prayed that all the accused persons be held guilty.
115. Ld. Counsel for accused Nawab Singh submitted that instant case is a tailor made example of famous saying truth is stranger than fiction. In the instant case, the truth is that Dr. Nangia himself committed/master minded the whole crime and is trying to pass the buk on the accused persons. Ld. Counsel submitted that accused Nawab Singh used to go to the doctor for treatment of his mother. The doctor found him to be a foolish young man and quite suitable to his scheme. But as the saying goes that truth does not require a prop to stand and the truth of the matter is peeping from different nooks and corners of the story. The story as developed is not possible in its totality. Ld. Counel submitted that two FIR regarding the same incident were registered which itself not permissible under law as laid down by the Apex courts in T.T.Anthony Vs State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 2637. However both the cases were later on consolidated by the court after coming to know about the truth. Supreme Court has also State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 99 ::
observed in the case of Babu Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat 2010 (12) SCC 254, "that two FIRs in respect of the same transactions relating to the same incident or incidents which are part of the same transaction is not permissible". Ld. Counsel submitted that hence applying this test, it is hit by proviso to Section 162 of the code.
116. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there is enormous delay in lodging the FIR. The incident is dt.03.05.04 whereas FIR has been lodged on 06.05.04.
There is un explained delay of 3 days which is fatal.
117. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there is also manipulation which is visible from the fact that according to the DD no.5 recorded at 10.05 AM the doctor was abducted by four persons, whereas the prosecution has brought down the no. to 3. The best evidence has been suppressed and erased to eclipse the true sequence. As per the prosecution story, the neighbors removed Gurdeep Kaur to the hospital but it is not on record that as to who was that neighbor/neighbors, who removed her to the hospital and why they have not been examined. Similarly, Mr. Mumtaj Ahmad, who called the police at 10.30 AM from phone no.27315545 has not State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 100 ::
been examined. He was the best person to tell about the incident. He was the tenant in the house of the deceased and was the best witness but deliberately with held by the prosecution to save the skin of Dr. Nangia.
118. Ld. Counsel further submitted that according to PW-32 SI Puran Pant, when Nawab Singh was arrested on 08.05.14 blood stains were spotted on the clothes of Nawab Singh which does not seem to be plausible, particularly when PW-6 Ranjeet Kaur and PW-9 Har Simran Singh Madhok specifically stated that they have not seen any blood on the cloths of Nawab Singh. It is also unbelievable that the person will continue to wear the same shirt with human blood on it for 5 days. Ld. Counsel submitted that actually the shirt is planted on the accused. He was lifted at 2 AM from the house of DW-1 at Jhalandhar where he was sleeping and was shown to be arrested from ISBT Kashmere Gate. The recovery of revolver is also not believable particularly when according to the forensic expert report, it is not in working order. Ld. counsel submitted that it is not believable that criminal will go to commit offence with a defective revolver. There is also report that the revolver State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 101 ::
was of .32 bore but the witnesses said that the revolver was of .25 bore. How the bore of revolver was changed after it was seized clearly shows that it is concocted case and case property was also tampered with and planted to give look to the case.
119. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the story also is not believable. It was at 9.15 AM. When the doctor opened the clinic and he also examined two patients before he was kidnapped. Then some altercation should have taken place. As deposed by PW-1. Her attention was only diverted when she heard altercation between PW-3 and the accused persons. Thereafter, they drive from Khyala to Pritam Pura. On that day, it was Moharram also. There was mosque near the clinic of the doctor and hence there must be some traffic congestion. On the way Sonia was also dropped. But at 10.30 AM there was already an information in the PS regarding the murderous attack which is not possible and this itself shows that it is a false and concocted story. Ld. Counsel submitted that Nawab Singh is total stranger to the in-laws, having no motive or any reason to cause harm to them. It is Dr. Nangia, who has cooked up an State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 102 ::
ingenious story to save his own skin and concocted this story. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there is total absence of motive. There is no substantive evidence and he can not be branded as a contract killer especially when he did not have any criminal antecedents.
120. Ld. Counsel further submitted that according to the evidence some document was written by the deceased before he was killed but that document/slip of paper has not been produced in the court. Secondly if that old man has already done what ever was dictated by the accused persons, then there was no rhyme and reason for them to kill that old man. Ld. Counsel submitted that when they have already killed them and also according to the story left the third injured in a condition to die then why the accused persons will leave the doctor without causing any harm and without a scratch. No criminal would dare to incriminate himself in such a manner. The conduct of Dr. Nangia is not at all normal and even PW-9 stated that conduct of Dr. Nangia was suspicion.
121. Ld. Counsel submitted that in the presence of doctor as alleged by him, his parents-in-law and wife State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 103 ::
were attacked but he did not react or even tried to save them. Even thereafter he drove the car, moved from one place to other, must have passed through so many red lights and even PCR Vans but he did not stop any where to seek any help. He was also asking for Rs.30 lacs and the manner he was behaving many eye-brows would have raised and questions would have been asked but that remained unanswered.
122. It is important to note that Dr. Gaurav took Saudagar Singh to Muni Maya Ram Hospital at 11.35 Hrs, but it remained unexplained as to how Dr. Gaurav came on the spot and then how he immediately vanished from the spot. In fact Dr. Gaurav is husband of sister of Dr. Anil Nangia. Ld. Counsel submitted that behavior of Dr. Nangia in the entire incident is like playing a friendly match. He was stoic, even when his wife was murderously attacked. Even the circumstance does not support the prosecution as per the medical report, the index finger of the right hand got chopped with the middle and index finger of the left hand which is just not possible. The fingers would have been got serially cut from one side to other. It is quite possible State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 104 ::
that the fingers were cut in some other manner and it can not be ignored that the husband and wife both are doctors and it was manipulated later on.
123. Ld. Counsel further submitted that so far as recovery is concerned, no public person was joined, though it was a crowded place but no effort what so ever was made to join any public witness. This non joining of public witnesses itself creates doubt regarding truthfulness of the story of the prosecution.
124. Ld.Counsel further submitted that so far as the weapon is concerned, according to PW-3, it was a sickle. But in the later part he stated that Balraj used a knife. Ld. Counsel submitted that sickle has a curvature which can not be mistaken with a 'rapi'. Lateron the sickle as well as knife vanished and two rapies have been planted. However these are also not connected to the alleged crime as no blood matching was done. No effort to lift the finger prints was done.
125. Ld. Counsel further submitted that so far as the recovery of blood on the seat of the car and a newspaper stained with blood from santro car is concerned, according to PW-9 they thoroughly inspect State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 105 ::
the car when a car is brought for sale before quoting the amount which must be done in this case also but they did not find any thing that is blood on the seat or a newspaper stained with blood or even blood on the clothes of any of the accused. Ld. Counsel submitted that keeping in view all these contradictions it is clear that story is concocted, highly improbable and can not be believed. The benefit be given to the accused and they be acquitted.
126. Ld. Counsel for Balraj submitted that as per the information received by PCR, one Mumtaj Ahmad informed that the landlord, his wife and daughter has been severally beaten by some one and they were lying in injured condition but Mumtaj Ahmad has not been joined as a witness and just vanished. So far as Kuldeep Kaur is concerned, ASI Joseph, PCR person removed her to the hospital but he has not been examined. Sh. Saudagar Singh was taken to the hospital by Dr. Gaurav but he has not been examined. As per the PCR form mark PW-11/A and PW-34 deposed that at 10.57 AM, Dr. Anita sister in law of Gurdeep Kaur informed that her brother had been kidnapped in santro car bearing State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 106 ::
no.DL4CM 5692 but she has also not been examined as witness. Ld. Counsel submitted that all this clearly show that the prosecution has deliberately with held the important witnesses. Ld. Counsel also raised the issue of delay in lodging FIR. So far as PW-1 is concerned, she has disowned her statement dt.06.05.04 and her statement dt.03.05.04 is not on record, which clearly shows that the record has been manipulated. PW-1 has not specifically identified accused Balraj and also not assigning any role to him. All the allegations are against the other two co-accused. Even no description of the accused Balraj is given. It is also important to note that PW-1 did not inform the police but she only informed the sister of Dr. Nangia. Though the incident took place at 9.15 AM but police was informed only at 10.05 AM vide DD no.5 Ex.PW-34/DA. There was one information given by a lady from phone no.22582255 claiming herself to be the wife of Dr. Nangia but no investigation carried out as to who was she and what was her connection with Dr. Nangia and also, how she came to know about the incident. PW-1 is also deposing falsely.
In her complaint Ex.PW-1/A, though the same has been State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 107 ::
disown by her, she alleged that she was administering injection but when she appeared in the witness box she deposed that she was only preparing injection. Ld. Counsel submitted that in fact she was not there and has been introduced later on.
127. Ld. Counsel further submitted that so far as PW-2 is concerned, she also does not assign any role to accused Balraj. She only alleges that this short person was pointing pistol on head of her husband but the fact is that the pistol was never used and according to the report the pistol was not in working condition. PW-2 also admitted that Nawab Singh had visited her husband twice to take medicine. She also stated that she knew accused Nawab Singh and Balraj but surprisingly despite that she does not name the accused persons which clearly show that they have been falsely implicated later on. In fact the identity of Balraj is not established beyond reasonable doubt. No TIP was got conducted. When he was not named by PW-2 and PW-3 then it was incumbent upon the prosecution to get the TIP conducted to establish his identity.
128. Ld. Counsel prayed that keeping in view the State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 108 ::
conduct of the witness PW-3 pointed out by the Ld.counsel for Nawab Singh the contradictions in the testimonies and the fact that identity of accused is not established. Benefit of the same be given to accused and he acquitted.
129. Ld. Counsel for accused Kanwaljeet Kaur submitted that admittedly as per the prosecution story the applicant was not with the other co-accused at the time of commission of alleged offence. It has come in the evidence of PW-2 as well as PW-3 that she was not there. Rather PW-3 deposed that Kanwajeet Kaur got down at Keshav Puram. Onus was upon the prosecution to link the accused with the commission of offence which they have failed. There is nothing on record that this accused was involved in the commission of offence or she in any manner abeted the commission of offence. There is no evidence on record to show that present accused ever demanded any thing. So far as the testimony of PW-1 is concerned, her testimony does not inspire confidence, in fact she is a planted witness. She stated in her examination in chief that she heard the sound of some altercation that Dr. Nangia was being State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 109 ::
asked to go with some persons, but he was unwilling to go with some persons and he identified the accused persons present in the court and during cross examination, she stated that she knew the accused prior to the incident since she is wife of brother in law of Dr. Nangia as Kanwaljeet Kaur visited the clinic twice prior to the incident and doctor also told that she (accused) is related to him. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is nothing on record that she was working there. No letter of appointment has been placed on record. She was working as a compounder but there is no record of any decree or diploma or any other qualification with her to work as compounder. Ld. Counsel submitted that she is giving contradictory statement and hence not reliable. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to link her with the commission of offence. She has been falsely implicated by PW-2 and PW-3 in order to grab the entire property of Saudagar Singh/deceased. In fact they have killed Saudagar Singh, grabbed the property and sold the same clandestinely. Ld. Counsel submitted that benefit be given to the accused and she be acquitted.
State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 110 ::
130. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that this case is based upon the statement of eye witnesses. There are two eye witnesses PW-2 and PW-3. PW-2 is also injured in the incident as deposed by both the witnesses. It is well settled principle of law that if there is an injured in the incident then his testimony carries more weight because his presence on the spot cannot be doubted and secondly he will not let go the original culprits and depose falsely against the others. In this case PW-2 is the injured and as per the evidence and the MLC proved on record Ex.PW-14/A the injury on her person was dangerous and she remained hospitalized for 9 days.
131. Keeping in view this fact, in my opinion, so far as PW-2 is concerned, her testimony carries weight and can not be simply brushed aside unless some major contradictions are shown in her testimony and testimony of other witnesses. The incident in this case started on 03.05.04 at 9.15 AM when Dr. Nangia was abducted from his clinic at Khayla. Manju was there, who was assisting the doctor as a helper/compounder. She stated that she immediately informed the sister of Dr. State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 111 ::
Nangia and sister informed the police also regarding abduction of doctor. Manju has also identified all the three accused persons, who abducted Dr. Nangia. Dr. Nangia stated that on the way accused Kanwaljeet Kaur got down at Keshav Puram on the asking of accused Nawab. Thereafter they reached the place of incident i.e. KP-267, Mourya Enclave, Pritam Pura, Delhi, where the alleged offence was committed. Both PW-2 and 3 are consistent in their deposition except some minor, contradictions which are natural. Both stated that accused Baljeet was holding the pistol on the head of PW-3. They asked Saudagar Singh to transfer the property in the name of Kanwaljeet Kaur. The only contradiction is whether it was the half property or the entire property but they were asking for transfer of property in the name of Kanwaljeet Kaur and that no property be given to PW-2 and PW-3 which Saudagar Singh agreed and this fact itself shows that accused Nawab Singh and Balraj were acting on behalf of Kanwaljeet Kaur and that is why they wanted the documents to be written in the name of Kanwaljeet Kaur. The document was also written as deposed by PW-2 State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 112 ::
and PW-3 but that document has never been placed on record or it can be said that it could not be recovered but non production or non-recovery of that document does not affect the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3. According to PW-2 and 3, the accused persons attacked Saudagar Singh and Kuldeep Kaur and when Gurdeep Kaur tried to save her mother, she was also attacked by Nawab Singh, though according to the story, it was Balraj i.e. the only contradiction in the story. So far as non reaction or non intervention by PW-3 is concerned, he stated that he was having his daughter in his lap and there was no time to react and similar is the deposition of PW-2. Thereafter they took doctor to various places and the two witnesses PW-6/Ranjeet kaur and PW-9 Har Simran Singh Madhok also identified that two accused were along with Dr. Anil Nangia. The question as to why they did not detect blood is questionable but then keeping in view eye witness account this looses its importance particularly when those two independent witnesses also identify that they were also with the doctor. It is also important to note that according to the cross- examination conducted of PW-3 he took the assailants State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 113 ::
to different persons to give them money as they have done his work i.e. assailants were with PW-3 when he met PW-6, PW-9, PW-5 and other witnesses. PW-5 was not able to identify the other persons but PW-6 & PW-9 both identified the accused Nawab and Balraj as the persons who were accompanying Dr. Nangia PW-3. From this it is clear that Nawab and Balraj were the assailants.
132. Ld. Counsel has also argued that it was doctor who planted all these but there is nothing on record to support this contention even PW-2 wife of PW-3 who had sustained injuries on her person stated that her husband has nothing to do with the commission of offence. She even denied the suggestions that her husband was demanding share in the property or was pressurizing her parents to transfer the property in his name. Keeping in view all these facts I do not find any merit in the contention that it was Dr. Anil PW-3 who committed this offence along with some persons.
Keeping in view this fact it is clear that the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 remained unshaken.
133. So far as the incident is concerned, however there State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 114 ::
are some lapses on the part of the IO also, who did not try to find out or interrogate Mumtaj Ahmad then Dr. Gaurav and also the sister of the Dr. Anil. But so far as the question as to how Dr. Gaurav got the information is concerned, it is on record that Dr. Gaurav is husband of sister of Dr. Nangi and PW-1 deposed that she informed the sister of Dr. Nangia. In all these three most important witnesses is Mumtaj Ahmad but it is well settled law that benefit of lapse or negligence of IO shall not go to the accused, if otherwise the case of the prosecution is proved and established. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon judgment cited as State of U.P. v. Hari Mohan, (2000) 8 SCC 598 wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows:
"8. Before appreciating the circumstantial evidence in the case, we are at pain to place on record our displeasure regarding the conduct of the investigation in the case. The investigating officer appears to have left no stone unturned to help the accused-respondents. It appears that the valuable evidence, though available, was not collected apparently for ulterior purposes. The conduct of the investigating officer SI D.P. Tiwari (PW7) was even noticed by the trial Court. On 30th October, 1978 while recording his statement, the trial Court observed that "it appears that the IO was negligent and an irresponsible State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 115 ::
investigating officer". It was noticed that "the witness giving aforesaid statement and it appears that he wants to damage the prosecution case". It is not disputed that during investigation it had come in evidence that respondent No. 1 was possessed of a licensed gun which was stated to have been used by him on 15.3.1977, the alleged day of occurrence, yet no effort was made by the IO to seize the gun or get it examined by an expert to ascertain whether any shot was fired from its barrel. He also failed to have taken into custody the letter written by the deceased for a sufficiently long period though its mention was made by the PW1 in the FIR itself. However, the defective investigation cannot be made a basis for acquitting the accused if despite such defects and failures of the investigation, a case is made out against all the accused or anyone of them. It is unfortunate that no action can be taken against to IO at this stage who, in all probabilities, must have retired by now."
134. Both the witnesses are consistent that both the accused assaulted Saudagar Singh and Kuldeep Kaur with the sharp edged weapon and caused their death. The post mortem of both the deceased also show that their death is due to the injuries caused by sharp edged weapons. Injury on the person of Gurdeep Kaur is also dangerous, now the only issue is with respect to whether it was sickle or rapi. I have seen the sketches of the weapons PW-25/H and PW-25/J. These are State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 116 ::
sharp edged weapons like knives and not small 'rapi' and according to the doctor the injuries found on the person of the deceased could be caused by these weapons. Blood is also detected on both these weapons and the accused persons have kept it concealed under the ground after putting these articles in a bag. No public person could be joined at that time but non joining of public witnesses itself is not fatal as the testimony of police witnesses can not be discarded merely on the ground that they are from the police force. Some thing more has to be brought on record but keeping in view the fact that PW-34 and PW-36, both are reliable and trust worthy and have stood through the test of cross examination, I find that this recovery at the instance of accused is proved and established. Reliance can be placed on the judgment cited as Parmod Kumar v State (Delhi), (2013) 6 SCC 586 wherein it was held that:
"11. Thus, the submission that the whole case should be thrown overboard because of non-examination of independent witness and reliance on the official witnesses cannot be accepted. Presently, we shall proceed to deal with the veracity and acceptability of the testimony of the witnesses. The learned State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 117 ::
trial Judge and the High Court, after x-ray of the evidence of the witnesses, have come to the conclusion that Pramod Kumar was a proclaimed offender; that information was received by the competent authority that he was hiding in the house of Chander Pal;
that a team had gone to apprehend him;
that SI Jaswinder Singh along with other members of the team waited at a distance of 100 yards and Maharaj Singh went to the house of Chander Pal; that the accused was found on the verandah of the house and was asked to surrender but he immediately took out a knife from his shirt pocket; that before he could inflict a knife blow, he was overpowered by Maharaj Singh and there was a grapple between the two; and Maharaj Singh, receiving a bullet injury, fell down and eventually succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. It is not in dispute that Pramod Kumar has received some injuries, but that would not be a ground for discarding the prosecution version and acceptance of the plea of the defence. The evidence on record is required to be scrutinized and appreciated. The witnesses, namely, Baljit Singh, PW-6, Samar Singh, PW-8, Jaswinder Singh, PW- 9, Rajbir Singh, PW-11 and Md. Iqbal, PW- 16, who have been examined in support of the prosecution, have stood embedded in their version. The witness, Samar Singh, PW-8, has vividly described the occurrence and the graphic description has not been, in any manner, dented in spite of the roving cross- examination. It is apt to note that despite searching cross-examination, none of the witnesses has given way to any tergiversation. When their testimony has not been varied from any spectrum, there is no reason to discard them. Thus, the contention that there should have been examination of independent witnesses to State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 118 ::
corroborate the evidence of the police officials has to be treated as mercurial. Therefore, we unhesitatingly repel the said submission."
135. Similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in case titled Kashmiri Lal v State of Haryana, (2013) 6 SCC 595 and held that:
"9. As far as first submission is concerned, it is evincible from the evidence on record that the police officials had requested the people present in the 'dhaba; to be witnesses, but they declined to cooperate and, in fact, did not make themselves available. That apart, there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If in the course of scrutinizing the evidence the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle of quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence. These aspects have been highlighted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, 1990(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 585 :
1988 Supp SCC 686, State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and another, 2001(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 56 : 2001(1) SCC 652 and Ramjee Rai and others v. State of Bihar, 2006(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 289 :
State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 119 ::
2006(13) SCC 229. Appreciating the evidence on record on the unveil of the aforesaid principles, we do not perceive any acceptable reason to discard the testimony of the official witnesses which is otherwise reliable and absolutely trustworthy."
136. Ld. Defence counsel has also raised the issue of delay in lodging of FIR and that there is no explanation to the delay in lodging FIR. The incident is dt.03.05.04 and the FIR was registered on 06.05.04. It is important to note here that the testimony of PW-1, who specifically stated that her statement was recorded on 03.05.04 and not thereafter. The DD no.5 police post Khyala was recorded on 03.05.04. After receiving the information the police reached the clinic of Dr. Anil and recorded the statement of Manju on 03.05.04 itself and this is clear from the endorsement on the statement Ex.PW-1/A wherein it is mentioned that after receiving DD No.5 ASI Jai Narayan along with Ct. Sombir reached clinic situated at 290 Chand Nagar, Delhi and also recorded the statement of Manju PW-1 but Ddno.5 and 6 were kept pending as reflected from the endorsement of ASI Jai Narayan. From this it is clear that on part of the complainant there is no delay in reporting the matter to State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 120 ::
the police and even the statement of complainant Manju was also recorded immediately, but it was police i.e. ASI Jai Narayan, who did not register the FIR for which complainant can not be found faulted with. Keeping in view the above facts and the statements, I found that there is no delay in lodging the FIR and hence on this ground no benefit can be given to the accused.
137. Keeping in view all these facts, the statements of the eye witnesses finding corroboration from PW-6, PW-9 and PW-1, coupled with the recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused persons, I am of the opinion that prosecution has discharged its onus and also hold all the accused persons guilty and convict them for offences punishable u/s 365 r/w 34 IPC. Accused persons Nawab Singh and Balraj are convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC, 307 r/w 34 IPC, 387 r/w 34 IPC and Kanwaljeet Kaur is also held guilty and convicted for offences u/s 387 r/w 109 IPC, 302 r/w 111 IPC & 307 r/w 111 IPC.
Announced in the open court today on 22.03.2017 (VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL) ASJ/Pilot Court/North District Rohini Courts/New Delhi.
State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 121 ::