Delhi District Court
State vs : 1- Sanjeev Kumar, on 13 April, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT PARASHAR:ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
S.C. NO.130/06
STATE VERSUS : 1- SANJEEV KUMAR,
S/O SH. RAJ PAL,
R/O V&PO BUTRADA,
DISTT. MUJAFFAR NAGAR,
UP.
2- AMARJEET,
S/O SH. VIJAY SINGH,
R/O V&PO BANTHADA,
DISTT. GHAZIABAD,
UP.
3- MANOJ,
S/O SH.DHARAM PAL,
R/O V&PO BEENPUR,
TEHSIL NAKUR, DISTT.
SAHARANPUR,
UP.
4- KOSHLENDRA PAL,
S/O SH.DHARAM PAL,
R/O V&PO BEENPUR,
TEHSIL NAKUR, DISTT.
SAHARANPUR,
UP.
5- PARMINDER,
S/O SH.DHARAM PAL,
R/O V&PO BEENPUR,
TEHSIL NAKUR, DISTT.
SAHARANPUR,
UP.
FIR NO.669/98
PS SARASWATI VIHAR
U/S 120B R/W SECTION 302/201/34 IPC.
2
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the report u/s 173 Cr.PC is as under :
"One Jagdish Bhudhiraja, a resident of Sudesh Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi left his house for Jaipur in his Maruti Zen car bearing No.DL-2CL-3066 on 22-9-98. On the evening of 24-9-98, he rang up his home stating that he will be shortly arriving back with an hour or so. However, when he did not arrive even till late in the night so, his father Ramjee Dass Bhdhiraja lodged a missing report at PS Saraswati Vihar. The said missing report was initially assigned to HC Ram Phool and he carried out all necessary proceedings as is usually undertaken with regard to such reports.
He also tried to make efforts to trace out the missing person but could not succeed.
Finally, on 5-10-98, a fresh statement of Ramjee Dass was recorded and on the 3 basis of which a rukka was prepared by SI Anant Kiran and a case was got registered at PS Saraswati Vihar as it was suspected by Ramjee Dass that his son has been abducted. Accordingly, the investigation in the matter was taken over by SI Anant Kiran. Thereafter, upon inquiry at the residence and office of Jagdish Bhudhiraja and at other places, it came to the notice of SI Anant Kiran that Jagdish Budhiraja used to meet one girl Babita. It was however found that said girl Babita has been apprehended in some other matter by police of PS Hari Nagar.
Accordingly when she was produced in Tis Hazari Courts in the said other matter, she was formally arrested in this case also. In the meantime, Inspt. RK Budhiraja had taken over the further investigation. Her police custody remand was obtained and during the course of her police custody she made a disclosure statement 4 Ex.PW42/A. Her house search was carried out. Babita also admitted having physical relations with Jagdish Bhudhiraja besides one other boy Parminder. It also came to the notice of the police that Jagdish Bhudhiraja was kidnapped and murdered by Parminder and some other associates while being accompanied with Babita on account of Jagdish Bhudhiraja having physical relations with said Babita.
Babita thereafter led the police party to Haridwar where she claimed to have gone initially with Parminder and thereafter with said Jagdish Bhudhiraja. Inquiries were made from the said hotel where she had stayed with Jagdish Bhudhiraja on 23-9-98 and 24-9-98. She also stated that during her stay over there in Haridwar as she was not feeling well so she also visited a doctor. Accordingly, inquiries were made from the said doctor also which further lent support to the line 5 of investigation being carried out by the police. Babita also got recovered the impugned maruti zen car of Jagdish Bhudhiraja from the house of her uncle in Saharanpur and the said car was found to be carrying a forged number plate viz HR-
51-C-6170. The car was got mechanically inspected and also from the CFSL experts for the traces of any blood etc. Subsequently, one accused Sanjiv, who also was stated to be accompanying Parminder at the time of incident was apprehended and he too made a disclosure statement admitting his guilt in the present incident. He also pointed out the place of incident viz Hindon River to the police where from body of Jagdish Bhudhiraja was stated to have been thrown by them after beating him resulting in his death over there. He also led the police party to Bagpat Road, near Mile Stone No.57 and 6 from near the bushes over there got recovered the two original number plates bearing No.DL2CL-3066 of the maruti zen car of Jagdish Bhudhiraja. Thereafter, on 27-11-98 IO/Inspt. RK Budhiraja received information that the main accused Parminder was in custody in Saharanpur jail in some other case. Accordingly, his production warrant was obtained and he too was arrested in this case. Upon interrogation, he also made disclosure statement admitting his guilt in the present matter. Subsequently, he took the police party to his house in village Bindpur district Saharanpur, UP and from his house got recovered a gold kara bearing impression "JB" and a briefcase make Odeysee which were alleged to be belonging to Jagdish Bhudhiraja besides certain other receipts etc of a mobile phone payment.
All the articles were taken into possession. 7
Thereafter, on 15-12-99 one other accused, namely, Amarjeet Singh was also arrested from his house at village Panthla, district Ghaziabad, UP. He also made a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the present case and led the police party to a shop at Bopura Border from where the alleged forged number of car Jagdish Bhudhiraja were got prepared.
Thereafter, during the course of subsequent investigation statement of Babita U/S 164 Cr.PC was also got recorded. The other two accused persons, namely, Koshlendra and Manoj were found to be absconding away from their houses but later on pursuant to the directions of the court, they also surrendered and admitted their involvement in the present case before the police. The gold kara and briefcase of Jagdish Bhudhiraja were identified by his 8 father in the judicial TIP of case property held during the course of investigation. Upon completion of necessary further investigation, challan was prepared against all the accused persons and was filed in the court for trial".
Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, the then ld.A.S.J Sh. Prem Kumar charged accused Parminder, Koshlender, Manoj, Sanjeev and Amarjit for the offence U/S 120B read with Section 302 IPC and also separately charged accused Parminder, Koshlendra and Sanjeev for the offence U/S 302/201/34 IPC.
At the same time vide a detailed order dated 21-2-00 ld. Judge however discharged Babita in the present case holding that she was not an accused in the present case but was rather an important material witness of the prosecution. All the accused persons however pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
Prosecution thereafter in order to prove its case examined 46 witnesses in support of its case. Accused persons were thereafter examined U/S 313 Cr.PC.9
PW1 HC Ramphool was the initial police official, who had carried out inquiries in the present matter when the missing report of Jagdish Bhudhiraja was lodged by his father Ramjee Dass. He thus proved the necessary proceedings carried out by him in this regard.
PW2 Tirath Raj Singh was the Draftsman, who prepared the scaled site plan of the place of incident subsequently during the course of investigation.
PW3 Rajinder Singh, PW5 Dhaniram and and PW8 Rajiv Sagar were respectively the waiter, watchman (chowkidar) and electrician of Rahi Motel, Haridwar where Babita and Jagdish Bhudhiraja had allegedly stayed for two days.
PW7 Dr. N. Gulati was the doctor, who had allegedly examined Babita at Haridwar when she was not feeling well over there during the course of her stay with Jagdish Bhudhiraja. However, all the aforesaid four witnesses viz PW3 Rajinder Singh, PW5 Dhaniram, PW7 Dr. N. Gulati and PW8 Rajiv Sagar turned around and did not support the case of the prosecution at all on the material aspect that they ever saw Babita staying over there or visiting them. Thus, despite their cross examination by ld. APP nothing material could be elicited from their mouth which may favour the case of the prosecution or may lead me to disbelieve their testimony.10
PW4 Joginder Singh was an AIRTEL mobile phone dealer. His testimony is also of no use to the prosecution as he claimed complete ignorance as having sold any mobile phone or SIM card to any lady much less to Babita. His cross examination by ld. APP also did not yield any result in favour of the prosecution.
PW9 Sat Parkash Singh was a brother-in-law of Babita to whom Babita had allegedly confided initially about the murder of Jagdish Bhudhiraja and he had accordingly informed the matter to the police. However, during the course of his deposition he stated that after he took Babita to Kirti Nagar police station he remained outside and thus claimed complete ignorance as to what the police did with her or what she disclosed to them. He also stated that he never met Babita thereafter.
PW6 SI Mukhtiar Singh had gone to h.no.WZ-196/B5, Gali No.3, Varinder Nagar on 14-10-98 upon receipt of DD No.12A recorded on the information of Babita. At the said house, Babita showed him one two wheeler scooter bearing No. DL9SE-2937 stating that one Parvinder had left it over there. From inside the said scooter a country made revolver and two live cartridges besides certain documents of car no. DL2CL-3066 were recovered. He further stated that subsequently on 20-2-98 when he had again gone to her house to make certain inquiries then he found her to be preparing to run away from there and upon suspicion, she was apprehended U/S 41(1) Cr.PC and thereafter Babita had pointed out the 11 place of incident of the murder of Jagdish Bhudhiraja to her and also got recovered a maruti zen car bearing No.DL2CL-3066 from the house of her uncle in village Smalkha, PS Shamli, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, UP bearing a fake number plate viz HR51C-6170. He accordingly conveyed the information about the arrest and other proceedings carried out qua Babita to PS Saraswati Vihar where a matter in this regard about abduction of Jagdish Bhudhiraja stood registered.
PW10 Vinay Tomar was the owner of two wheeler scooter bearing no. DL9SE-2493 which was recovered by the police of PS Hari Nagar from the house of Babita. He however claimed ignorance as to with whom his two wheeler scooter was on 14-10-98. His testimony however remained deferred as he had not brought the scooter on that day and subsequently he never entered the witness box.
PW11 Smt. Anita was the wife of Jagdish Bhudhiraja, the deceased. She merely reiterated the prosecution story upto the time when her husband had left the house for Jaipur and thereafter despite making calls in late evening hours on 24-9-98, he did not return back.
PW13 Bharat Bhushan Kalra was a cousin of deceased Jagdish Bhudhiraja and also a shop owner dealing in briefcases. He claimed to have sold an impugned Odeysee Bag of Jagdish Bhudhiraja and proved the necessary record in this regard.12
PW14 Davinder Singh was the Principal of Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Pharmacy and Technology, Janak Puri where accused Koshlendra was employed as a lab assistant. He proved his absence record in the institute.
PW17 Sh. Ramjidass was the father of deceased and also the complainant. He proved the initial missing report lodged by him along with the complaint subsequently lodged by him with the police and the other proceedings carried out in his presence by the police.
PW22 SI Umed Singh had carried out the mechanical inspection of impugned maruti zen car and he accordingly proved his report in this regard.
PW23 L.Ct. Anna was the PCR official, who had received information about visit of Parminder at Surajmal Institute, Janak Puri, Delhi when Babita had conveyed information about his involvement in some murder case. She accordingly sent the information further to the concerned PS Hari Nagar for further necessary action.
PW24 Ct. Rajnish thought entered the witness box as a prosecution witness but stated that he never joined the investigation in this case at any stage whatsoever.
PW25 Pankaj Gupta was the Record Clerk from the Transport Authority, who produced the registration record of car no.DL2CL-3066 being in the name of Jagdish Bhudhiraja.13
PW30 Sh. Ravinder Dudeja, the then ld. MM had carried out the TIP of the case property viz the golden kara and briefcase in the present case and he proved the necessary proceedings carried out by him in this regard.
PW31 Dr. VK Goel was the FSL official, who had examined the impugned maruti zen car for traces of any blood inside it but could not found any such blood stains in it. He proved his report Ex.PW31/A. PW36 Rajan Kumar Babbar was the owner of the hotel in which Babita used to work as a Receptionist. He merely stated that Babita has worked with him for about one month.
PW37 Jatinder Kumar Chauhan was an accountant of Shiv Murti Hotel, Haridwar. The prosecution had claimed to have obtained photocopy of a cash memo and register maintained at his hotel for the period 19-9-98 to 22-9-98 but in his deposition in the court, he denied having given any such document to the IO. In his cross examination by ld. APP, nothing material could be elicited from his mouth, which may favour the case of the prosecution.
PW38 RK Sachdeva was an official of Bharti Cellular Limited, who had proved on record the call details of phone no.9810157838 Ex.PW38/A and Ex.PW38/B on record.
PW39 Rajbir Singh was an uncle of Babita at whose house Babita had allegedly gone with a car on 25-2-98. However, in his 14 deposition in court, he completely denied that Babita ever came to his house in a car on 25-2-98. She had left the car over there after having come over there with one boy. He was also cross examined by ld. APP but nothing material could be elicited form his mouth, which may favour the case of the prosecution.
PW41 HC Kuldeep Singh though entered the witness box but was given up by ld. APP and was also not cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
PW43 Ashok was a guard at Hindon Bridge but he did not state anything which may be of the relevance of the present case and merely stated that police had obtained his signatures on blank papers. He too was cross examined by ld. APP but nothing material could be elicited from his cross examination.
PW44 Shiv Kumar was working in the office of property dealing being run by deceased Jagdish Bhudhiraja. He had merely stated that Jagdish Bhudhiraja had gone to Jaipur but he was vague in his deposition and his testimony is of no use either to the prosecution or even to the accused persons.
PW45 SI Anant Kiran was the initial IO of the case followed by PW46 Inspt. RK Budhiraja. Both of them reiterated the prosecution story in their deposition while deposing about the investigation carried out by them and proving the various documents/memos prepared during the 15 course of investigation.
PW12 Ct. Raman Lal, PW15 Ct. Subhash, PW16 Ct. Dharam Singh, PW18 Ct. Virender Singh, PW19 Ct. Sukhvir Singh, PW20 SI Indurani, PW21 Ct. Subhash Chand, PW26 L.Ct. Sarita, PW27 Ct. Naginder Singh, PW28 HC Ramesh Chand, PW29 HC Savitri, PW32 L.Ct. Geeta, PW33 HC Ashwani Kumar, PW34 HC Randhir Singh, PW35 SI Manoj Kumar, PW40 ASI Savita and PW42 L.Ct. Menu were the various police officials, who had accompanied the two investigating officers, namely, RK Budhiraja and Inspt. SI Anant Kiran in the investigation of the case at different stages. They all accordingly deposed about the proceedings carried out in their presence besides various documents/memos prepared by the investigating officers in their presence.
Accused persons thereafter in their statements u/S 313 Cr.PC however stated the case of the prosecution to be false and the prosecution witnesses to be deposing falsely and claimed themselves to be innocent.
All the accused persons though did not examine any witness in their defence but accused Parvinder placed on record certified copy of a judgment passed by the then ld. MM Ms. A.B. Chandna in case FIR No.878/98, PS Hari Nagar, U/S 25 Arms Act, 1959 which was registered on the complaint of Babita against him after a katta and two live cartridges were recovered from his scooter left at the house of Babita allegedly by 16 Parvinder.
I have heard ld. A.P.P, Special Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsels for all accused persons.
It has been submitted by learned defence counsels that the present case is one of no evidence at all against the accused persons. It was submitted that the all important witness of the prosecution, namely, Babita from whom the entire investigation started was not examined by the prosecution. It was also stated that even the factum of death of Jagdish Bhudhiraja was not established by the prosecution as even his dead body was not recovered. It was also stated that Babita even did not support the case of the prosecution in the case registered at PS Hari Nagar vide FIR No.818/98 and all the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the police. The alleged recovery of various articles was stated to be of no consequence as it was in clear violation of Section 100 Cr.PC. Even the recovery of car at the instance of Babita from the house of his uncle was stated to have been not proved by the prosecution. It was thus stated that prosecution has been unable to prove on record any circumstance worth the name which could connect the accused persons with the offence in question.
On the other hand, ld. Special Public Prosecutor strongly argued that the testimony of the various prosecution witnesses was cogent, convincing and reliable. While relying upon 2002 (3) JCC 1515 & 17 1985 CR.L.J. NOC 2 (KARNATKA), it was emphasized that mere non recovery of dead body cannot by itself lead to acquittal of the accused persons. It was further stated that the recovery of gold kara of deceased besides his briefcase at the instance of accused Parminder clearly clinches the issue in favour of the prosecution and against the accused persons. It was submitted that the onus lied upon the accused persons to prove as to how they came in possession of the property belonging to the deceased. It was also stated that the recovery of number plate of the car of deceased at the instance of accused Sanjeev besides calls details of the mobile phone of deceased which proves his presence at near the area of Ghaziabad i.e the place of murder further lends supports to the prosecution story.
I've carefully perused the record.
At the outset, I may state that the present case is a case based on circumstantial evidence.
It was observed in the case BODH RAJ @ BODHA & ORS. VS. STATE OF J&K AIR 2002 SC 3164 that :
"For a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by 18 circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but the conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are :
1 the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may' be established;
2 the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3 the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4 they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one 19 to be proved and 5 there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Thus, if on the basis of the aforesaid position of law as regards the circumstantial nature of evidence, the evidence led by the prosecution is seen and analyzed then I may state at the outset that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case against any of the five accused persons. The most important lacuna which has now cropped in the prosecution case is by virtue of the non examination of all important witness, namely, Babita. A perusal of the entire prosecution story shows that the entire break through in the matter came from the arrest of accused Babita and his subsequent pointing out the place of incident to the IO besides getting recovered the car of deceased Jagdish Budhiraja. All the other accused persons were also apprehended on the basis of disclosure statement made by Babita. I do not intend to go into the aspect as to how and in what circumstances Babita, who earlier was arrested as an accused in this case came to be discharged and became an important witness for the prosecution as the said issue stands well settled from the detailed order dated 21-2-00 passed by the then ld. 20 Predecessor of this court.
The fact however remains that the non examination of Babita clearly takes away the very ground beneath the entire prosecution story. If we see and analyze the various other circumstance sought to be led on record by the prosecution then it becomes crystal clear on record that the various prosecution witnesses examined have not supported the prosecution story even in that regard.
Firstly, the visit of Babita along with deceased Jagdish Budhiraja to Haridwar has not been proved on record as none of the witnesses examined in this regard by the prosecution, namely, PW3 Rajinder Singh, PW5 Dhaniram or PW7 Dr. N. Gulati supported the prosecution story. As regards the recovery of impugned car of deceased Jagdish Budhiraja at the instance of Babita from the house of her uncle, the same again does not stands proved from the testimony of PW39 Rajbir Singh. The testimony of PW9 Sat Parkash Singh, the brother-inlaw of Babita to whom Babita allegedly made an extra judicial confession also does not inspires confidence. He though claimed to have taken Babita to the police station upon coming to know that some businessmen has been abducted and murdered by Parvinder but he further stated that after sending Babita inside PS Kirti Nagar he came back and did not meet her again thereafter. He also claimed ignorance as to what happened with Babita inside the police station. This conduct of brother-in-law of Babita 21 does not seems to be natural and on the face of it seems to be highly improbable and does not inspires confidence at all.
As regards the recovery of a scooter with a katta and two live cartridges from inside the dicky of the scooter from outside the house of Babita at her instance, accused Parvinder clearly stands acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated 9-3-00 passed by then ld. MM Ms. AB Chandna. In fact, a certified copy of the testimony of Babita as was recorded in the said case as has been placed on record by learned defence counsel shows that Babita claimed complete ignorance as regards any such incident. Moreover, PW10 Vinay Tomar was the owner of the impugned scooter and he also did not support the case of the prosecution at all in that regard.
As regards the testimony of PW13 BB Kalra, who allegedly sold a briefcase to deceased Jagdish Budhiraja, I may again state that the record produced by him in the court does not appears to be correct. Even in the carbon copy there was overwriting in the year mentioned therein and there was nothing to show that the said briefcase was indeed sold to deceased Jagdish Budhiraja. He further stated that Jagdish Budhiraja was the son of his real maternal uncle. He further stated that though he had given some rebate to the deceased but he drew the receipt for the full amount. The receipt produced by him was also not bearing the name of the customer. It thus cannot be presumed on the 22 basis of conjectures and surmises that the said briefcase was indeed purchased by deceased from him.
As regards the recovery of gold kara and briefcase, I may state that despite availability of a number of public persons, the IO did not care to join any of them in his proceedings. In fact, if this aspect of the prosecution case is seen in the light of the overall nature of evidence otherwise led by the prosecution then the prosecution story in this regard also does not inspires confidence. The then ld. MM Sh. Ravinder Dudeja, who carried out the TIP of gold kara stated in his cross examination that on the kara which was taken out of the sealed parcel i.e the case property, was not having letters "JB" engraved upon it. He also stated that the briefcase produced for TIP was in unsealed condition. Thus, the fact that the gold kara was not having the impression "JB" clearly contradicts the very prosecution story in this regard. Thus, in these circumstances not much reliance can be placed upon the recovery or the subsequent identification of the impugned gold kara or the briefcase allegedly as that of deceased Jagdish Budhiraja.
As regards the recovery of alleged original number plates at the instance of Amarjit Singh, I may again state that when the recovery of impugned car itself has not been proved by the prosecution beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts and thus this piece of evidence also looses any significance. Even the number plate recovered was a new one 23 and which fact also raises doubts as to the veracity of the prosecution case. I may also state at this stage that certain individual circumstances even if they are presumed for the sake of arguments as having been proved also cannot lead of conviction of the accused persons. Even if it is presumed that the gold kara and briefcase or the original number plates of the car were recovered at the instance of same of the accused persons then also these circumstances themselves alone cannot make the accused persons guilty of the offence for which they have been charged with.
In the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, I thus do not find any necessity to enter into a detailed analysis of the various other improvements made by the prosecution witnesses during the course of their deposition in court or the number of contradictions which have cropped up in the testimony recorded during the course of trial as the prosecution has even otherwise failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts.
It will be also worthwhile to mention over here that in the absence of non examination of Babita, this fact has also not been proved by the prosecution that Jagdish Budhiraja was in fact murdered much less at the impugned place of incident. The mere pointing out of the said place by the accused persons to the police cannot take the shape of a legally admissible evidence in the absence of no other evidence in this 24 regard led by the prosecution. Thus, irrespective of the contention of Special Public Prosecutor that the mere non-recovery of dead body cannot affect the credibility of the prosecution case, I may state that it is a case where prosecution has not been able to prove that even Jagdish Budhiraja stands murder as of today much less by the present accused persons.
In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am thus of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case against all the five accused persons, namely, PARMINDER, KOSHLENDRA PAL, MANOJ, SANJIV AND AMARJIT.
I accordingly hereby acquit all the five accused persons of the offences U/S 120-B read with Section 302 and further acquit accused persons, namely, Parminder, Koshlendra Pal and Sanjeev Kumar of the offence U/S 302/201/34. Their bail bonds stands cancelled and sureties are discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 13-4-2007.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI COURTS D E L H I. 25 FIR NO.669/98 PS SARASWATI VIHAR U/S 120B R/W SECTION 302/201/34 IPC.
13-4-07 Pr. Addl. PP for the State.
All accused are present on bail .
Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 13-4-07 accused persons, namely, PARMINDER, KOSHLENDRA PAL, MANOJ, SANJIV AND AMARJIT have been acquitted of the offence U/S 120B IPC and further acquit accused persons, namely, Parminder, Koshlendra Pal and Sanjeev Kumar of the offence U/S 302/201/34.
Their bail bonds stands cancelled and sureties are discharged. Documents of sureties if any be returned forthwith. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 13-4-2007.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI COURTS D E L H I. At this stage, Ramjee Dass Budhiraja - sapurdar/father of deceased has moved an application seeking release of original RC of car bearing No.DL-2CL-3066 and for cancellation of sapurdginama qua mobile phone, gold kara and briefcase.
All the accused persons states that they have no objection in this regard and have put an endorsement to that effect on an 26 application.
In these circumstances, I direct that original RC of car bearing no.DL-2CL-3066 be released and copy be placed on record and the mobile phone, gold kara and briefcase stands released to Ramjee Dass, the father of deceased Jagdish Budhiraja.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13-4-07.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) (ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI)