Delhi District Court
State vs Naresh Orthjers on 21 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARVIND BANSAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 05 (SHAHDARA)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
DLSH01-000014-2014
SC No. 04/2016
FIR No.: 404/2014
U/s 302/34 IPC
Police Station: M. S. Park
State
Versus
(1) Ravinder @ Ravi
S/o Kishan Chand,
R/o H. No. 388, Hathi Peer Wali Gali,
Near Khurja Bus stand,
Village Sikanderabad,
Dist. Bulandshara, UP.
(2) Naresh (PROCLAIMED OFFENDER)
S/o Jai Prakash,
R/o H. No. A-145, Gali No. 8,
25' Road, Meet Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi.
Also at
Gali No. 2, 100 foota road,
near Bijli Ghar, Sunita Vihar,
Loni Dehaat, UP.
.... Accused persons
(a) Date of Institution: 20.10.2014
(b) Date of Offence: 22.07.2014
(c) Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty & claimed trial
(d) Arguments heard &
reserved for order: 21.12.2024
Digitally
State vs. Naresh & Anr signed by
SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND
FIR No. 404/2014 ARVIND BANSAL
Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
Page No. 1 of 36 2024.12.21
15:53:52
+0530
(e) Final Order: Accused Ravinder @ Ravi
acquitted.
(f) Date of Judgment: 21.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The succinct facts leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused persons may be summed up as under:-
1.1 On 22.07.2014, between 04:00 AM to 06:25 AM, at H. No. 1/2798, Ground Floor, Main Mandoli Road, Opposite Shanti Building, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, both accused in furtherance of their common intention to kill Kashi Ram, caused his death by cutting his throat using an iron axe, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code.
1.2 It is the case of prosecution that on 22.07.2014, on receipt of DD No. 7A regarding an incident of murder, SI Ram Kishore alongwith Ct. Shamim reached the spot i.e. H. No. 1/2798, Main Mandoli Road, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi where deceased was found lying on a cot having cut marks on his neck. Blood was also found scattered around the dead body. IO/Insp. Jai Bhagwan (the then SHO) alongwith his team also reached the spot. Crime team was called at the spot and necessary proceedings were conducted. Statement of complainant Joginder i.e. son of deceased Kashi Ram was recorded by IO. On the basis of DD no. 7A and statement of complainant, present FIR was registered under Section 302/34 IPC.
1.3 During investigation, on 23.07.2014, IO/Insp. Jai Bhawan reached the house of deceased and recorded statement of complainant Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
2024.12.21 Page No. 2 of 36 15:54:08 +0530 Joginder who raised suspicion over Naresh, brother-in-law of his real brother Pramod for committing the murder of his father and also provided his mobile number. IO collected the CDR wherein the location of mobile phone of Naresh was found to be around the spot at the time of alleged incident. Accordingly, on 25.07.2014, on the basis of secret information, accused Naresh was arrested. He, in his disclosure statement, named accused Ravinder (son-in-law of deceased) to be his associate in commission of alleged murder of deceased using an axe (kulhadi) and accordingly, accused Ravinder was also arrested. The weapon of offence allegedly used during commission of offence was also recovered at the instance of both the accused. Necessary documents qua arrest and recovery were prepared.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed by IO on 22.10.2014 u/s 302/34 IPC. The Court proceeded against the accused persons. The case file was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 13.11.2014 after completion of necessary legal formalities u/s 207 Cr.P.C. Upon receipt of chargesheet pursuant to order of learned District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara, matter was fixed for hearing on point of charge. On 24.08.2015, a supplementary chargesheet alongwith FSL result was received.
2.1 After hearing the arguments on charge, on 22.11.2015, Charge u/s 302/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by ARVIND State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND BANSAL SC No. 04/2016 BANSAL Date:
FIR No. 404/2014 2024.12.21
Police Station: M. S. Park 15:54:20
+0530
Page No. 3 of 36
3. In support of its case, prosecution produced and examined thirty (28) witnesses.
3.1 PW-1 Ashok Panchal deposed that on 22.07.2014 at about 06:30 AM, his wife namely Geeta went downstairs from first floor for the purpose of cleaning the hall. He was present on the first floor of their house. He heard cries of his wife and came downstairs. He saw that his father was lying on the cot with his neck cut. Someone from his family made call at 100 number and police reached there. Police took his father to GTB Hospital. They also followed them to GTB Hospital. His father used to keep money with him tied to his dhoti. Before his father was taken to the hospital, he checked him and did not find any money or document lying with him in his pocket or in his dhoti.
Witness deposed that his father would be having around Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. In the hospital, his father was declared dead. After postmortem proceedings, witness identified the dead body of deceased and the same was handed over to him. Witness proved the dead body identification memo as Ex.PW-1/A. The witness was duly cross-examined.
3.2 PW-2 Dr. Manik Tikoo deposed that on 25.07.2014 at 08:55 AM, one patient i.e. accused Ravinder @ Ravi was brought to the hospital by SI Rajeev Kumar of PS M. S. Park. On examination, he found old laceration on left parietal region of his head. He also found abrasion on left forearm near wrist. Witness proved the MLC as Ex.PW-2/A. On the same day at about 08:57 PM, one patient Naresh was brought to the hospital by SI Rajeev Kumar. He examined him. No Digitally signed by ARVIND State vs. Naresh & Anr SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
15:54:28
Page No. 4 of 36 +0530
mark of fresh external injury was found. Witness proved the MLC as Ex.PW-2/B. The witness was duly cross-examined.
3.3 PW-3 Ombiri deposed that Kashiram (deceased) was her father-in-law. He was residing on the ground floor. She did not remember the date, month or year of the incident, however, two years prior to her deposition before the Court, Geeta (her devrani) came to ground floor for cleaning. She heard cries of Geeta at about 06:00 AM and thereafter, she went down and found Kashi Ram dead and his throat was found cut. She also found blood at the spot. Thereafter, she went to dairy, which belonged to Kashiram. She called her devar (brother-in-law) Joginder and her son Deepak from the dairy to the spot.
The witness was duly cross-examined.
3.4 PW-4 Dr. Paul Anil Saxena being the examining doctor, proved the MLC of accused Naresh as Ex.PW-4/A and MLC of accused Ravinder as Ex.PW-4/B. The witness was cross-examined.
3.5 PW-5 Geeta deposed that Kashiram (deceased) was her father-in-law. On 22.07.2014 at about 06:30 AM, she came down on the ground floor for cleaning. She found her father-in-law lying on the cot in the hall. At that time, his face was downwards. She also found blood on the floor. When she turned him, she found injury marks on his neck. On seeing his condition, she cried and went upstairs. She informed her husband and jethani (sister-in-law) regarding the condition of her father-in-law. Her father-in-law was dead at that time. Someone from Digitally State vs. Naresh & Anr signed by SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND FIR No. 404/2014 ARVIND BANSAL Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
Page No. 5 of 36 2024.12.21
15:54:37
+0530
her family members made a call to police. Police reached the spot. Police made inquiry from her and recorded her statement on 23.07.2014.
The witness was duly cross-examined.
3.6 PW-6 Kishan Chand deposed that accused Ravinder is his son. He did not know any person by the name Naresh. He knew Mamta, who was bhabhi of wife of accused Ravinder. He knew brother of Mamta namely Naresh. Police never met him for inquiry regarding the incident of murder. He had not given any small axe to Naresh on the asking of accused Ravinder. Police never showed him any sketch of axe, for identification.
Witness was also cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he retracted from his earlier statement given to police.
The witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
3.7 PW-7 Jogender Panchal deposed that on 22.07.2014 at about 04:00 AM, he came to wake up his father for going to dairy. His father told that he was not feeling well and did not accompany him. He went to the dairy alone. At about 06:30 AM, his bhabhi Ombiri came to the dairy and told him that " dekho papa ko kya ho gaya hai ". He immediately reached the house and found his father lying on a cot and his throat was cut. His head was towards the wall. He found that his elder brother Ashok with his wife Geeta and his own wife Meenu were present there.
He made PCR call and informed regarding the incident.
Digitally
signed by
ARVIND
State vs. Naresh & Anr
SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL
FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
Page No. 6 of 36 15:54:47
+0530
His uncle Jaswant Singh also talked to the police. Beat Officer and one constable reached the spot. Dead body of his father was shifted to GTB hospital.
Witness proved the dead body identification memo as Ex.PW-7/A. He informed police regarding the mobile phone of accused Naresh.
Witness further deposed that on 16.07.2014, accused Naresh had come to their dairy. He was present inside his dairy with one neighbor, and his father was present outside the dairy. Naresh was talking to him regarding the license of hotel of his (PW-7's) bhabhi Mamta. Naresh was demanding Aadhar Card and some other documents from his father for getting license of hotel. He refused for the same and asked him to talk to his father. Thereafter, Naresh talked to his father in his presence and demanded Aadhar Card and other documents from his father. His father also refused for the same stating that he did not accept Pramod and Mamta as his son and daughter-in- law. His father told Naresh that his sister Mamta had leveled allegations of rape against his elder brother Vinod and got him arrested. Therefore, he did not accept them as his son and daughter-in-law. Naresh told his father that "koi baat nahi, hum dekh lenge" and they left.
Witness further deposed that in the intervening night of 21/22.07.2014 at about 01:00 AM, he got up to drink water. At that time, he saw that Naresh was going towards garbage house from hotel of his sister Mamta. That hotel was situated adjacent to their house. Next morning, his father was murdered. Witness proved his statement as Ex.PW-7/B and site plan as Ex.PW-7/C. Witness correctly identified the carpet on which his father was sleeping as Ex.PW-7/Article 1.
Digitally
signed by
ARVIND
State vs. Naresh & Anr
SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL
FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
15:54:55
Page No. 7 of 36
+0530
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness admitted that he had given his statement before police on 22.07.2014. Witness also proved the slipper of his father which was seized by the police from the spot as Ex.PW-7/Article-2.
The witness was duly cross-examined.
3.8 PW-8 Ct. Satish Kumar deposed that on 22.07.2014, ASI Jaheer Ahmad (duty officer) handed him over three copies of FIR, at about 10:15 AM and he supplied the same to the office of DCP (North East), Joint C.P. (Eastern Range) and Court No. 52 (Court of concerned MM), Karkardooma Court. Thereafter, he returned to PS and his statement was recorded by IO under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
The witness was cross-examined.
3.9 PW-9 Prabhat Bhusan being Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. proved computerized call details of mobile number 9761105694 for period 01.07.2014 to 25.07.2014 as Ex.PW-9/A, Certified copy of CAF of Ravinder Kumar as Ex.PW-9/B, photocopy of ID proof of Sh. Ravinder Kumar i.e. Ration card as Mark PW-9/A. Witness also proved the certified/computerized print out of Cell-ID Chart i.e. location cart of Vodafone of Delhi NCR of above mentioned number as PW-9/C and Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of call details of the aforesaid number as Ex.PW-9/D. The witness was cross-examined.
Digitally
signed by
ARVIND
State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND BANSAL
SC No. 04/2016 BANSAL Date:
FIR No. 404/2014 2024.12.21
Police Station: M. S. Park 15:55:03
Page No. 8 of 36 +0530
3.10 PW-10 Sh. Ajeet Singh being Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular
Services Ltd. proved the computerized call details of mobile number 8696836008 in the name of Jaypal Chusambad for the period from 01.10.2015 to 21.10.2015 (running into 38 pages) as Ex.PW-10/A and computerized call details of mobile number 9763313990 in the name of Arjun Kumar Chaure for the period from 01.10.2015 to 21.10.2015 (running into 10 pages) as Ex.PW-10/B. Witness also proved the certified copy of CAF in the name of Jaypal Chusambad as Ex.PW-10/C and certified copy of CAF in the name of Arjun Kumar Chaure as Ex.PW-10/D. Witness proved the photocopy of ID proof (Voter ID Card) of Jaypal Chusambad as Mark PW-10/A and photocopy of ID proof (aadhar card) of Arjun Kumar Chaure as Mark PW-10/B. Witness proved the Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile phone number 8696836008 as Ex.PW-10/E and in respect of mobile phone number 9763313990 as Ex.PW-10/F. The witness was cross-examined.
3.11 PW-11 Dr. Vishwajeet Singh being medical witness i.e. Sr. Demonstrator, Forensic Deptt. GTB Hospital, Delhi proved the PM Report No. 988/14 of deceased Kashi Ram as Ex.PW-11/A, detailed diagramatic representation of axe as Ex.PW-11/B and subsequent opinion as Ex.PW-11/C. Witness also proved/correctly identified the metallic axe i.e. the weapon which was given for examination to him by the IO as Ex.P-1. Witness also identified his signatures and writing on the blade of said axe.
The witness was cross-examined.
Digitally
signed by
ARVIND
State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND BANSAL
SC No. 04/2016
FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
15:55:11
Page No. 9 of 36 +0530
3.12 PW-12 Menu deposed that on 22.07.2014, she was present
at her house. At about 06:00/06:30 AM, in the morning her jethani Geeta came and stated to her that somebody had cut the neck of her sasur Kashi Ram. On the said information, she rushed downstairs and saw a pool of blood and neck of sasur was cut. Police inquired from her and recorded her statement.
The witness was cross-examined.
3.13 PW-13 SI Suman being a police witness i.e. Incharge Mobile Crime Team, North East District, Delhi proved the SOC report as Ex.PW-13/A. The witness was cross-examined.
3.14 PW-14 HC Devender being a police witness i.e. Duty officer proved the DD No. 7A as Ex.PW-14/A vide which information regarding the incident of present case i.e. 'gala kaat kar muder kar diya Shanti building ke saamne main Mandoli Road 27/58' was recorded.
Witness was cross-examined.
3.15 PW-15 ASI Ram Prakash being a police witness proved the extract of entries in register no. 19 i.e. at Sl. No. 922 regarding deposit of 9 parcels on dt. 22.07.2014; at Sl. No. 932 regarding deposit of 1 sealed parcel, one motorcycle bearing registration no. UP15Q1160, sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,500/-, one sealed parcel and personal search articles of accused Naresh and accused Ravinder @ Ravi all dt. 25.07.2014; at Sl. No. 937 regarding deposit of one parcel dt. 27.07.2014; and at Sl. No. 939 regarding deposit of two sample parcels Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
Page No. 10 of 36 15:55:20
+0530
and two sample seals duly sealed with the seal of MLC GTB Hospital dt. 29.07.2014, as Ex.PW-15/A. Witness also proved the Road Certificate No. 38/21/14 vide which SI Chetan had deposited 4 sealed samples (2 bearing seal of JSV and 2 bearing seal of MLC GTB hospital) at FSL Rohini as Ex.PW-15/B (OSR) and receipt thereof as Ex.PW-15/C, Road Certificate No. 39/21/14 vide which SI Chetan had deposited 7 sealed samples bearing seal of JB, 1 parcel bearing seal of JSV and 1 sample seal bearing seal of JSV as Ex.PW-15/D and receipt thereof as Ex.PW-15/E, Road Certificate No. 40/21/14 vide which SI Chetan had deposited 2 sample parcel bearing seal of JSV, 1 sample seal bearing seal of JSV and 1 sample seal bearing seal of JSV at FSL Rohini, Delhi as Ex.PW-15/F and receipt thereof as Ex.PW-15/G and Road Certificate No. 41/21/14 vide which Ct. Joginder had deposited 1 sealed parcel bearing seal of JB at GTB Hospital as Ex.PW-15/H. Witness was not cross-examined.
3.16 PW-16 Retd. SI Zaheer Ahmed being a police witness i.e. duty officer proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW-16/A, endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW-16/B and DD no. 11A regarding registration of FIR as Ex.PW-16/C. Witness was cross-examined.
3.17 PW-17 ASI Shyam Lal being a police i.e. Photographer, Mobile Crime Team proved 12 photographs of scene of crime as Ex.PW-17/A1 to Ex.PW-17/A12 and negatives of same as Ex.PW-17/B. Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
2024.12.21 Page No. 11 of 36 15:55:27 +0530 Witness was cross-examined.
3.18 PW-18 Ct. Dhanender Pal deposed that on 27.07.2014, he joined investigation of present case alongwith SI Rajeev, Insp. Jai Bhagwan and they alongwith accused Ravinder went to H. No. 388, Hathipeerwali Gali, near Khurja Stand, Sikanderabad. Accused Ravinder got recovered one chocolate color pant and white color shirt, which were lying on the cot in a room on the ground floor. Witness proved the seizure memo vide which the said case property was seized as Ex.PW-18/A. Witness correctly identified the said case property and proved the same as Ex.PW-18/P1.
Witness was cross-examined.
3.19 PW-19 Women Ct. Snehalta deposed that on 22.07.2014, at about 06:39 AM, a call was received on channel no. 148. On receipt of said call, the same was recorded and transferred to the control room. Witness proved the same as Ex.PW19/A and stated that call was related to murder.
Witness was cross-examined.
3.20 PW-20 Ct. Joginder Singh deposed that on 06.08.2014, he took the exhibits vide RC No. 41/21 and deposited in Department of Forensic Science in GTB Hospital. He returned a duly acknowledged copy to MHC(M).
Witness was cross-examined.
Digitally
signed by
ARVIND
State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND BANSAL
SC No. 04/2016
FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
2024.12.21
Police Station: M. S. Park 15:55:35
Page No. 12 of 36 +0530
3.21 PW-21 Ct. Lekhram deposed that on 12.08.2014, he took
exhibits vide RC No. 54/21 from MHC (M) and same were deposited in FSL Rohini, Delhi. He returned a duly acknowledged copy to the MHC(M).
Witness was cross-examined.
3.22 PW-22 ASI Sonu Kaushik being a police witness i.e. Assistant Draft Man, Crime Branch, PHQ proved the scaled site plan of H. No. 1/2798, Mandoli Road, Ram Nagar, Shahdara as Ex.PW-22/A. Witness was cross-examined.
3.23 PW-23 SI Ram Kishore deposed that in the intervening night of 21-22.07.2014, on receipt of call vide DD no. 7A at about 06:50 AM, he alongwith Ct. Shamim reached the place of occurrence at H. No. 1/2798, Mandoli Road, Ram Nagar, Delhi. He saw one male person who was lying dead on a cot. He was having a cut injury mark on his neck and lot of blood was lying on the cot. SHO PS M. S. Park alongwith the staff also reached the spot.
Crime team was called which accordingly arrived and inspected the spot and photographer took the photographs. He recorded the statement of Joginder Panchal Ex.PW-7/B and made endorsement Ex.PW-23/A, prepared rukka and same was handed over to Ct. Shamnim for registration of present case. He went to the PS and got the present case registered and further investigation of the case were taken up by SHO PS M. S. Park. IO took the possession of blood lying at the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW-23/A. IO also took the possession of earth control, blood laden earth vide seizure memo Ex.PW-23/C. IO Digitally signed by ARVIND State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND BANSAL SC No. 04/2016 FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
15:55:44
Page No. 13 of 36 +0530
also took possession of blood laden dari vide seizure memo Ex.PW-23/D. IO also took the possession of chappal which was lying at the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW-23/E. IO also inspected the spot and prepared the site plan.
Witness further deposed that the dead body was sent to GTB Hospital and PM was got conducted. Ct. Shamim handed over various pullanda exhibits and same were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-23/F. The dead body was handed over to the family members of deceased vide handing over memo Ex.PW-23/G. Witness correctly identified the multicolor dari as Ex.PW-7/Article-1 and pair of chappal as Ex.PW-7/Article-2.
Witness was cross-examined.
3.24 PW-24 SI Rajiv Kumar, PW-25 SI Chetan Singh and PW-28 Insp. Jai Bhagwan deposed that on 25.07.2014, one secret information was received that one accused namely Naresh, wanted in the present case was present in kanwar camp near M. S. Park Metro Station. On receipt of information, PW-28 SHO/Insp. Jai Bhagwan requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation and the raiding party but none of them agreed. They reached kanwar camp and at the pointing out of informer, accused Naresh was apprehended. Accused Naresh handed over one receipt regarding transfer of Rs.22,000/- to Mumbai. The receipt was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-24/D. The cash receipt was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-24/E. PW-24 SI Rajiv Kumar, PW-25 SI Chetan Singh and PW-28 Insp. Jai Bhagwan further proved the cash receipt as Ex.PW-24/P-1. Witnesses proved the seizure memo of black color pithu Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
2024.12.21 Page No. 14 of 36 15:55:57 +0530 bag containing a book, bedsheet and a shirt as Ex.PW-24/F. Accused Ravinder was also apprehended on the pointing out of accused Naresh near Reliance Fresh Store, main Mandoli Road.
Witnesses further deposed that accused Ravinder was interrogated and thereafter was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-24/G and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW-24/H. Disclosure of accused Ravinder was recorded vide Ex.PW-24/I. Rs.2500/- were recovered from accused Ravinder and he disclosed that he had robbed the said amount from the deceased. The cash amount of Rs.2500/- comprising of four currency notes of Rs.500/- each and five currency notes of Rs.100/- each was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-24/J. The case property was kept in a envelope bearing seal of JB.
PW-24 SI Rajiv Kumar, PW-25 SI Chetan Singh and PW-28 Insp. Jai Bhagwan furher deposed that accused Ravinder got recovered one motorcycle which was used in the commission of offence and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-24/K. The motorcycle was make TVS Victor GL color blue and bearing registration no. UP15Q1160. Beat Officer took the motorcycle to PS. Both the accused persons pointed out towards place of occurrence and pointing out memo Ex.PW-24/L was prepared. Witnesses proved the seizure memo of Rs.2000/- recovered from the possession of accused Naresh as Ex.PW-24/M. Thereafter, both the accused took them near Anand Vihar Bus Terminal, near a broken wall and got recovered one balkati (kulhari). Witnesses proved the pointing out memo and seizure memo as Ex.PW-24/N. Witnesses proved the sketch of balkati as Ex.PW-24/P and site plan of recovery of balkati as Ex.PW-24/Q. Witnesses proved Digitally signed by ARVIND State vs. Naresh & Anr SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
Page No. 15 of 36 15:56:16
+0530
the arrest memo of accused Naresh as Ex.PW-24/A, his personal search memo as Ex.PW-24/B, his disclosure statement Ex.PW-24/C. Witnesses correctly identified accused Naresh and you accused Ravinder.
PW-24 SI Rajiv Kumar deposed that on 27.07.2014, he again joined investigation of present case alongwith IO/Insp. Jai Bhagwan and Ct. Dhanender and Pramod. Accused Ravinder also accompanied them and they proceeded towards Sikandarabad. On arrival at Sikanderabad, they made their entry in the local PS and thereafter two local constables accompanied them and they proceeded to house of accused Ravinder at H. No. 388, Hathi Peer Wali Gali, 85 Wada Mohalla, near Khurja bus stand, Sikandarabad, Bulandshahr, UP. Accused Ravinder got recovered his clothes from a room near the staircase. Accused got recovered half pant of chocolate color and white color shirt. The same was taken into possession, sealed with the seal of JB and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-18/A. IO also recorded the statement of Kishan Chand, father of accused Ravinder. They returned to Delhi. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. IO recorded his statement.
PW-24 SI Rajiv Kumar and PW-28 Insp. Jai Bhagwan also deposed that on 28.07.2014, they alongwith Ct. Dhanender and Ct. Pramod and accused Naresh proceeded to Haridwar. Accused Naresh disclosed that he had thrown his clothes at Khandala ghat Haridwar. They searched for the clothes but the same could not be recovered. They also went to SBI, Swaran Nath Nagar Branch from where accused Naresh had transferred Rs.22,000/- to Mumbai. They obtained an attested copy of the pay-in slip from the bank, copy of which was Digitally signed by ARVIND State vs. Naresh & Anr SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
Page No. 16 of 36 15:56:23
+0530
attested by the Chief Manager of SBI Bank, Haridwar and is Mark A. Copy of statement of account of Raj Kumar Dhilod (in whose account money was deposited) is Ex.PW-24/R. PW-24 SI Rajiv Kumar and PW-28 Insp. Jai Bhagwan proved/correctly identified the shirt and chocolate color half pant recovered from the house of you accused Ravinder at his pointing out as Ex.PW-18/P-1. Witnesses also proved/correctly identified one bag, one bed sheet and other articles numbered as 5a to 5e in FSL report as Ex.PW-24/P-1. Witnesses correctly identified/proved the balkati recovered at the instance of both the accused as Ex.P-1. Witnesses also identified/proved photocopy of four currency notes of Rs.500/- recovered from the possession of accused Naresh as Ex.PW-24/P-2. Witnesses also correctly identified/proved five currency notes of Rs.100 each and four currency notes of Rs.500/- each as Ex.PW-24/P-3.
PW-25 SI Chetan also deposed that during personal search of accused Naresh, Rs.160/- and Rs.2000/- (in the denomination of four notes of Rs.500/-) were recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-24/M. The motorcycle bearing registration no. UP15Q1160 was proved as Ex.PW-25/P-1. On 06.08.2014, he obtained the exhibits of this case from the MHC(M) on the instructions of the IO and deposited the same with FSL Rohini vide separate RC No. 38/21/14, copy of which is Ex.PW-15/A and copy of acknowledged receipt is Ex.PW-15/C, copy of RC no. 39/21/14 is Ex.PW-15/D and copy of its acknowledgment is Ex.PW-15/E, copy of RC No. 40/21/14 is Ex.PW-15/F and its acknowledgment is Ex.PW-15/G. Witnesses were cross-examined.
Digitally
signed by
ARVIND
State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND BANSAL
SC No. 04/2016 BANSAL Date:
FIR No. 404/2014 2024.12.21
Police Station: M. S. Park 15:56:30
+0530
Page No. 17 of 36
3.25 PW-26 Pradeep Singh being the bank witness i.e. Chief
Manager, SBI, proved the bank voucher of transfer of Rs.22,000/- by accused Naresh as Ex.PW-26/A (OSR). The particulars of the Mumbai branch where amount was transferred are Ex.PW26/B. The account statement of said Raj Kumar for the period 02.04.2014 to 03.08.2015 is Ex.PW-26/C. Witness was not cross-examined.
3.26 PW-27 HC Shamim deposed same facts as deposed by PW-23 SI Ram Kishore. Witness was cross-examined.
3.27 PW-28 Inspector Jai Bhagwan deposed that same facts as deposed by PW-23 Ram Kishore and accompanying police witnesses.
PW-28 also proved the site plan as Ex.PW-7/C. Witness proved form no. 25.35.(1)/B as Ex.PW-28/A. Witness proved the postmortem form as Ex.PW-28/B. Witness proved the identification statement of Asho Kumar and Jogender as Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-7/A. Ashok Kumar and Jogender are sons of deceased Kashi Ram. Witness proved DD no. 7A as Ex.PW-28/C. Witness proved the memo vide which dead body of deceased was handed over to Ashok Kumar as Ex.PW-23/G. Ct. Shameem handed over five sealed pullandas with the seal of JSV and sample seal to him. Same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-23/X. He deposited all the case property in Malkhana. He recorded the statement of SI Ram Kishore, Ct. Shameem, SI Suman, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Satish and other witnesses on 22.07.2014.
On 23.07.2014, he went to house of deceased. He recorded Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
2024.12.21 Page No. 18 of 36 15:56:36 +0530 the statement of Jogender. Jogender raised suspicion over accused Naresh who was the brother of his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) namely Mamta. He also provided mobile number 8693836008 of accused Naresh. He recorded the statement of Mamta, Geeta, Meenu etc for the purpose of investigation.
He also deposed the same facts as deposed by PW-24 SI Rajeev.
Accused were medically examined and were kept in police lockup. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. He recorded statement of SI Rajeev and SI Chetan. On 26.07.2014, both the accused were produced before the concerned Ld. MM and he obtained 3 days police custody of both the accused. The carbon copy of the application moved for seeking police custody is Ex.PW-28/D. The order of Ld. MM-02 Shahdara dt. 26.07.2014 is Ex.PW-28/E. They were again got medically examined.
The blood sample of accused Naresh and accused Ravinder was also collected by the concerned doctor. He produced the accused persons before the concerned Ld. MM on 29.07.2014. The blood sample of accused Naresh and accused Ravinder duly sealed with the seal of MLC GTB Hospital, SHD95 which was collected by Ct. Dhanender was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW-28/F and Ex.PW-28/G respectively. During investigation, on 01.08.2014, he collected the the PCR form and CDRs of relevant mobile numbers from the concerned office. Thereafter, on 05.08.2014, he obtained the postmortem report of deceased Kashi Ram from GTB Hospital.
On 06.08.2014, the exhibits of the case were sent to FSL through SI Chetan whereas weapon of offence was sent to Forensic Digitally State vs. Naresh & Anr signed by SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND FIR No. 404/2014 ARVIND BANSAL Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
Page No. 19 of 36 2024.12.21
15:57:04
+0530
Department GTB Hospital for obtaining subsequent opinion through Ct. Joginder. The statements of SI Chetan, Malkhana Mohrar and Ct. Joginder were recorded on the same day. Thereafter on 25.08.2014, the subsequent opinion was obtained from GTB Hospital and on 02.09.2014, the scaled site plan was got prepared from Draughtsman HC Sonu. On 12.09.2014, the weapon of offence was sent to FSL for examination. During investigation, he also recorded the statement of the witnesses. he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the Court concerned.
Witness correctly identified the entire case property, and both the accused.
Witness was cross-examined.
Ld. Counsels on behalf of accused persons admitted the genuineness of FSL reports as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5.
4. During the course of the trial, accused Naresh absconded and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. Pursuant to said proceedings, accused Naresh was declared proclaimed offender vide order dt. 08.11.2024 of this Court.
Statement of accused:
5. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Ravinder was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C whereby all the incriminating material/evidence available on record was put to him. He denied the prosecution case in its entirety and stated as under :-
Deceased was my father-in-law. There was a property dispute between my father-in-law and his daughter-in-
Digitally
signed by
State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND
SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL
FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
Page No. 20 of 36 15:57:28
+0530
law Mamta. She also filed a civil suit against him, however, she lost. I have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Accused chose not to lead defence evidence.
Final Arguments:
6. Final arguments advanced by Sh. Pradeep Kumar, learned Addl. PP for State and Shri Gaurav Sharma, learned Counsel for accused Ravinder heard.
7. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that prosecution brought sufficient material on record to establish the guilt of accused Ravinder on the basis of testimony of public witnesses particularly PW-1, PW-3, PW-5 & PW-7 who raised suspicion over the conduct of accused Naresh and consequently, accused Naresh led the investigating agency to accused Ravinder. It is also the argument that the weapon of offence i.e. axe used to murder the victim was recovered at the instance of accused Ravinder and he had procured the same from his father PW-6 Kishan Chand. Ld. Addl. PP for the State emphasized that the concerned doctor PW-11 in his subsequent opinion opined that the injuries suffered by victims were possible with the said weapon and therefore, the weapon and the injuries leading to the death of victim can be connected to the accused. It is also submitted that accused Ravinder also got his clothes recovered from his house and part robbed amount was recovered from the possession of accused. It is argued that accused had an injury on his hand near the wrist which he suffered while hitting the victim and the same could not be explained by him. Ld. Addl. PP for the State also stated that the tower location the mobile phone of accused was around the spot at the time of incident and thus, there are Digitally State vs. Naresh & Anr signed by SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND FIR No. 404/2014 ARVIND BANSAL Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
2024.12.21 Page No. 21 of 36 15:57:36 +0530 multiple reasons to connect accused Ravinder to the alleged offence. It is argued that accused failed to put across any probable defence to dent the theory of prosecution and therefore, must be convicted.
8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused Ravinder challenged each argument and submission of Ld. Addl. PP for State submitting that although PW-1, PW-3, PW-5 & PW-7 may be material prosecution witnesses, none of them witnessed the alleged incident. It is the argument that all these witnesses reached the spot after the alleged offence took place at an unknown time and none of them saw the accused at or around their house at any point of time.
8.1 It is argued that suspicion, if any, raised by any of these witnesses against accused Naresh has no bearing on the role of accused Ravinder. It is the argument that the clothes allegedly recovered from the house of accused Ravinder did not have any blood stains and there is no FSL report connecting the said clothes either to accused or any stains on those clothes to the victim. It is argued that the axe/ balkati alleged recovered by IO at the instance of both the accused has been falsely planted upon the accused to fill-in the lacuna in the investigation. It is submitted that PW-6 Kishan Chand who allegedly handed over the said weapon to accused Ravinder turned hostile to the case of prosecution creating a gap in the theory of prosecution.
8.2 It is vociferously argued that the alleged weapon recovered by investigating agency was not found having any traces of the blood of victim in the expert report furnished by FSL. It is thus argued that there is no material to establish the guilt of accused Ravinder and therefore, he must be acquitted.
Digitally
signed by
ARVIND
State vs. Naresh & Anr
SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL
FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
Page No. 22 of 36
15:57:43
+0530
9. Submissions patiently and carefully heard at length. Record including all the documents thoughtfully perused.
Appreciation of evidence:
10. Before adverting to the nature of allegations against accused Ravinder and his role, Court must examine the manner of assassination of victim Kashiram to find out the nature of offence made out. The identification and establishment of actual offence committed against the victim would facilitate the Court appreciate the alleged role of accused in commission of said offence.
Death of victim : Whether murder
11. In this regard, PW-1 deposed that on 22.07.2014 at about 06:30 AM, when he went downstairs after hearing the cries of his wife, he found that his father was lying on the cot with his neck cut. Similarly, PW-3 Ombiri testified that when she went downstairs on the ground floor, she found the victim dead with his throat cut and there was blood at the spot. PW-5 Geeta and PW-7 Joginder deposed the same facts. In fact, PW-11 Dr. Vishwajeet Singh in the postmortem report recorded 'incised cut throat wound sized 14.5 cm x 0.4 cm' over left side of neck, 'incised cut throat wound sized 10.5 cm x 0.4 cm' over left side of neck, 'incised cut throat wound sized 6.2 cm x 0.3 cm x 0.5 cm' over left side of neck horizontally below above injury and four other incised wounds sized 3.5 cm, 3 cm, 4.5 cm, and 5.5 cm over left side of the neck. PW-11 also reported that injury no. 1 and 2 are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature both individually or collectively.
Digitally
signed by
State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND
SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL
FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
Page No. 23 of 36 15:57:49
+0530
12. A bare reading of the postmortem report Ex.PW-11/A and the testimony of PW-1, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-7 would explicitly divulge that victim was intentionally attacked with a weapon on his neck. Further, multiple injuries reflect that victim was repeatedly attacked on the same part of the body. Neck, undoubtdly is a vital organ of the body and a direct attack on the said part is imminently dangerous and sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. Furthermore, the size of injuries would categorically suggest that victim was attacked with the sole intention to cause his death and the attack was so executed.
12.1 In such circumstances and on the basis of available record, it is more than clear that death of victim is an act of murder as defined u/s 300 IPC.
13. The Court would now appreciate and examine the available evidence to find out if such murder was committed by accused Ravinder. It is clarified that the role of accused Naresh (declared Proclaimed Offender) is deliberately not being discussed to avoid any prejudice to his case at any future stage after he is arrested or produced before the Court for remaining trial. It would be appropriate if the material is categorized on the basis of 'principles of law' applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case or the factors affecting the outcome of the trial.
Public witnesses :
14. Prosecution has strongly relied upon the testimony of PW-1, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-7 to emphasize that co-accused Naresh Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
2024.12.21 Page No. 24 of 36 15:57:56 +0530 had some issues with the victim and therefore, he engaged accused Ravinder to commit murder of victim Kashiram. It is also the case that accused Ravinder being the son-in-law of victim had reasons to collaborate with co-accused Naresh in commission of alleged offence. It is argued that PW-7 has explained the nature of constrained relations between the victim and the co-accused Naresh in his testimony. It is candidly put forth by the State that even if none of the witnesses witnessed the alleged incident, their testimony could not be undermined to understand the motive of accused Ravinder to commit the alleged offence.
14.1 As against this, Ld. Defence Counsel emphatically argued that testimony of none of the public witnesses has any bearing on the role of accused Ravinder and the argument of prosecution is far-fetched to connect him to the alleged incident.
14.2 A careful perusal of the testimony of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5 would divulge that they did not name any person even as a suspect for commission of murder of their relative/victim Kashiram.
They merely deposed regarding the factum of their reaching the ground floor after finding that victim Kashiram was lying with his neck cut on the cot. It is only PW-7 Joginder Pal who explained the nature of relations of victim Kashiram with co-accused Naresh in his testimony dated 27.07.2016. However, it must be noted that the said witness passed away before completion of his cross-examination. In such circumstances, where the witness could not be tendered by the prosecution for complete cross-examination, his examination-in-chief even if recorded completely, could not be read in evidence against the accused. It is a settled principle of law that the accused must be given a Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 FIR No. 404/2014 ARVIND BANSAL Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
2024.12.21 Page No. 25 of 36 15:58:04 +0530 fair opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness and when the witness could not be produced for his cross-examination owing to his death, his partial examination recorded before the Court pales into insignificance and could not be relied upon for any purpose whatsoever.
15. The argument of prosecution that public witnesses raised suspicion over the conduct of co-accused Naresh and he collaborated with accused Ravinder to commit the murder of victim Kashiram does not find any support or corroboration from the testimony of any of the public witnesses. All the public witnesses are silent about the role of co-accused Ravinder. They have neither named nor made any reference to his name throughout in their testimony. In such eventuality, the argument of prosecution that testimony of public witnesses be read against accused Ravinder to connect him to the murder of victim can not be accepted and is bound to be rejected.
Recovery of weapon of offence :
16. Ld. Addl. PP for the State vehemently relied upon the seizure memo of weapon of offence (axe/balkati) which is Ex.PW24/N as a part of his arguments to establish guilt of accused. It is argued that the weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of accused Ravinder alongwith co-accused Naresh from the bushes behind Anand Vihar bus stand. It is also submitted that the police party was led by accused Ravinder and co-accused to the spot of recovery. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to controvert the said recovery at the instance of accused Ravinder. Ld. Addl. PP for the State also read the deposition of PW-11 Dr. Vishwajeet Singh in an attempt to connect the Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
2024.12.21 Page No. 26 of 36 15:58:12 +0530 said weapon of offence with the injuries suffered by the victim arguing that the victim was murdered by the same weapon of offence which stood recovered at the instance of accused.
16.1 Ld. Counsel for accused Ravinder not only questioned the manner of recovery but also its usage for committing the alleged murder. Ld. Defence Counsel stated that first, the place of recovery was accessible to public at large being adjacent to one of the major bus stops of the national capital; second, that no public witness was joined in the recovery proceedings; and third, that there is no ocular or documentary evidence to corroborate the allegation of use of same weapon in commission of alleged offence.
16.2 This Court considered the rival submissions in respect of recovery of weapon and its usage. It is observed that the weapon of offence was allegedly recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Ravinder and co-accused Naresh when they both allegedly led the police party including IO to the bushes in an open space adjacent to Anand Vihar bus stop. The seizure memo of the weapon of offence is Ex.PW-24/N and the sketch thereof is Ex.PW-24/P. The site plan of place of recovery of weapon is Ex.PW-24/Q. The deposition of PW-24 SI Rajeev is silent regarding any effort made by the IO to join any public person in the recovery proceedings. The reason of non-joining any public witness has also not been explained despite the fact that Anand Vihar bus terminal is a highly busy place and public witness could have been easily joined. PW-24 also admitted during his cross-
examination that the place from where the weapon was recovered was under the jurisdiction of PS Anand Vihar. No police official of the said jurisdiction or the concerned beat area was joined as a witness in the Digitally State vs. Naresh & Anr signed by SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND FIR No. 404/2014 ARVIND BANSAL Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
Page No. 27 of 36 2024.12.21
15:58:19
+0530
recovery proceedings. Further, PW-25 during his cross-examination, stated that the recovery was effected at about 07:30 PM and the lights of Anand Vihar ISBT and the road lights provided sufficient illumination to the place of recovery. He admitted that the spot was not got photographed nor any crime team was called at the spot before effecting the recovery. He also admitted that IO did not make any effort to pick up any chance print or any blood from the axe before seizing the same.
The issue of recovery from an open place was discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Salim Akhtar @ Mota v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 4076 and observed as under:-
12. "In Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I., Bombay 1994 (5) SC 540 it has been held by a Constitution Bench that with a view to hold an accused guilty of an offence under Section 5 of TADA, the prosecution is required to prove satisfactorily that the accused was in conscious possession, unauthorisedly in a notified area of any arm or ammunition of the specified description. In Trimbak v.
State of MP AIR 1954 SC 39 recovery of certain stolen articles was made at the pointing out of the accused and on that basis he was convicted under Section 411 IPC by the High Court. Reversing the judgment it was held by this Court that when the field from which the ornaments were recovered was an open one and accessible to all and sundry, it is difficult to hold positively that the accused was in possession of these articles. It was further held that the fact of recovery by the accused is compatible with the circumstance of somebody else having placed the articles there and of the accused somehow acquiring knowledge about their whereabouts and that being so, the fact of discovery cannot be regarded as conclusive proof that the accused was in possession of these articles. In Raosaheb Balu Killedar v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 3 Crl. Law Journal 2632 the accused had made a disclosure statement and had led the police party to a place behind a mill, pointed out the place and himself removed the earth and from a pit about 6 inches deep recovered a revolver loaded with a live cartridge wrapped in a polythene bag. It was held by this Court that the statement made by the accused was capable of an interpretation that the appellant had the knowledge about the Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
Page No. 28 of 36 15:58:27
+0530
concealment of the revolver at the particular place from where it was got recovered and not that he had concealed the same and therefore it was not possible to say conclusively and beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had conscious possession of the revolver and the cartridge. This principle was reiterated in Khudeswar Dutta v. State of Assam (1998) 4 SCC 492 and it was held that mere knowledge of the accused that incriminating articles were kept at certain place does not amount to conscious possession and conviction under Section 5 of TADA was set aside."
Reliance may also be placed upon judgment titled as Tahal Singh Son Of Kartar Singh vs State Of Haryana citation : (2008) 07 P&H CK 0108
10...In the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, does not inspire confidence, in the mind of the Court. In this view of the matter, non-corroboration of the evidence of the official witnesses, through an independent source, certainly makes the case of the prosecution suspect. In State of Punjab Vs. Bhupinder Singh 2001 (01) RCR (Crl.) 356, a Division Bench of this Court, held the case of the prosecution, to be doubtful, on account of non-joining of an independent witness, though the recovery was effected from a busy locality. In State of Punjab Vs. Ram Chand 2001 (1) RCR (Crl.) 817, a Division Bench of this Court, held that it was imperative to join an independent witness, to vouchsafe the fair investigation. On account of non-joining of an independent witness, it was held that the accused was entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. On account of non- joining of an independent witness, at the time of the alleged search and seizure, the case of the prosecution, became highly doubtful.
On the strength of the cross-examination of the witnesses and the aforesaid precedents, it can be concluded that the recovery of weapon of offence from the place asserted by prosecution, and the manner of recovery thereof are doubtful and suspicious. Prosecution failed to justify the non-joining of any public witness or failure to make Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 FIR No. 404/2014 ARVIND BANSAL Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
2024.12.21 Page No. 29 of 36 15:58:33 +0530 any attempt in this regard either in the examination of police witnesses or during final arguments. Further, the police party had sufficient time to join the public persons in the recovery proceedings and failure to make an attempt therefor, raise a doubt over the proceedings. Further, the recovery of a weapon of offence from a public place or a place easily accessible to the public persons after about 86 hours of the commission of offence also make the Court doubt the recovery proceedings. The other aspects like not calling the police official from the concerned police station, no photography of the spot of recovery or not calling the crime team or not making any attempt to pick up chance prints from the handle of the weapon create further doubt about the alleged recovery.
17. The mere recovery of alleged weapon of offence at the instance of accused can not be the sole ground to establish his guilt unless prosecution succeeds in proving the usage of the said weapon of offence for committing the offence. While PW-11 Dr. Vishwajeet, who gave subsequent opinion after analyzing the weapon of offence and nature of injuries stated that the injuries suffered by the victim particularly injury no. 1 and 2 were possible by use of the recovered weapon, prosecution could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the recovered weapon was the same used for commission of alleged murder.
17.1 It is the case of prosecution that the weapon of offence allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Ravinder had blood stains. It was also sent to FSL for expert examination and an attempt was made to match the blood stains on the weapon with the blood Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
Page No. 30 of 36 15:58:40
+0530
sample of the victim. It was opined by the FSL expert that the blood found on the weapon was human blood but DNA could not be extracted from the said blood and further, the same could not be matched with the blood of victim. In the opinion of this Court, such a report created a missing link in the chain of circumstances put forth by prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged offence. It is a settled proposition of law that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence leading to the guilt of accused must be complete and lead to the only hypothesis that it was only the accused who committed the offence and none else.
In this regard, reliance may be placed on a recent judgment of Supreme Court in case titled 'Jabir & Ors vs. State of Uttrakhand' 2023 JC (SC) 3576 where the circumstantial evidence was discussed as follows:
21. A basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that in circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well the as the links between all circumstances; such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else; further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused, and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.".
In the present case, firstly, the prosecution could not establish that the weapon of offence was actually recovered from the given place or at the instance of accused, and secondly, it could not be established without shadow of doubt that the said weapon of offence Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
2024.12.21 Page No. 31 of 36 15:58:48 +0530 was the actual weapon used to commit the murder. In such circumstances, the chain of evidence against the accused can not be considered to be complete.
Recovery of clothes :
18. The investigating agency recovered a pair of clothes of accused Ravinder from his house at his own instance on 27.07.2014. It is the case of prosecution that accused was wearing the same clothes at the time of commission of murder. A bare perusal of the seizure memo Ex.PW-18/A and the clothes Ex.PW-18/P-1 would provide that there were no blood stains on the said clothes even at the time when the same were seized on 27.07.2014 by the IO. There is no reason to connect the said clothes to accused Ravinder or to accept the assertion of prosecution that the said clothes were worn by the said accused at the time of commission of alleged offence. The alleged recovery of clothes as well as the expert examination thereof at FSL did not provide any clue to the investigating agency or the prosecution to connect the role of accused to the commission of alleged murder by him. Further, during expert examination, no blood could be detected on any of the two clothes of accused Ravinder (Ex.A-2). Thus, the recovery of clothes and any reliance thereupon to establish the guilt of accused, is meaningless.
Robbery, recovery and effect :
19. During investigation, a substantial effort was made to collect the cash receipt of deposit of some amount by co-accused to one of his relatives at Mumbai, the collection of statement of account of the said recipient, recovery of cash amount of Rs.2,000/- from co-accused Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
15:58:56
Page No. 32 of 36 +0530
and a further recovery of Rs.2,500/- from accused Ravinder to prove the removal or robbery of the said amount by the accused from the person of victim. PW-1 during his testimony stated that his father used to keep an amount of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- with him tied to his dhoti. He also testified that the said amount could not be found after his death. It is the case of prosecution that amount of Rs.2,500/- found from the possession of accused Ravinder was part of the said robbed amount from the victim. It is noted that it is nugatory for the prosecution to rely upon such a recovery as accused Ravinder was never charged for the offence of robbery. Secondly, if an amount of Rs.10,000/- was robbed from the victim, the calculation of transfer of Rs.22,000/- to a third person at Mumbai and further recovery of Rs.4,500/- from both the accused do not make out the amount allegedly robbed from the person of victim. Be that as it may, there is no material to establish that the amount of Rs.2,500/- allegedly recovered from accused Ravinder was the same amount or the amount with same currency notes as removed from the body of victim. Infact, once the charge for such an offence of robbery was not framed against the accused, an attempt by the prosecution to connect the meager amount of Rs.2,500/- recovered from accused Ravinder with that of the deceased/victim, is like grappling in the dark for clues. Such a recovery has no corroborative value to the theory of prosecution to prove the complicity of accused to the alleged murder.
Mobile Location :
20. Prosecution has also placed reliance on the mobile location chart of the mobile phone of accused Ravinder to corroborate the claim Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
15:59:04
Page No. 33 of 36 +0530
of presence of accused at the spot at the time of commission of alleged offence. This court has perused CDR Ex.PW-9/A (colly) and cell location charge Ex.PW-9/C. A composite reading of both the documents would provide that on 22.07.2014 at 06:49 AM, the mobile location of the mobile phone of accused Ravinder was found to be at Sikandarabad, Bulandshehar, UP.
20.1 As per the case of prosecution, the deceased was alive at about 04:00 AM when one of his sons asked him to accompany him to the dairy, however, he refused. Further, he was found dead at 06:30 AM, when PW-5 first saw him at the ground floor. The exact timing of death of the victim could not be brought on record. In such circumstances, it is highly difficult to connect the location of accused Ravinder at 06:49 AM to the death of victim which took place at an unknown time. The CDR or mobile location chart of the mobile phone of accused Ravinder does not provide any material to corroborate the claim of his presence at or around the spot at the time of alleged incident. Even otherwise, mere mobile location of an individual in the absence of any other material evidence, can not be considered a convincing factor to establish his presence at a particular place. There would always be a scope for reasonable doubt.
Motive :
21. Throughout the arguments, prosecution emphasized upon the motive of co-accused Naresh in killing the victim without making any reference to the motive of accused Ravinder. Ld. Addl. PP for the State pointed out towards the disclosure statement of accused Ravinder to show that he had a motive to kill deceased/victim in connivance with Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 404/2014 BANSAL Date:
Police Station: M. S. Park 2024.12.21
Page No. 34 of 36 15:59:13
+0530
the co-accused Naresh, however, prosecution could not bring on record any particular witness who could support such a theory. None of the prosecution witnesses, be it public or police witness, deposed regarding the motive of accused Ravinder to kill or murder the deceased/victim Ravinder.
While appreciating the abovesaid aspect, this Court stands guided with the judgment titled Shankar Vs. Government of Maharashtra [2023] SCR [2] 66 where it was observed as under :-
24...
...However, at the same time, as observed by this Court in Babu (Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189), absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. In paras 25 and 26, it is observed and held as under: (Babu case, SCC pp. 200-01).
"25. In State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73), this Court examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed: (SCC pp. 87-88, paras 38-39) '38. the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime.
39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.'
26. This Court has also held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in Digitally signed by State vs. Naresh & Anr ARVIND SC No. 04/2016 FIR No. 404/2014 ARVIND BANSAL Police Station: M. S. Park BANSAL Date:
2024.12.21 Page No. 35 of 36 15:59:21 +0530 favour of the accused. (Vide Pannayar v. State of T.N. (2009) 9 SCC 152)".
21.1 In the absence of any substantial material corroborating the guilt of accused, the absence of motive for commission of offence further deepens the doubt of Court on the version put forth by the prosecution as the case is thoroughly based on circumstantial evidence. The disclosure statement of accused Ravinder relied upon by the prosecution is insufficient as well as insignificant to bank upon, in the absence of any discovery of fact regarding the motive of accused. The failure of prosecution either to assert or prove the motive for commission of alleged offence of murder by accused Ravinder, makes the case fall much short of the required standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion:
22. The entire aforesaid discussion leads the Court to a conclusion that the case of prosecution qua accused Ravinder for committing the alleged offence of murder, falls to ground. In other words, prosecution failed to prove the charged offence against the said accused on the statutory standard of beyond reasonable doubt. As such, accused Ravinder deserves benefit of series of doubts in the case of prosecution qua charged offence under Section 302/34 IPC. He is, Digitally signed accordingly, acquitted of the said offence. by ARVIND ARVIND BANSAL Dictated and Announced in the open Date:
Court on 21.12.2024 BANSAL 2024.12.21 15:59:31 +0530 (ARVIND BANSAL) Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Shahdara) Karkardooka Courts, Delhi State vs. Naresh & Anr SC No. 04/2016 FIR No. 404/2014 Police Station: M. S. Park Page No. 36 of 36